The Wellstone sons want the Wellstone name removed from the present effort, as it stands after their ouster, and presumably as it moved prior to that step.
For readers who might be as puzzled as not, websearch links, here and here. But don't expect to learn much. Coverage seems to repeat things with dancing around the dispute without getting to the heart of things. Spending? Orientation? An item, Strib online today, here.
Reporting Strib Feb. 14 - has been:
Jessie Ulibarri, the group's interim co-executive director, said after Trump's 2016 victory the Wellstones began pushing for a more public role in issue advocacy. He wouldn't say what issues the Wellstones — and two former board members whose terms lapsed last year — believed the organization should take on.
David Wellstone insisted those differences were superficial, saying he merely suggested that the organization should examine ways Democrats can win back working class voters — "these folks that voted for Paul Wellstone, President Obama and President Trump."
Strib online Feb. 15:
Sam Kaplan, an influential DFL attorney and ambassador to Morocco under President Barack Obama, is representing the Wellstone sons and two other former board members. He told the Star Tribune that the dispute originated when the board refused to investigate basic financial questions raised by the board treasurer.
“It’s really shameful,” Kaplan said in an interview Wednesday. He was joined by Rick Kahn, a founding board member with close ties to the Wellstone family, who was removed from the board in November.
Wellstone Action is highly regarded in progressive circles for training candidates, operatives and volunteers, including U.S. Rep. Tim Walz, now a DFL candidate for governor.
Wellstone Action, the campaign organization dedicated to their father's legacy, told Mark Wellstone and his brother David, on Wednesday, Feb. 14, 2018, that they will be voted off its governing board in the coming days.
The board said in a statement that the dispute arose from a difference of opinion about the direction of the organization.
It singled out Kahn, the Wellstone siblings and former board member Ron DeHarpporte for actions that “indicate that they don’t support the long-term vision of the organization.”
[...] In a separate statement, co-founder Jeff Blodgett said that the actions of “certain former and current board members” had created “an untenable tension” over the organization’s “ongoing emphasis on expanding inclusivity and equity.”
Blodgett was Obama’s campaign manager in Minnesota, while Kaplan served as a major fundraiser.
Both men were personally close to Wellstone. Blodgett called the removal of Mark and David Wellstone “personally and professionally difficult for many on the board, including myself.”
Kahn, the longtime treasurer, said he noticed an increase in spending of $200,000 over budget last summer, as well as a sharp decline in cash balance.
“This was unprecedented in the history of the organization,” Kahn said. “I raised these questions, and properly so, as my legal obligations as treasurer of the organization are to ask questions about financial matters.”
Kahn sought a financial audit, which the board resisted, he said. Even after completing the audit, the board refused to share it with Kahn, the Wellstone sons and Kaplan.
Kaplan and Blodgett together in Obama election times; now apart.
The big Obama disappointment, followed by the failed Clinton-Podesta presidential thing goes unmentioned. The Clinton "big money" approach vs the Berniecrat passion goes unmentioned. At least so, in online reporting.
The italicized "highly regarded in progressive circles" ends without citing any highly regarding progressive, not a one. Saying it don't make it so, is an old saying.
WTF is meant by the italicized text “an untenable tension” over the organization’s “ongoing emphasis on expanding inclusivity and equity"? Did the Wellstone brothers call bullshit on "Stronger Together"? If so, bless their willingness.
It seems the Democratic Party has been ineffective in gaining young voices and votes, while the Republican party offers that bloc zero. Tuition debt loads, crappy jobs for crappy pay, a bleaker future than parents faced, all those causes of alienation can be focused upon to bring new blood into play in a positive true CHANGE mode, but the beltway is owned by big money donors and mediocre shallow consultancies sucking up the money the big donors pay and in return giving crappy half-minute scripted voice-over advertising such as this. That cookie-cutter stuff likely was run, same consultancy but different candidates, in Terre Haute, Oklahoma City, suburban New Jersey, and Memphis. This. This. This. This. And surprise. Ossoff loses.
Did I say shallow and mediocre, and all the same annoyances vs capturing passionate reasons to vote one way or the other? Aimed at groups, Craig item - women in business, veterans. The first Ossoff item - black voters. The remaining Ossoff ads, background sounds and such, and the same shallow voice over approach. Single payer unmentioned. Student debt unmentioned. Lack of a livable minimum wage, unmentioned. It is as if Occupy voices never were voiced. The one Ossoff thing, good jobs in the burbs. Income inequality unmentioned. Shallow is as shallow does. Not to say Craig or Ossoff is a shallow person. They only erred by letting shallow things be put before the nation by beltway hacks. Highly paid insider beltway hacks. End of story.
So how does all that fit the Wellstone Action "boot camp" situation? Or the question of Wellstone Action having a deeper understanding of and advocacy for true issues and needs of most of the people who vote or could be motivated to do so if given sufficient attention and encouragement? Coverage by the press is quite distant from what the heart of the debate may be; however one thing is certain. The Wellstone name is that of the Wellstones, and if they're booted out by a putsch of the boot campers, change the organizational name, yesterday. It is indecent to not take that step.