Family Asks Cheney Not To Attend Wellstone Service.

October 29, 2002 10:28 AM

Family Asks Cheney Not To Attend Wellstone Service. "Upset by Republican activities", the Wellstone family has uninvited Cheney to Sen. Wellstone's funeral. This article suggests that it's as much an issue of the awkwardness of Cheney being at what might amount to a Democrat rally, as it is about the family not wanting him there.
posted by badstone (59 comments total)

In order for Cheney to attend, the funeral would have to be held at a secret, undisclosed location.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:30 AM on October 29, 2002

Damn you--I was just about to write that exact same thing.
posted by Fabulon7 at 10:34 AM on October 29, 2002

The 2nd link also has a White House source saying that the family "did not want mourners subjected to the kind of security screenings that Cheney's attendance would have required."
posted by mediareport at 10:35 AM on October 29, 2002

mediareport -
which is primarily an issue because unions will be bussing in so many people. i'm all for democrats and i'm all for unions, but that's pretty sad that they're going to turn it into that kind of circus.
posted by badstone at 10:44 AM on October 29, 2002

badstone-- it's already that kind of circus. it's been a circus here in minnesota since the news broke on friday.
posted by jodic at 10:49 AM on October 29, 2002

Plus no cell phones within 25 feet of Cheney's ticker.
posted by machaus at 10:51 AM on October 29, 2002

A memorial service for Wellstone (presumably this one) is going to air live on C-Span 2 at 7:30 p.m. EST tonight.

I'm glad the Democrats are fueling up the machine to send him off. Considering his skill as a grass-roots organizer, I think he would've appreciate the use of his memorial to rally the troops right before a close election.
posted by rcade at 10:54 AM on October 29, 2002

and just five days ago

Sticking to His 'Best Judgment'

I don't know that I can ever remember a time in 12 years where people have been so respectful. Even people who haven't agreed. They just come up and they say you, you know, we have no doubt that you really rendered your best judgment and that's the way you did this ... and even if we don't agree, we respect you. That has been the nicest feeling in the world. I just don't feel it in the state, I don't feel that this is going to, I feel like we are going to win the race. We have a lot of work to do, but I think we can win this.
posted by y2karl at 11:03 AM on October 29, 2002

I'm one of the rare birds that thinks it would have been more appropriate for the president to have offered to go, instead of gaffing it off on the demon-seed VP. That would've ben a nice way to make good on that ol' "uniter not a divider" b.s.
If you've got time to campaign like a total f-cking whore--you've got time to swing through the state and offer up a few encouraging words to people who've lost one helluva representative.
Politics aside: Cheney is a loathsome toad; who in their right mind would want him at their funeral? Who wants to see that twisted screw try to evoke something that looks like emotion? Bleeechh.
posted by Tiger_Lily at 11:05 AM on October 29, 2002

I wanted to see Dick Cheney is wearing a Kipah.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:09 AM on October 29, 2002

I wonder if anyone has noticed that "Coleman" and "Mondale" are almost anagrams of each other.
posted by Tin Man at 11:19 AM on October 29, 2002

If you've got time to campaign like a total f-cking whore--you've got time to swing through the state and offer up a few encouraging words to people who've lost one helluva representative.

The "funny" thing is, Bush will be here in Minneapo lis/Saint Paul next week to campaign for Coleman. Disgusting if you ask me (which I am sure you didn't).te
posted by ScottUltra at 11:21 AM on October 29, 2002

Look, I'm a Democrat, but last time I checked the best way to serve someone's memory would be to actually vote for the stuff he would have voted for.

Paul Krugman would agree. But considering the alternative...
posted by y2karl at 11:32 AM on October 29, 2002

The "funny" thing is, Bush will be here in Minneapo lis/Saint Paul next week to campaign for Coleman. Disgusting if you ask me...

My God, with the super-critical, "can't wait for the U.N.", emergency military action against Iraq pending, and with Shrub's tireless efforts to make America more secure than it was on 9/11, it's amazing that he can find the time (he's a human dynamo, I tell ya!) to campaign.

Isn't it?

~wink~
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:41 AM on October 29, 2002

Tiger_Lily is da bomb.
posted by hackly_fracture at 11:44 AM on October 29, 2002

mediareport mentioned the security issue, which the NYT article claims is the official main reason ("the family did not want the event overwhelmed by the additional security, logistical challenges and potential protesters that would accompany the vice president").

But given that the same article says expected attendees include Clinton, Gore, and "and at least half the United States Senate," I don't think the security could possibly need to be tighter. Am I the only one who, in his temporibus valde iniquis, finds the prospect of the majority of Senators meeting outside of the usual D.C. venues, in trusting Minnesota, a terrifying security risk?
posted by Zurishaddai at 12:11 PM on October 29, 2002

Interesting how Cheney claims he planned to attend the funeral

Not really, one of the roles of VP has (as a practical -- not a statutory -- matter) been to attend funerals and other cermonial type events.

Politics aside: Cheney is a loathsome toad

Damn that was funny, although I suspect it was not meant to be so.
posted by probablysteve at 12:12 PM on October 29, 2002

P.S. I agree with what Tiger_Lily hints that maybe Bush should have gone. Or at least not put out such squeamish rationalizations as this:

"If you take a look at the historical record of when a sitting senator dies in office, no the president will not go," said Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary. "This has not been the past pattern. We will send an appropriate official."

Note the sour note struck by the words "will not."
posted by Zurishaddai at 12:15 PM on October 29, 2002

Wellstone's memory is best being served by using him as an excuse to promote a party that, 99% of the time, disagreed with everything he stood for?

Nice use of a bogus statistic, but it doesn't gibe with the fact that Wellstone was working hard to win his race and preserve the Senate majority of the Democrats. That's hardly the actions of someone who didn't have an interest in the success of the party.
posted by rcade at 12:26 PM on October 29, 2002

They should have nominated Krugman
posted by matteo at 12:29 PM on October 29, 2002

Zurishaddai - Yeah, me too. There seems to be a lot of serendipitious (for the Bush Adm.) terrorism these days, a lot of planes dropping out of the sky these days (leaving lots of mysterious, unanswered and quickly classified details in their wake). I think Democratic Senators would be better advised to observe the Wellstone funeral on TV from an underground bunker, or just hitch a ride with Cheney and watch it in his fucking invisible nuclear powered national-security-state helicopter. [apologies to "get your war on"]
posted by troutfishing at 12:35 PM on October 29, 2002

So, in this instance, the Vice President made plans to attend the memorial to pay tribute to a fellow member of the U.S. government, but then when the family expressed a desire for him not to attend, and he decided that it would be best to.... not attend as they requested. And now some of you use this as the latest example of how bad of a person Dick Cheney is? So first Dick tried to be thoughtful and express sympathy, then he was being respectful of the family, and this all equals him being pure evil. I'm glad you are all figments of the internet, I wouldn't want to live in a world with unreasonable jerks like you. If you'd like to use the VP's "past" against him as a reason why in all situations, whatever his actions are, he is an evil toad, then please re-read this comment starting from "unreasonable" and ending with "jerks"
posted by Mushkelley at 12:40 PM on October 29, 2002

Exactly, Mushkelley. I'd be willing to bet that a Republican family would never "express desire" for a Democratic VP to "not attend" a Republican's funeral. It's childish for them to refuse Cheney's condolences and attendence at the event. Republicans have been praising this guy all weekend for his principles and toughness, even though they disagreed with his ideas. If the family wants to turn the man's funeral into a political pep rally, that's fine, but just f*cking admit it. It's despicable to act like Dick Cheney's done anything wrong by trying to attend a co-worker's funeral.
posted by BirdD0g at 1:09 PM on October 29, 2002

I wouldn't want the man likely responsible for my murder to be at my funeral, either.

;)
posted by danisaacs at 1:19 PM on October 29, 2002

It's despicable to act like Dick Cheney's done anything wrong by trying to attend a co-worker's funeral.

Ummm, as said before, perhaps it's just that the family doesn't want to endure the heightened security associated with an appearance by Dick Cheney. Would you want to be frisked and have a background check in order to attend your friend's funeral?
posted by machaus at 1:19 PM on October 29, 2002

The "funny" thing is, Bush will be here in Minneapo lis/Saint Paul next week to campaign for Coleman. Disgusting if you ask me

Could you explain why that would be disgusting?

But given that the same article says expected attendees include Clinton, Gore, and "and at least half the United States Senate," I don't think the security could possibly need to be tighter.

IIRC, security provided for former presidents still pale in comparison to security for a current vice president and I'm pretty sure the same holds for senators.

I think the real reason why Cheney/Bush aren't attending is that they don't want to turn the funeral into a circus w/ union members and others from the west-wing picketing/demonstrating against them and I can certainly respect that.
posted by gyc at 1:25 PM on October 29, 2002

troutfishing: seems to be a lot of serendipitious (for the Bush Adm.) terrorism these days, a lot of planes dropping out of the sky these days (leaving lots of mysterious, unanswered and quickly classified details in their wake).

wow, how did you get so filled with hate?

if you really think there is a republican hand in any of the recent terror attacks, then post a link or call the fbi. otherwise, for the good of yourself and the people you care about, please seek counseling.
posted by nobody_knose at 1:27 PM on October 29, 2002

XQUZYPHYR- rcade was correct that your stats on Wellstone were bogus, according to Who's Who in Congress Wellstone voted well within the party line over 95% of the time since taking office. Sounds like a pretty hard line Democrat to me!
posted by Pollomacho at 1:34 PM on October 29, 2002

Purely personal opinion here, but if Bush or Cheney really want to respect Wellstone, they'll say nothing at all about him. Their courteous acknowledgement--which has been done--would best be followed by silence on the matter. Let those who share Wellstone's dreams perform the eulogies. I respectfully accept their acknowledgement of the tragedy, but let's be honest, crocodile tears are just a waste of time.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:34 PM on October 29, 2002

Mushkelly- And now some of you use this as the latest example of how bad of a person Dick Cheney is?

Uh, could you please point out *exactly* where this happened in this thread, 'cause frankly I'm missing it. There's a lot of Cheney jibes, sure, but most of the funeral-related pissing is toward Bush, not him.

Next time you feel the need to make such blanket insults to the community, please do your research.
posted by mkultra at 1:45 PM on October 29, 2002

But the family was also uncomfortable at the prospect of attendance by Mr. Cheney, who helped to push Norm Coleman into the race against Mr. Wellstone and to guide the Republican's aggressive campaign before Friday's fatal plane crash.

Attending the funeral was the decent and proper thing for Cheney to do and the Wellstone family are entitled to their feelings in regards to his presence there. Make of it what you will.
posted by y2karl at 1:50 PM on October 29, 2002

gyc asked: Could you explain why that would be disgusting?

It's like Tiger_Lily alluded to earlier, Bush could use this horrible tragedy to make good on his "uniter not a divider" stance. Instead, he's campaigning for "the other guy" in a weeks ti me. Seems fairly partisan to me, which under the circumstances disgusts me.r
posted by ScottUltra at 1:55 PM on October 29, 2002

Attending the funueral was the decent and proper thing to for for Bush. Sending Cheney as a consolation prize after Ari Fleischer declared to the press that "the president will not go" because of historical precedent (?) was indecent.

After being dissed like this, I can imagine the Wellstone family would rather their pride rather than Cheney.
posted by deanc at 1:58 PM on October 29, 2002

nobody_knose: wow, how did you get so filled with hate?

Oh, don't mind troutfishing, he's just upset that his country was stolen. I'm sure he'll "get over it".
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:03 PM on October 29, 2002

mkultra,

Mr_Crash_Davis and machaus both tangentially ripped on Cheney within the first 5 comments. Then Tiger_lily called the VP a demon seed and a loathsome toad in their comment, which was seconded by Hackly_fracture. I was referring to Tiger_lily and Hackley Fractures' sentiment with my comment about Cheney not being evil for this event. So that is *exactly* where it happened in this thread. I just don't feel the need to derail threads by starting direct assaults on other posters, so I kept my comments... general.

Anyways, you may now place this comment in your (and just your) research pipe, and smoke it.
posted by Mushkelley at 2:12 PM on October 29, 2002

George_Spiggott:

Let me get this straight -- you're saying that troutfishing thinks his country was "stolen" by mysterious planes dropping out of the sky?

Wow, he's worse off than I thought.
posted by nobody_knose at 2:15 PM on October 29, 2002

"did not want mourners subjected to the kind of security screenings that Cheney's attendance would have required."

Bill Clinton and Al Gore would require the same secret service screenings would they not?
posted by ZupanGOD at 2:18 PM on October 29, 2002

Bill Clinton and Al Gore would require the same secret service screenings would they not?

Since 11 September, The White House has been proceeding on the assumption that the Prez and Veep are prime terrorist targets. Clinton and Gore, being out of office, are presumably not viewed in the same way. Unlike Cheney they've not gone gone underground and nobody seems to be suggesting they should.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:25 PM on October 29, 2002

zupangod:

That's what I think most people would assume. That's why the real reason he's not coming is because the Wellstone's ASKED that he not come. They are mourning, and it's their right to say who can or cannot come to their event.

So, if at this point it is even a little bit unclear to anyone why Cheney is not coming, please read the following information from the New York Times:

"...the family was also uncomfortable at the prospect of attendance by Mr. Cheney, who helped to push Norm Coleman into the race against Mr. Wellstone..."

So, if anyone STILL feels a need to spout venom due to Cheney's absense, please spew it in the direction of the Wellstones.
posted by nobody_knose at 2:32 PM on October 29, 2002

There seems to be a lot of serendipitious (for the Bush Adm.) terrorism these days, a lot of planes dropping out of the sky these days
posted by troutfishing

Excuse me, I read "troutfishing" as "trollfishing". But that's just me. What an asinine thing to say.

As for Cheney, he's the logical choice for not only the traditional "You die, we fly" (quip attributed to GHWB) role, but also to the VP's constitutional role as President of the Senate. It was appropriate for him to offer to go, and also entirely at the discretion of the family to disinvite him. Why did this become such an issue?

Ah. Ari Fleischer is involved. The man should not be allowed near a mike; he's liable to self-mutilate. Even when there are perfectly reasonable excuses he manages to sound like a weasel.

ZupanGOD: Former Ps and VPs under Secret Service protection do require some of the same arrangements, but nothing compared to the sitting VP, who's accompanied by probably no fewer than a crew of 100: aides, sunglass-wearers, backup football, that sort of thing. There will be an Air Force Two plus a couple of military C-130s plus a C-17 or two to carry the armored presidential limousine and other motorcade vehicles. It's one holy mess. Let somebody like Trent Lott speak for the GOP; he's not even on the succession list.
posted by dhartung at 2:32 PM on October 29, 2002

I understand that perhaps there would be a slightly higher presense of security if the current VP was to attend. But if the objective of the Wellstone family was to have people who would bring a security onterage not to attend than logic tells me that Bill Clinton and Al Gore attending with their security team and protection doesn't coride with the wishes of the family either.
posted by ZupanGOD at 2:50 PM on October 29, 2002

XQUZYPHYR, I think the term you meant was Hyperbole, but regardless I still don't see anything to back up your statement that Wellstone was working in a party that was against anything he stood for, at least he didn't disagree with them 95% of the time, and that is no exaggeration of the record, its just the facts. So sounds like he was as solidly in favor of the Democratic Party as anyone can get and even died trying to make sure that he went against his own pledge for no third term just to make sure that the Democrats got re-elected. Doesn't sound like he would be dishonored to have a Democrat win.


hy·per·bo·le Pronunciation Key (h-pûrb-l)
n.
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
posted by Pollomacho at 3:05 PM on October 29, 2002

Pollomacho: I don't get it -- I keep reading how people saw Wellstone as a principled renegade, a sort of "last honest man" of old-school liberal politics.

If so, he would HAVE to have diverged from his party frequently -- especially when you consider how much of the conservative agenda was co-opted by the Democrats in the mid-and late-‘90s.

The point is less how much he voted with the party than whether he was willing to go against the party for his beliefs on the big issues.

Was he a “true liberal”/FDR-style Democrat or was he a welfare reform/end-of-big-govt/Clinton-style Democrat?

You can’t have it both ways.

As a side note, I think this issue is central to the confused interpretation most Democrats have of Clinton’s popularity. They don’t seem to get that, aside from his bad-boy charm and stellar communication skills, he was popular more for what he DIDN’T do (or wasn’t able to) as he was for anything that he actually did.
posted by nobody_knose at 4:25 PM on October 29, 2002

oops - that should have been "...than he was for anything that he actually did."
posted by nobody_knose at 4:30 PM on October 29, 2002

Given that the White House has barely told the truth on anything in the past four months, and that the White House is the source of the news that Wellstone's family didn't want Cheney to attend, I'm withholding judgement until someone actually confirms it instead of repeating what "White House sources" say.
posted by mdeatherage at 6:15 PM on October 29, 2002

Given that the White House has barely told the truth on anything in the past four months,

Past four months? Try our lifetime.
posted by gyc at 7:31 PM on October 29, 2002

Noboby_knose, Dhartung - What provoked you so much in my (comparatively wee) post? The suggestion that the sort of 3rd world/developing world political tricks --which the US CIA and the USSR both foemented during the 2nd half of the 20th century-- would metasticize and infect the US political process (not to mention the effect of the secret importation of a pack 'o Nazi scientists and SS, post WW2), or my (stolen) quip about Dick Cheney's "fucking invisible nuclear powered national-security-state helicopter"?

Nobody_knose --- You're reading hate into my text where none exists. I don't think that hate ever really achieves anything positive. I don't hate GW Bush, or Dick Cheney, or any Bush Adminstration people - I try to emulate the Dalai Llama, and as a rule think of all people as good: members of the Bush Adm. are to me just good people who were raised in pathological family and cultural environments.

I really don't know about Wellstone's death, and little planes are, of course, clearly dangerous. However, there is a grand and longstanding republican "dirty trick" tradition which predates the Nixon presidency. Dubious (traitorous) behavior seems part of the Bush family legacy, from GW Bush's father's "October Surprise" and Iran/Contra "Arms for $ (with some drug dealing on the side)" crimes to Prescott Bush's (GW's grandfather) founding of the the family fortune through, essentially, Nazi slave labour. (I won't bother referencing this historical chapter with links - it merits a Mefi post of it's own)
posted by troutfishing at 8:40 PM on October 29, 2002

Geez, was that a tribute to Wellstone and others who passed away or a political rally.
posted by Plunge at 9:01 PM on October 29, 2002

So, so unfortunate that it was turned into a rally. Most of the locals attending the rally were going to vote Dem anyway. I, for one, wish the memorial service was about memories, and that the launch of Mondale's campaign could have waited at least until, oh, say, tomorrow morning.
posted by RKB at 9:57 PM on October 29, 2002

The "funny" thing is, Bush will be here in Minneapo lis/Saint Paul next week to campaign for Coleman. Disgusting if you ask me (which I am sure you didn't).

Wellstone's death doesn't make it any less imperative from a political standpoint to get Coleman into office. If the dems weren't going to campaign their asses off to make sure that people vote for Fritzie, then maybe the Prez could stay home. So long as there is going to be an effort to sweep Mondale out of retirement and right back into Washington power central, then Coleman and his supporters - including the Executive - are well within the bounds of decorum in doing likewise for their cause.

Attending the funueral was the decent and proper thing to for for Bush.

In 1991 when Sen. John Heinz died, neither GHW Bush or VP Quayle attended the local (Pittsburgh) memorial service and in that case, there were no political battle lines to cross. While it would be very nice to live in a world where the president had nothing better to do than drop everything to go to a funeral, we don't. We haven't in a very long time. The VP has always been the go to man for ceremonial functions like funerals, weddings, coronations and inaugurations. He can be spared.
posted by Dreama at 10:24 PM on October 29, 2002

While it would be very nice to live in a world where the president had nothing better to do than drop everything to go to a funeral,

Yeah, we wouldn't want duhbya to interrupt his busy fund raising schedule to pay respects or anything. He's much too busy on the campaign trail for that.

The VP has always been the go to man for ceremonial functions like funerals, weddings, coronations and inaugurations.

You should NEVER repeat anything Ari says because chances are it's a lie or at best very inaccurate, just as this statement was.

He can be spared.

So why is he hiding out in his "bunker of evil" unless he's campaigning or fund raising for the GOP?

And shame on Poppy and Quayle! But then crocodile tears are better left out as someone already mentioned.
posted by nofundy at 4:59 AM on October 30, 2002

With a Wednesday morning QB approach, it looks like the Democrats made this their own campaign event - how sad. I personally hope Mondale gets squashed in the election.
posted by MediaMan at 8:20 AM on October 30, 2002

I watched the last half of the Wellstone memorial. It wasn't his funeral -- that was held earlier -- and I think it appropriate for so much to be celebratory and political in nature. Wellstone loved fiery populist political rallies, and to see his memorial become one was no surprise at all.

There were parts that were excessively partisan, as Republicans are now complaining, especially the emotional speech by longtime friend (and campaign treasurer) Rick Kahn. But what would anyone expect of an event like this in the days before an election?

If Reagan died right before an election, I have no doubt that some Republican speakers would encourage people to show their support for his politics with their next vote. Perhaps they would show more decorum than Democrats did last night, but the Democratic faithful are often more unruly and less inhibited than their counterparts. That's one of the things I love about the party.
posted by rcade at 8:38 AM on October 30, 2002

nobody_knose: Your right, I don't get why he's judged as such a "renegade" He simply didn't diverge from the party line even as it changed its course, maybe its course change is a figment of Rush Limbaugh's imagination? My Pre-FDR Grandfather, Kennedy lovin' Parents and neo-liberal brother all seem to love Clinton, so I don't get it how can they AND Wellstone not feel abandoned by the party as it swings left and right? Maybe that's part of the nature of Democrats, you can have your Wellstones and your Clintons and your George Wallaces all in one messy little package?
posted by Pollomacho at 12:25 PM on October 30, 2002

Well perhaps they should've advertised it as a political rally instead a funeral so people like Trent Lott and Jesse Vertura wouldn't have wasted their time attending what they thought would be a funeral and not a partisan rally. It was particularly classless for them to boo Lott as he tried to pay his respects to one of his colleagues. It looks like the Democrats really pissed off Ventura though.
posted by gyc at 12:57 PM on October 30, 2002

by the way, I can't believe I wrote "your right"
posted by Pollomacho at 1:10 PM on October 30, 2002

You should NEVER repeat anything Ari says because chances are it's a lie or at best very inaccurate, just as this statement was.

Care to provide anything other than your typical vitriol to back that one up, nofundy? (I won't hold my breath.)
posted by Dreama at 1:52 PM on October 30, 2002

Ari Fleischer's penchant for falsehood is a matter of public record, Dreama. But just for laughs ...

His statement: "If you take a look at the historical record of when a sitting senator dies in office, no the president will not go. This has not been the past pattern. We will send an appropriate official."

The truth: Bill Clinton attended John Chafee's funeral in 1999, Jimmy Carter attended Hubert Humphrey's funeral in 1978, Richard Nixon eulogized Everett Dirksen in 1969, and there are other numerous examples dating back to the 19th century.

President Bush also found the time to attend House Rep. Joe Moakley's funeral last year.

Fleischer's suggestion that presidents don't attend the funerals of sitting senators is blatantly false and truly unctious. What kind of person would phony up "historical" decorum as an excuse not to attend a funeral? Bush chose not to attend as a deliberate act of disrespect towards a political antagonist, and it's consistent with his reputation for holding grudges.
posted by rcade at 9:28 PM on October 30, 2002

hear, hear, settin' the record straight rcade
posted by y2karl at 9:54 PM on October 30, 2002