Ventura Uspset by Partisan Memorial Service

Like I said Max, you win. I'm laying down arms. I am curious though who you mean when you say the Democratic Party. Do you mean his son, a Democrat who started the talk of winning the election? Do you mean his Democrat campaign manager and best friend who was clearly behaving irrationally? Do you mean Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin who was his closest friend in the Senate? Or do you mean the thousands of rank and file who booed? Do you think McAuliffe passed out secret scripts?

 

The Goldberg article is, of course, much of the same. He may have valid reasons to disagree with Wellstone's positions, but to offer a critique of the man a few days after his death is bush-league.

And comparing him to Hitler, and then justifying it by saying that that's not what he was doing, is nonsense. "his determination is just like Hitlers. But I'm not comparing him to Hitler, even though I could, but I'm not" is a comparison despite his denials.

This article was nothing more than the usual Rep/Dem tripe that's been recycled countless times. Sprinkling in Wellstone tidbits is, much like the overenthused Dem's at the memorial, trying to politicize a man's untimely death.

And we wonder why we're cynical about politics and the press.

 

Do the critics allow at all for the possibility that this was more an emotional response than an opportunistic one? Do they believe that the Democrats in attendance believed it would help them win to boo Lott or is it possible that these were people who were upset and don't like Lott's politics? Do they believe that Wellstone's campaign manager, normally a pretty smart guy, thought he would actually get Republican officials to support Mondale, or is there any chance he was behaving irrationally due to extreme emotion? As "dopey" as Goldberg might think Dems and liberals to be, they're not dopey enough to have thought that turning a memorial into a "rally" was seizing an opportunity. Even if they were friends, Lott opposes almost every one of Wellstone's causes and supports almost everything he was against. Is there any chance that while grieving the loss of a political hero, the crowd reacted emotionally when they saw a political enemy on the big screen?

 

So you don't see that it's possible that certain Dems seized an opportunity to hold a small convention? Remember that for whatever reason candidates get a BIG boost right after the televised conventions. The allegation here is that the Dems used this in order to garner the same type of boost.

 

Like I asked Max, Ref, I have to ask which ones you mean. There were 20,000 people there. If the cheers and boos were audible, and if there were no teleprompters, I think it's at least equally possible that the reactions were sincere, however unpleasant. Yes, conventions get a boost. But are the Democrats dopey or sinister to your mind if you believe that they believed they'd get a bump "turning a memorial service into a rally?" I can't believe anybody thinks the Dems are either that dumb or that cynical -- if they'd planned it in any way, it would have immediately been struck down as stupid. There is a much more obvious explanation that no one wants to acknowledge: isn't it just possible that they were upset and reacted sincerely? You have to remember that Wellstone's people are driven by principle (whether you agree with that principle or not -- much like Helms' supporters) -- not by cynicism. If they were strategists, they would be New Dems. They're not. So isn't it just possible they were acting out of conviction and emotion? Or is everybody who spends any time in politics just a cynic and a b*stard?

 

Oh I'm sorry rock I had no idea you didn't see what I said in my firstpost on the subject. To paraphrase, I said that all I could comment on was a 4 minute blurb on the 9 o'clock news. I'm unaware that using the news to form a basis for opinion is improper. And, I'm astounded that every single person with an opinion on this matter has to have seen the entire service in it's entirety to be able to publicly state their feelings on the subject. I'm willing to accept that we have different opinions on the matter and agree to disagree, but to try to dismiss my belief because I've seen (and addressed) the same footage half a dozen times on various news reports is is unfair. And, based SOLELY AND COMPLETELY on the Pioneer Press article, I'm far from being the only one to disagree with the tone of the "memorial".

 

How about the ones who were up there cheerleading so much that I felt like going up there to give them pom poms?

Of course they wouldn't. There would always be a lot of people (you included) who seek to give them the benefit of the doubt. Politicians do what they feel they can get away with and take calculated risks. The TV stations feel duped...the Governor feels duped...why don't you?

THAT'S why people were screaming into the mic that people needed to vote for the replacement candidate!!! I can't believe I didn't see that sooner!!! Come on.

Especially since Mondale and Wellstone shared so many views, right? They don't. There are FUNDAMENTAL differences between the 2 men...most notably the degree of grace that Wellstone acted with at ALL times.

 

Hrm... I'm not sure which is worse... a bunch of upset people booing someone at a memorial service.... or comparing a deeply principled guy who fought for the 'little people' his entire life to *Hitler* in a national publication a few days after his tragic death in a plane crash... hrm... oh gee, which is in the most poor taste... I can't possibly decide...

For f*ck's sake. Anyone who's arguing that that wasn't really a comparison is being disingenous. 'I'm not comparing them... but they're similar in this way...' - um, sorry folks, but that's a goddamned comparison!

As for 'the country would have been worse off if people had followed Wellstone's ideas' - well, *no one did*, did they? Let's leave the fortune-telling to Miss Cleo, dude.

 

I can't believe how many people can't seem to grasp how and why the Hitler/Hussein reference was used. Criticial thinking is dying a brutal death here.

 

Brian, everybody sees how the writer was using the comparison. They just reject the idea that you can compare them when convenient and then back off the comparison to stay right with those who'd be offended. They (and I) say you can't have it both ways. I can't see how you can't see that.

Max, the chair of the Minn. party did apologize for how the service turned out. He also asked that people understand that the speeches were not pre-approved and that he hoped people would forgive what was, in his opinion, clearly an emotional display.

People who don't understand why Wellstone supporters would talk about continuing the fight, winning the election, etc., just don't understand Wellstone supporters.

I agree that Wellstone supporters (including myself) often fail to behave with the grace that he displayed in fighting his fight. They're sort of like Christ supporters that way.

 

LOL Batman, you aren't helping your reputation as a "critical thinker".

 

After reading that column, so are journalism and quality writing skills.

 

I said a few posts back I wasn't trying to win an argument here. I really don't want to argue about it. I had my personal emotional outburst in another thread on the night of the service. Post-that, I'm not interested in changing minds here or even having a debate. I'm interested in trying to help people understand that maybe, just maybe, this wasn't a sinister plot.

And since when do I have a reputation here as a "critical thinker?" I daresay you're even more partisan than I am, judging from your posts, and that's saying a lot because I am damned partisan, so I certainly don't think you ever considered me a critical thinker. And to hear some of the BBS reactions to my posts, you'd think I was LaRouche. But, again, I'm not making critical points here. I do understand why people were put off by the service. I'm just trying to share my opinion, as a Wellstone supporter, as to why it happened.

 

Is this mic on...ok...ummmm....damage control.

To liken Sen. Wellstone to Jesus Christ is simply tasteless.

 

Reading comprehension is your friend. Where did I say what the Democrat's did was okay?

Wellstone was compared to those despots in the article. You can't say wellstone was dogged and persistant, but those aren't good things necesarily, because Hussein and Hitler were dogged and persistant too and then make it all better by saying "oh, but I'm not comparing them". Yes, yes you are. Its a direct comparison, and the purpose is to draw parallels between the Wellstone's dogged determination and the two despots dogged determination, or else there's no reason to put them in the article, unless of course Hussein and Hitler are the only negative examples of dogged persistance in history. Its a bull**** hatchet job.

Come on. If you want to say Wellstone was idealistic, and persistant, but misguided, wouldn't you agree that there are far better comparisons to use than Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. I mean, we all know that guy who likes to piss into the wind, wouldn't he be a better analogy? As opposed to two authoritarian despots responsible for millions of deaths?

 

We all know that I support the Republicans...and I agree with every word in the quote I reproduced above.

The article was in poor taste...as was the pep rally...errrr...I mean memorial service.

 

I didn't know liberals had a problem with Hussein.