I posted before that I was VERY IMPRESSED with Wellstone's son. I think he acted with GRACE and DIGNITY. Then there were the other Dem politicians who claimed that Sen. Wellstone was their "Best friend." If my best friend died I may not cry while speaking...but I promise you that I wouldn't be giving a rah rah session for Mondale.
It's not that liberal ideas were discussed. it's not like winning an election was discussed. winning the election became the focal point of the evening. It WAS used for political gain. To see it any other way is naive.
So you only saw a couple of minutes of the event on the news, yet you say it was a 2 1/2 hour pep rally. By the way, Sen. Wellstone's son was chanting "we will win". Was he being "distasteful" ?
The son can say whatever the hell he wants...but the dignitaries present should have acted with a lot more restraint. I certainly hope that Wellstone's son didn't ask these politicians to have a pep rally. I would be very disappointed. His Dad was a politician...but there was so much more to him than that.
OK I will admit to exaggerating in this case. Congratulations rock you caught me. However, I haven't seen any news reports saying, "Senator Wellstone's memorial service was held this evening and nothing happened. Thank you." Instead, all I (and dare I say, many people) have seen about the service is people going on about how it was politicized by several of the speakers. That this happened at ALL, much less live on TV, I found distasteful. Again, that's just my opinion. To me, yes. Again, this is all about TV. We didn't see any warm remembrances of Senator Wellstone through his son's eyes. Instead what much of America sees is Mr. Wellstone shouting, "We will win!" like he wants to reenact the old "Win one for the Gipper" speech. Should, Heaven forbid, former President Reagan die in an election year will it be acceptable to you if the news is plastered with Republicans at the service shouting about how Republicans should win because "Pres. Reagan would've wanted it that way?" In closing, all I'm going to say is that I wish I sould have seen all of Senator Wellstone's service because I didn't know him very well as a man or a public servant. All I have seen is a political rally thinly disguised as a memorial.
I don't believe the author said that at all. All he said was that the complete fruition of Wellstone's ideas would have made this country a lesser place. He lauded the person of Paul Wellstone. He didn't do that with Hitler or Saddam. He only lumps Wellstone in with Hitler or Saddam by the extrapolation that the unexamined acceptance and approval of "doggedness" of conviction is dangerous. It's interesting how we all get a different read on what the author wrote. I see more of a glancing criticism of the entire cadre of Democrats-- <b>including the back-slappers</b> here! The behavior at Wellstone's Memorial is just an illustration of what he thinks is wrong with the party. Hey, free TV time for the Dems.
Wow, a hatchet job right after a guys death. Classy with a capital A-S-S. Also, if we weren't supposed to draw parallels with Hussein and Hitler, why are they mentioned as examples of why the trait that Wellstone has been praised as having isn't always a good thing?
Which classy act are you referring to...the article that was posted...or the Democratic Convention that was supposed to be a memorial service?
I think the intent is to criticize the celebration of the trait out of context and in isolation. That practice can lead to dangerous places like Hitler or Hussein. It is an extremely grand conclusion. The crack about the plumber (or whatever it was) doing brain surgery because s/he somehow "cared more" is a criticism along the same line. "I feel your pain," comes to mind as does "It depends on what the meaning of is is." I think the author just sees the Wellstone Memorial Service as just another example of mis-placed Democratic enthusiasm-- kind of like voting for Hillary for US Senate from New Arkansas.
Let me get this straight- the Democrats are allowed to use the death of Wellstone to plead for votes, but if conservatives offer any criticism, it is a "hatchet job". You are being an incredible hypocrite here. You and Mrs. JB didn't try to comprehend the article, because you both seem to have the ability to comprehend when you so desire. Hitler and Saddam are used as extreme examples to make an important point that "conviction without a moral context or motor is merely a white-knuckled grip on an idea without paying heed to what you grip or why". Wellstone is never compared to those two despots. Those of us who don't agree with Jerry Falwell, when he attacks homosexuals, don't sit back and admire his conviction and determination. Falwell should be judged by the results of his actions- and so should Wellstone. The funny thing about your response is that your emotion was predicted by the article.
The only people who have a right to get upset at what happened at the service is Wellstone's family. If they didn't have a problem with what happened, neither should anyone else.
i disagree..."a right to get upset?" who says I don't have a right to get upset. here's what i'm upset about...i'm upset that on the day of his death and the days thereafter the dems were saying, "those mean old republicans are trying to turn the death of this man into a political issue!" so the republican candidate in Minn stopped campaigning altogether. and then the memorial service is a democratic pep rally, complete with boos for republicans who showed up to pay their respects to a friend. i'd say trent lott has a "right to get upset." and i'd say those of us who elect these people to their positions and are constantly subjected to them have a "right to get upset." i'd say governor ventura, who showed up to pay his last respects has a "right to get upset." and he did. i don't know if the republicans would have done the same thing...frankly, i have a hard time imagining the cast of characters in the republican leadership right now clapping and dancing around at a memorial service in the wake of a friend's death. i'll readily admit, that could be my rose-colored glasses.
You forgot that the Minnesota State Republican party has the right to be upset because the Democrats got 2+ hours of free TV and radio time.
One of the main problems with the service/rally is that it was televised live on all 3 major networks in Minnesota from 6:30 to 10:00. By turning into a convention, it allowed the democratic party over 3 hours of prime time TV one week before the election. The TV stations are quite upset. They were expecting a memorial service and for the most part, did not get one. The TV execs should have realized something like that may happen and only broadcast the first 30 minutes to one hour. If something is "billed" as a memorial service it should be a memorial service. Cheering democrats and booing republicans was in poor taste. The republicans are asking for equal time, but I doubt they will get it.
If they want equal time for a memorial service/pep rally, that's cool. But which of their guys are they going to sacrifice to get it?
OK, you have a right to get upset. I just think it's misplaced. Oh, and if you don't think Republicans would do the same, you <B>are</B> wearing rose colored glasses.
you're right...it probably is rose-colored...just can't imagine there being that kind of a celebration at a memorial service, though. not a celebration of the man's life, but rather a rally for an upcoming election. i've never seen that before, despite the fact we have seen deaths in the midst of the campaign season. i guess i just have a hard time imagining the trent lotts or the george w. bushs of the world doing that... why is it misplaced? who should it be placed on? seems to me the democratic party realized they had some serious TV time coming, and they took advantage of it.
