We lost a good senator today.

Mr. Wellstone may indeed be a good man, and he may have been a good father and husband.

But as a Senator, he put environmentalist lobbies (not nescessarily pro-environment) in front of American interests. And in light of North Korea's nuclear missile threat, he voted consistently against defense of America with American Technology.

S.257 - "The Cochran-Inouye National Missile Defense Act of 1999" - (related bill H.R. 4) Declares that it is U.S. policy to: (1) deploy as soon as technologically possible a National Missile Defense (NMD) system capable of defending U.S. territory against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate), with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for NMD; and (2) seek continued negotiated reductions in Russian nuclear forces. - passed March 17, 1999 (97-3)

S.1873 - "American Missile Protection Act of 1998" - States as U.S. policy to deploy as soon as technologically possible an effective National Missile defense system capable of defending U.S. territory against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate). Cloture motion on motion to proceed rejected by the Senate twice (9/9/98 and 5/13/ 98) by the same vote (59-41).

S.1635 - "Defend America Act of 1996" - (related bill H.R. 3144) Expresses U.S. policy to deploy by the end of 2003 a National Missile Defense system that: (1) is capable of providing a highly effective defense of U.S. territory against limited, unauthorized, or accidental ballistic missile attack; (2) will be augmented over time to provide a layered defense against larger and more sophisticated ballistic missile threats; and (3) does not feature an offensive-only form of deterrence. Cloture motion on motion to proceed rejected by the Senate (6/4/96) by a vote of 53-46.

Wellstone voted AGAINST all three of these bills, and he was a leader of the throngs that killed oil exploration in ANWR, forcing us to import more oil from places like Iraq.

Was he a good man? Perhaps. Was he a good Senator? Depends on your priorities for your state.

Did he contribute to a country Hank Ford would've been proud of? I doubt Paul would've supported your right to drive a 8N vs a contribution from the Sierra Club.

I personally believe Coleman will be superior for America.

In any case, don't get on me about politics on this board. Just don't try to tie in respect and deference for the deceased, which we should all share, with the lionization of his life's work.

God rest him and his family.

George Willer

A: a good start!

May he rot in he11.

;

Methinks it was part of a vast, leftwing consiracy.

Ed

Unlike their liberal counterparts, they did not take a poll to determine what position to take. They did not pretend to shed tears (like President Clinton did at Ron Brown's 1996 funeral). They did not take the politically-correct course of action and heap praise on someone with whom they fundamentally disagreed. They simply voiced their honest opinions. You know the word "honest," right? We heard it often prior to 1992.

It's a shame you have a problem with freedom of speech (well, OTHER people's freedom of speech, anyway. Obviously, it's OK for you to tell people they have no class, or to stereotype them as "rightwingers.")

Maybe someday we can all be as classy as you.

Note: Remember people- both left-wingism and right-wingism, regardless of the rhetoric, lead to nothing but tyranny. Our constitution is neither right nor left- it is overhead! (high above both tyrannical philosophies)