Lies about the Wellstone Memorial

Likely relevant this week, check out this Bob Somerby debunking of the shrill "Democrats politicized the Paul Wellstone memorial" attacks built on lies upon lies by people who obviously didn't watch the event.

Republicans were outraged -- outraged! -- that political discussions would seep into a memorial service. Well, they set the standards. It'll be our job to hold them to those standards.

•  neat

  very interesting article.

  and first.
  -tim

  by ezcheez on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:44:15 AM PDT

  •  Yes and no.

    Yes, it is an interesting article.  

    No, I don't give a rat's tail that you were first.

    by GOTV on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 01:01:14 PM PDT

•  Reagan and Wellstone as role models

  Both Reagan and Wellstone were marvelous representatives of their respective party's ideals.  And in both cases, the parties publicly lionized them while ignoring their ideals in practice.  And both have had their legacies insulted in death by bitter partisanship.  

  Honestly, i find the bitter sniping at Reagan here almost as offensive as the Republican sniping at Wellstone. The only saving grace is that at least here it's usually heartfelt, not just a crass political calculation.

  I may have disagreed with most of Reagan's views, and i'm more than a little surprised to have survived eight years of him without nuclear war.  But i can respect him as a person, at least. Forget trying to hold the GOP's feet to the fire about the funeral. He was a popular, two-term president who changed the political discourse in America, for better or worse.  He deserves a state funeral now, and let history judge him later.

  What's important here is to prevent sepia-toned memories of Reagan from aiding Bush's campaign... not because it's bad for our side politically, but BECAUSE BUSH IS NOT WORTHY OF REAGAN'S LEGACY.

  by Radical Middle on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:46:41 AM PDT

  •  I can't esteem his as a person.

    Because by the normal standards of personhood, he was a failure.

    His family life was a shambles, he committed adultery in his 1st marriage, his kids were screwed up, and after he left office, he made "speaking trips" that were thinly veiled shake downs for access to GHWB (remember the Japan talks?).

    By the standards of "traditional values", he was one of those decadent Hollywood types.

    Add to that his embrace of racism (talking states rights in Philadelphia, MS), and I have to say that he was a pretty bad, albeit likable, person

    by msaroff on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:52:59 AM PDT

  •  ..I actually think that this will hurt Bush

    ...more than help him or at least be a wash.  There is nothing here for him to link to...Reagan didnt have a war during his Presidency and that would have been the ideal link for Dubya to bond to.  They have nowhere near the same popularity at this point in Bush's presidency and Reagan's people have never been as incompetent as this guy's.  I know that they are staying awake nights trying to figure out how to make that link, but its a stretch and not a natural connection. Nancy Reagan actually opposed Bush's stem cell position and I don't think Bush has highlighted any ties to Reagan during his presidency particularly.  Its good for Bush only that it knocks Iraq and his other lowlights off the front page so I guess that it DOES give him a breather of sorts....

    by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:53:16 AM PDT

    •  What?

      Bush cut taxes, increased the deficit, sees good and evil around the world.  He is seen as stupid and un-intellectual.

      Sounds like Reagan.

      by KingGeorgetheLesser on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:55:59 AM PDT

  •  One thing to add..

    RMiddle--You have several valid points, but I would add another layer to this discussion.  It is fairly clear that Reagan sowed the initial seeds which have led to Bush2's ability to isolate our nation and use the "bully pulpit" of the Presidency on a global scale.

    It could certainly be argued that other US presidents, such as either of the Roosevelts, or Truman, used his position on the world stage as a means of forcing the American position on the rest of the world, but long before Bush2's unilateral aggression strategy, no one better exemplified the desire to push the US so far out ahead of other nations than did Reagan.  

    Reagan's use of military force, at times against the designs and orders of Congress, was wildly reckless.  But thanks in large part to the combined isolation and self-destruction of Russia, Reagan's foreign policy decisions were, at a minimum, relatively successful.  And this is coming from someone (me) who disagreed strongly with practically all of Reagan's domestic policies.  Regardless of where things now stand, Reagan certainly changed the "standings" in the global competition to be a world power.  

    However, by eliminating any real competition, Reagan magnified the ability of a President to abuse his power, especially in regards to foreign policy.  Likely the single most important event during Reagan's presidency was the crumbling of the Soviets.  However, as is seen in other large and small scale situations, the resulting power vaccum had to pull in someone.  Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the US was the only nation able to fill that vaccum, thus increasing our economic, militaristic, and diplomatic powers exponentially.  Rather than expending tremendous resources in an escalating competition with a comparable world power, we found ourselves quite alone at the top.  And thus, more than 15 years after the fall of our only rival, we now fill the role of two superpowers, not one.

    Now, coming back to Bush, the US has demonstrated its ability to use the combined global influence of the two cold-war powers in ways considered taboo only a handful of years ago.  Reagan at least tried to conduct his illegal war by hiding it from Congress.  Bush, with his powerful position intact thanks to Reagan, simply lied to Congress, and shrugs off any suggestion of power-mongering or abuse.

    With the success of Reagan in defeating our only serious rival, the US had an opportunity to change the world stage for the better, but unfortunately, we never took advantage.  Instead, we let the situation fester, possibly correctly, in an attempt to inverene in Northern Ireland, Israel, and Bosnia without serious concern to the vacant position formerly filled by the USSR.  In our naivety, we allowed our own power to grow like interest from a CD.  

    That CD matured during Bush2's term, and rather than reinvesting what we gained back into peacekeeping and multilateral activities, GW cashed it in, and bought the US a completely different position in the world arena.

    Rather than being the respected and somewhat feared sole superpower in the world, GW transformed our nation into a belligerent sarcastic bully, practically begging to be punched.  

    Reagan was likely proud to see the US in a position where the President could so liberally make use of our nation's military and economic supremecy for pursuing the goals of the Executive Branch.  

    by islanddave on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:24:18 AM PDT

    •  How the hell

      can you credit Reagan's foreign policy at all?

      He funded Islamic radicals in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including those who were foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia and would later form al-Qaeda.

      He funded Saddam Hussein while Saddam was gassing Kurds and Iranians.

      He gave arms to Iran when it was funding terrorism and the kidnapping of Americans.

      He funded death squads and terrorist armies throughout Latin America, vastly increasing the death toll in civil conflicts there.

      He delayed the end of the Cold War by his foolish loyalty to SDI.

      He fiddled while HIV/AIDS spread, leading to devastation in Africa and throughout much of the Third World.

      He presided over a period when CIA employees of Nicaraguan nationality were setting up one of the nation's largest cocaine rings, with the epicenter in LA.

      He subverted the will of Congress and allowed the creation of a corrupt shadow government that pursued many of the above policies illegally.

      He alienated our West German allies by forcing them to choose between allegiance to America's warmongering or their own desire to get rid of medium range nuclear missiles that made them huge targets and pawns in nuclear brinksmanship.

      His delay of the end of the Cold War led to an unstable post-Soviet reality that has done more to increase proliferation than just about anything else.

      In every way, Reagan's foreign policy set the stage for the lunacy which has followed, including Bush's preemptive policy.

      Reagan's foreign policy was a miserable failure. I'd say good riddance, but his spirit lives on in the mess we have to deal with today.

      by seaprog on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:49:58 AM PDT

      •  I'm not endorsing his successes...

        Don't misunderstand my post (or is that misunderestimate?).  I never endorsed or applauded any of Reagan's foreign policy decisions.

        Wouldn't you agree that for any president, no matter what agenda or objectives, who is able to achieve many of his desired goals, his leadership would be deemed successful?

        I was not saying that what Reagan prioritized in his foreign policy was good for America, but it did achieve the desired shift of power further up the hierarchy, allowing the Executive Branch more leverage in international relations.  This also developed an internal, almost sub-conscious  desire by the neo-cons for the return of empire.  For such a grand foreign policy directive, Reagan was successful.

        You stated:
        His delay of the end of the Cold War led to an unstable post-Soviet reality that has done more to increase proliferation than just about anything else.

        In every way, Reagan's foreign policy set the stage for the lunacy which has followed, including Bush's preemptive policy.

        This is the exact point I was making.  In his foreign policy success (that is, his own policy, not what is best for the US) Reagan was able to create conditions which were extremely receptive towards GW's reckless pursuit of the 21st Century's version of "Manifest Destiny."  By desolving the dangerous balance of M.A.D., Reagan allowed Bush1 and Clinton opportunities to fill the USSR vacancy.  The vaccum was not filled until GW and his aggressive foreign policy agenda exploited the situation.

        by islanddave on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:31:25 PM PDT

  •  Thank you.

    While I'm ambivalent in my respect for him as a person (I was too young to remember his presidency), I think it's important that we respect the office that he held, and agree that some of the sniping here has turned my stomach a bit.

    by niku on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:12:00 PM PDT

•  Why do they hate America?

  I'm shocked.  The idea that they would politicize a tragic death like this . . . I can't wait to hear Peggy Noonan stand up and condemn this shamelessness by writing in the voice of the recently deceased.

  by Trapper John on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:47:13 AM PDT

  •  Noonan

    I think she is requesting to be buried with him. We would lose a "wonderful" writer, but gain some great fertilizer.

    by Chi Bob on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:23:30 AM PDT

    •  Like the Egyptian Pharoahs?

      The old Pharoahs used to have their pets buried with them.  Make sense that Peggy would be mummified along with the Gip.
      

      by islanddave on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:27:09 AM PDT

•  Honoring the Great Communicator

  Many employers are being forced to make a decision about how to properly honor President Reagan on Friday, the official day of mourning. Instead of giving employees the day off, we're requiring everyone to come to work, but encouraging them to take a long nap. We're calling it Deadtime for Bonzo.

  by Aeolus on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:48:01 AM PDT

•  Pay close attention

  ...and remember those letters to the editors and calls to talk shows at the first instance of any politicizing of Reagan's memorial.

  Kos is right...they set the standard for the outrage over memorials, now they have to follow it.

  by Jeff Seemann on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:48:15 AM PDT

•  "Holding to standards"

  The 'problem' is that Democrats will maintain a sense of decency for a dead man and his friends and family.  

  The right-wing hacks that pushed the Wellstone 'scandal' have no similar decency.  

  Even when the inevitable politicization occurs Democrats will look for the obvious lies but no mainstream liberal is going to stand up and tell the mourning how to greive.

  by Preston on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:48:45 AM PDT

  •  Be careful

    The 'problem' is that Democrats will maintain a sense of decency for a dead man and his friends and family.

    Really?  Unfortunately, there has been a lot of indecency about Reagan on this site and elsewhere.  I wish it would stop because I think it really helps the other side.  

    Respectful silence for the next week or so and then back to business.  Getting caught up in this demeans us, as much as them.

    by KingGeorgetheLesser on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:52:11 AM PDT

    •  I said 'mainstream Democrats'

      Reading a blog from anonymous writers is slightly different from party leaders and liberal commentators mocking Reagan's death.  (the way that the GOP and conservative hacks politicized the Wellstone memorial).  

      I wonder if anything distasteful was said on the Free Republic after Wellstone died.

      by Preston on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:59:10 AM PDT

      •  There are distasteful things said

        everyday on FreeRepublic.  But that is not our problem.

        by KingGeorgetheLesser on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:01:38 AM PDT

    •  I disagree

      I've seen much scorn towards the Reagan administration on this site but very few personal attacks. On the other side, I've seen revisionist history and considering this death is such a public event, we would be folly to allow the disinformation to flow unchallenged.

      Even those that have experienced person losses (from aids) have not, for the most part, attacked the man or his family, but rather Reagan's policies. Democracynow.org has an hour long special on Reagan today and it's very interesting. You may want to tune in.

      by banjon on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:25:47 AM PDT

  •  exactly

    If there's one worrying trend i see in the Democrats these days, it's an increasing willingness to lower ourselves to their level.

    by Radical Middle on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:52:56 AM PDT

    •  Ripping the Gipper

      Come on, now. Let's not hold our peace. Reagan did some horrible, horrible shit. He demonized the poor (remember welfare mommas eating lobster in their Cadillacs?), minorities (see welfare mommas, not to mention his "state's rights" remarks in Philadelphia, MS), gays (radio silence on AIDS, except for cackling at Bob Hope's joke that the Statue of Liberty didn't know if she got AIDS from the mouth of the Hudson or the Staten Island fairy).

      When he fired the air traffic controllers, he signaled to industry that the social compact between business and labor was over. We in the cities and towns of the Rust Belt suffered mightily. He deified greed. He led the mean-spirited class war on the poor.

      And let's not get started on foreign policy, eh? In addition to courting nuclear war, he saw to it that tens of thousands of innocents in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, etc., got gunned down by rightwing death squads in the name of anticommunism. He coddled dozens of bloody dictators, from Duarte to Mobutu to Saddam. He gave Osama his first big break and fostered the growth of the mujahadeen. We are enjoying the fruits of those policies, not to mention his voodoo economics, today.

      Few words could be too unkind for him in my book. I don't expect to hear them out of the mouths of party principles, but we down here at the grassroots should never forget that man's true legacy, and we should not shrink from correcting the gauzy mythology the media and their GOP puppetmasters are weaving, however unpleasant the truths we might speak.  

      by Septic Tank on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:43:47 AM PDT

    •  Screw that.

      Just like a liberal, bring a knife to a gun fight.

      These folks want to destroy everything that makes America special.  We need to play by THEIR rules.

      by msaroff on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:01:16 PM PDT

•  Nice article and it

   makes Conway look bad, but it doesn't change the fact that the memorial was very rude to the Repubs who attended.  If the same thing happens on Friday, then the GOP will pay a very heavy price.

  by KingGeorgetheLesser on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:48:53 AM PDT

  •  asdf

    the memorial was very rude to the Repubs who attended

    Not from what I here.

    by Preston on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:50:04 AM PDT

    •  'hear'

      by Preston on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:52:29 AM PDT

      •  Oh God, Please Be Less Responsible

        Preston, please don't raise the bar so high by correcting your spelling or replacing inaccurately used homonyms.  If I have to be that concientious, I'll be submitting three times the number of comments I already post.  

        by DHinMI on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:06:04 AM PDT

    •  I saw it on C-SPAN

      Are you saying that the crowd did not boo Lott when he came on the screen?

      If you did not watch it, I am sure some repub has it cached, check it out before you comment.

      by KingGeorgetheLesser on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:53:44 AM PDT

      •  thanks for the advice.

        by Preston on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:01:22 AM PDT

      •  Boo-hoo

        The booing incident you refer to was before any activities had started. The cameras were showing various dignitaries and politicians on the screen and people in the crowd of 20,000 began to cheer as various images flashed. By the time Trent Lott's image appeared there was already a spontaneous momentum to react to each new face. That only a handful (not a "crowd" as you casually state) mockingly booed while thousands were cheering previously is telling. That Lott was shown on the monitor laughing it off (he, to his credit, understood the context surrounding the booing) and then later said it wasn't a big deal should be even more telling.

        Now do you remember when Hillary Clinton was loudly booed when she was at the 9/11 memorial? IIRC Rush had one of the instigators on his show the next day. But of course nobody remembers how Republicans treated Hillary at a non-partisan memorial for 3,000 Americans killed but everybody remembers how poor pooooor Trent Lott was treated by a small handful in a crowd of 20,000 grieving partisans.

        Maybe you should check out what really happened, not what the GOP snipers say happened, before you comment.

        by Thumb on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:40:39 AM PDT

        •  Wait a second

          who says that the people at the NYC memorial were GOPers?  They were , in fact, police officers who have never had a soft spot for liberal women, but I would bet that many of them voted for her husband.

          Lott was booed.  He should not have been.  End of story.

          If you can't understand that, not my problem.

          by KingGeorgetheLesser on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:44:27 AM PDT

        •  Like a sports event...

          Right, the Lott booing was much like you would see during any "get-together" where opposing sides appear side-by-side.  For example, if the MLB All-Star game is held in Boston, you better believe that any Yankees will get a smattering (if not more) of boos.  Lott understood this, and despite his mindless stupidity, did not make an issue out of it.  

          by islanddave on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:55:37 AM PDT

        •  correction

          "3,000 Americans killed"   It was the world trade center and thus housed foreign nationals from just about every nation in the world. Not only Americans died on 9/11 although all of the emergency responders were probably Americans.

          by banjon on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:42:44 AM PDT

          •  Yes

            You are correct. I should have used the more generic "thousands."

            by Thumb on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:52:23 AM PDT

      •  That's right

        I'm saying the crowd did not boo Trent Lott, although a dozen or so individuals in a crowd of thousands did.  There was also  a speech by one individual with more zeal than sense, which pushed the envelope on propriety, but which was not representative of the service as a whole.  

        Al Franken has a pretty thorough chapter on the event in L&tLLWTT. Calling the Wellstone Memorial a display of partisan tastelessness is like calling Woodstock a Sha-Na-Na concert.

        I say the Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and Tip O'Neill clans show up in force to pay their respects. Any resulting comments from Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity  reflect the manners and courtesy of the Republican Party at its very most solemn. They set the standard after all.

        by AdmiralNaismith on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:31:54 PM PDT

•  Unintended Consequence

  I saw Schnieder on CNN the other day, and I just about choked when he said that the Republicans needed to be careful abut not overly politicizing Reagan's death, because Reagan belonged to all Americans.  They even showed a brief clip of the Wellstone memorial, which by doing they reinforced the misperceptioin that it was out of line, but I interpreted his intent as being a warning to the Repubs that people would be watching to make sure the Repubs don't try to have it both ways, by trying to pull off with Reagan's death what they accused the Dems of doing at the Wellstone memorial.  

  I don't know if that sentiment is widespread, but Schneider isn't one I would expect to view things as critically with an awareness of that thing involving the goose and the gander.  

  It made me think of the landing on the aircraft carrier; something that at the time seemed like a good idea to Rove et al, but something you can only do once.  That was the whole point of the Dems' investigation into the cost to the taxpayer of Bush's ship landing, making it clear that they better not try to use the footage in any commercials (which they wouldn't do now anyway, but that's beside my point).  What they did with the Wellstone memorial worked once, but if the press is anything other than somnolent--and they have been a little bolder in criticizing the administration over the last 3-5 months--the Repubs will have a hard time exploiting this in a really brazen way.

  But then again, maybe they'll just let Cheney speak...which, come to think about it, from our perspective would probably be the best thing they could do.

  by DHinMI on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:51:06 AM PDT

•  embarassment

  the memorial was an embarassment and it's a little scary Democrats have not learned from it. the senate would be tied now if Rick Kahn and Wellstone's sons had not politicized it. it was politically stupid.

  i watched the whole damn thing. and i had to turn on the mute button when Rick Kahn made his pathetic plea to the GOP to help Wellstone win, even though i genuinely empathized with his grief and pain. i threw shoes at the tv screen when Wellstone's son started chanting "WE WILL WIN! WE WILL WIN!" and i buried my head in my hands, because i knew if a partisan Dem like myself was turned off by the event, we were dead for the election. i don't blame Ventura for walking out or the voters of Minnesota for  being offended. why couldn't they have kept their mouths shut, said nice things about wellstone and let the sympathy vote carry mondale to office?

  thank goodness that Tom Harkin's final speech was full of grace and humanity. i cried all the awy through it.

  cmon guys. the GOP may have gone overboard in condemning the memorial, but we were the ones who played into their hands and we paid the price for it at the polls. let's try to learn from it.

  by ihlin on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:56:22 AM PDT

  •  hmm

    at worst, the friends and families who were obviously in the midst of an intense grieving period and dealing with a horrible blow, a state of shock i felt and that i can only imagine how it was for his loved ones, walked into a trap laid by the national GOP, the state GOP, and hell, Jesse Ventura (wellstone enemy #1)...

    I was there, in the stands, and sure, Lott got booed but the emotion was there, the feeling of comradery in the bleachers was tremendous, and when basically the anti-wellstone walks into that kind of setting, what could he expect? fox news and all the media were primed by the republicans to be on the watch for politicization, and unforunately, they got plenty of juicy red meat.

    but how can you eulogize and celebrate an intensely political man without being political? wellstone was passionate to a fault, and the same could be said of his friends, his family, and his many, many supporters... the memorial was a celebration of that passion and the republicans jumped all over it, using his death and the memorial for a hell of a lot more political gain than any DFLer intended to.

    by Greg on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:04:30 AM PDT

    •  MN voters

      well, credit the GOP for convincing the voters then. that memorial turned off more than just hardcore GOP folks. Ventura is a man of principle (even if i don't like him) and when he started to condemn the service, you have to listen.

      if Reagan's son at his memorial starts leading a chant of "BUSH WILL WIN! BUSH WILL WIN!" while being televised nationally, i wonder if Democrats would feel that was somehow ok, in the name of "political passion".

      by ihlin on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:18:55 AM PDT

      •  manipulation

        well, credit the GOP for convincing the voters then.

        I will sure give the GOP that credit... and I would hope that the democrats will respond similarly if there's any shenanigans this week regarding Reagan. the GOP-base certainly would have been disgusted at Wellstone's memorial, but the independents were deeply affected by the media's junkyard dog followup and the hullabaloo that followed between the memorial and the election. I believe Ventura walked out of the memorial?

        man of principle my ass. greedy motherfucker through and through. at that point in his career he was pretty unpopular in the state and more than anything was probably having a hard time not being the center of attention and his deceased arch-enemy getting such a rousing and loving eulogy.

        if Reagan's son at his memorial starts leading a chant of "BUSH WILL WIN! BUSH WILL WIN!" while being televised nationally, i wonder if Democrats would feel that was somehow ok, in the name of "political passion".

        oh, I'm sure nothing that extreme will happen. the success of the republican brainwashing of america since the days of reagan has been built on a very "unsubtle subtlety." and besides, bush is no wellstone, and that kind of passion would be completely out of place. having met wellstone, seen him give his stump speeches a few times, all that, the impassioned speeches at his memorial were an appropriate way to honor him.

        the best analogy would be for reagan's son to say "i don't remember my dad very well" and "george bush are the bestest prez that was ever prezident in the united state of america"...

        by Greg on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:29:32 AM PDT

      •  Considering the source

        I have to say you're full of shit. You're the same poster that had this to say about Bowling for Columbine:

        that's interesting, since after i saw Bowling for Columbine, i became much more symphathetic to gun rights (if not the NRA)

        In another recent post you also said:

        sometimes conservatives can be right. sometimes liberals are wrong.

        i try to look at things from all points of view, which is why i do not blindly follow the Dems or the GOP. i'm sure i am like most americans who are sick of the partisanship, the two party system and think they're all corrupt. i never considered myself a Democrat. i voted for McCain and then Nader in 2000.

        But now when the topic gives you a chance to repeat GOP spin regarding the Wellstone memorial you're suddenly a partisan, as quoted in your above post:

        and i buried my head in my hands, because i knew if a partisan Dem like myself was turned off by the event . . .

        How can I best put this . . .

        Fuck you.

        And don't even get me started on Ventura (who I actually voted for). He was open about his hatred for Wellstone and only a couple months prior had answered a reporter's question about whether or not he would ever run for public office by basically replying "No, unless it was to unseat Paul Wellstone." So then Venture shows up at the memorial and throws what was, for him, one of his biggest baby fits and the press, for the first time in six months, covers something he has to say.

        So, if there's room left, shove that up your ass too.

        And please, get off my side. There's already too many Moonies writing in to the papers opening with "I've always been a loyal Democrat, but . . ."

        by Thumb on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:11:36 AM PDT

        •  I'm with you, Thumb

          I went to the memorial, but ended up in the arena next door.  The friend I went with that evening called the night "cathartic."  

          The thing that gets me is that people were expecting a somber, sad event.  Most of those of us there went because we shared a common vision with Paul.  We'd been crying for days.  Hell, a few months after that, when describing the event to a friend here in Boston, I started crying again.  That was one of the lowest moments in my adult life.

          We NEEDED something to get us up for the coming election.  

          Representative Ramstad showed grace when he called for people to back off Rick Kahn, telling the press that this was obviously a person in deep pain and grief, and that he should be granted a bit of space.  He's the ONLY Republican that had any class in that period.

          by MAJeff on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:20:56 AM PDT

        •  that makes three of us

          I suppose next we'll be talking about how the T.V. screens were telling the audience when to applaud.

          as one who was there, all I can remember is how the idea that this might have repricussions was the furthest thing.  it was called passion, intense emotion, GRIEF, sadness, anger... an idol, a HERO, had fallen at a critical juncture and here we were, in that arena, making our voices loud and clear because one who had spoken for so many of us was silenced.

          Thumb, couldn't have said it better myself. for the rest of my life, there'll be plenty of people, dems and repubs alike, who will be trying to tell me how "angry" that memorial service made them, how they felt used and how obviously the people there and the people who spoke and organized the event actuallyd didn't love paul wellstone because they just wanted to use his memorial (this was NOT his funeral, mind you) for political purposes.

          norm coleman called john ashscroft the day wellstone died and asked that fascist what he had done wrong when his opponent (mel carnahan) had died in a plane crash shortly before the election two years before and ashcroft said that he'd been too quiet, that coleman had to get out there and stay in the public eye, but in a very mournful way.

          so that's what coleman did, got all somber in front of the cameras talking about his respect (HA!!) for wellstone and how he would be missed and all that, so the state saw his PR move and thought, 'geez, that's how you mourn' and voted for him, that shithead, over the great statesman walter mondale and the attack dogs jumped on grieving people and stole the election and the senate seat through lies, manipulation and... BULLSHIT.

          by Greg on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:48:55 AM PDT

          •  ideology

            well, at least my posts get read. I consider myself a proud, progressive populist in the tradition of Wellstone. Sadly, the Democratic party seems to have abandoned those principles, which is why i don't consider myself a blind follower of the party and why i considered Nader closer to that populist instinct, and given Al Gore's crappy campaign, felt no need to vote for him in 2000. now i'm a partisan Dem just because the Bush fascists have to go and i'm a partisan Dem for anyone with a sincere populist vision (Harkin, Durbin, Kaptor). i am not a partisan Dem for DLC-sellouts (thus, i voted against Feinstein the last time).  

            Thumb, couldn't have said it better myself. for the rest of my life, there'll be plenty of people, dems and repubs alike, who will be trying to tell me how "angry" that memorial service made them, how they felt used and how obviously the people there and the people who spoke and organized the event actuallyd didn't love paul wellstone because they just wanted to use his memorial (this was NOT his funeral, mind you) for political purposes.

            i have a great deal of respect for all the presenters. i felt terrible for Rick Kahn in the following days when he got trashed. i understood what he was saying came out of genuine grief and trauma. everyoen in that arena was there because they loved Wellstone. nonetheless, for his son to go on stage and start shouting "WE WILL WIN!" left a bad taste in my mouth, and to keep on blaming the GOP for exploiting that fact doesn't help anyone. if the shoe had been on the other foot, and a GOP senator's son had done the same thing, people here would have been up in arms.

            by ihlin on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:55:49 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    Well said ihlin.
    

    by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:12:00 AM PDT

    •  ihlin is a

      duplicitous liar, and you rated me a troll for pointing that fact out using ihlin's own posted words. Spare us your future speeches on integrity.

      by Thumb on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:00:27 PM PDT

  •  my opinion

    In my opinion a memorial service for a politician should be an event where you would not be out of place if you disagreed with the politician but respected them.  I didn't agree with Wellstone on much but I tuned in because I respected him and I just got a scene that I was not expecting at all.  Maybe thats the memorial that Wellstone would have wanted but it just wasn't what I expected to see.  I know that if I got the memorial service that I want many people would be offended by how unseriously everyone would be taking it but thats simply my preference and it is very possible that Wellstone was the same way.  But I would hope that people on here who didn't agree with Reagan but respect him would be able to tune in to his memorial service without feeling alienated.  

    by Damon on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:20:12 AM PDT

    •  i'm sure i'll feel alienated

      because there will be a lot of people talking about how great of a man he was and i simply can't relate with that sentiment.

      by Greg on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:51:28 AM PDT

      •  fine

        The difference is that you don't respect Reagan and you do not want to see him honored by a memorial service.  I disagreed with Wellstone but did want to see him honored by a memorial service, the memorial service just didn't allow room for that.  To me you need to be able to disagree with someone on the facts and understand they are still worthy of respect.  If you cannot separate your feelings for the person's argument from your thoughts of the person then I think it cheapens your own ideas.  To me that is the line that means your ideas cannot stand on their own and you need a person to attack.  If your ideas are strong enough, there is no need to resort to personal attacks.  

        by Damon on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:22:48 PM PDT

        •  fine

          
          If you cannot separate your feelings for the person's argument from your thoughts of the person then I think it cheapens your own ideas.  To me that is the line that means your ideas cannot stand on their own and you need a person to attack.  If your ideas are strong enough, there is no need to resort to personal attacks.
          

          
          I'm not resorting to personal attacks, nor will I admit having much respect for Reagan. I don't want to dance on his grave or any of that, but you really oversimplify the issue here.

          Yes I disagreed with Reagan's ideas, but more importantly, I disagreed with and was offended by his actions, his impact on the world. And if, as humans, we are not defined by the combination of our ideas and our actions, I don't know what does define us. The Reagan I did not respect was the Reagan that did so many bad things.

          So yes, I will feel free to attack him, not just his ideas, because if his ideas stayed in his head there would be any problems, but it was when he acted upon them and hurt so many people that he left his personal mark on history.

          by Greg on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 06:35:07 AM PDT

      •  I'll feel alienated

        Because they will be urging Americans to go out and "disembowell a liberal for the Gipper!"

        by AdmiralNaismith on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:44:05 PM PDT

  •  Was Tom Harkin there? Did he say something?

    Funny, the media coverage seems to have omitted anything he said.

    In fact, I'm sure FOX told me that Rick Kahn was the only speaker, and that for some reason he made the same speech several times over. I think the implication was that no one else wanted to take the podium 'cause they were too busy booing Trent Lott and having gay sex in front of the bier.

    by AdmiralNaismith on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:37:19 PM PDT

    •  Harkin

      He was indeed and his speech was indeed the finest words there... certainly would have been nice if everybody had had the same tone, but no two friends of Wellstone were the same and it would have been pretty boring if they had.

      but yes, Harkin and Wellstone were very close and I remember being very moved by his words.

      by Greg on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 01:56:40 PM PDT

•  Rise above.... unlike, say Murdoch.

  Kerry hit the right note.  Point out a couple of things that were good about Ronald, and say "isn't that what a President should be?".  Since you have picked positive attributes, you will have picked attributes that BushII does not possess.  Works for anything a moderate leftist might find to like in the man:

  i) Charm
  ii) Wit
  iii) Ability to form rapport with American people
  iv) Enthusiasm for debate
  v) Optimistic disposition
  vi) Strong leadership
  vii) Deceived Congress and the People to run legally questionable war bourne of untempered personal conviction.

  Ok, maybe scratch (vii), but you get my point.

  Incidentally, todays London Times has an article on Kerry's reaction to his death, accusing him of announcing a moritorium on political attacks relating to RR, then being unable to 'resist trying to gain advantage at his rival'.

  Opening paragraph: "Ronald Reagan's death has prompted a frenzied effort by Democratic political opponents to turn the passing of a conservative saint in the middle of a presidential election campaign to their advantage.
  John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, was quick to tap into the yadda yadda yadda...."

  Who would have thought it, from a paper owned by Robert Murdoch?.... oh, wait a second.
  

  by BleedingKnuckleLiberal on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:58:48 AM PDT

•  Laffer curve?

  Was anyone just watching CNBC with Aruther Laffer as a guest?  I guess the debate is over, Reganonimcs worked.  Sure there were skeptics back in the 80's but surprise, surprise, they were all proven wrong because our glorious host of power lunch declares, "It worked!"  Oh and that crippling national debt was not a "chink in the armor," just part of the plan that worked how it should.  "Everybody knows that."  Let the history re-write begin.

  by jasonwhat on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:59:00 AM PDT

•  Also, over at Atrios

  There's a link to a daily howler report about Margaret Carlson's outrage about the Wellstone memorial...

  by bunny on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 09:59:20 AM PDT

•  W could not hold Reagan's....undergarments

  In Reagan's final speech in which he parted from public view altogether, he professed "I have always tried to appeal to your greatest hopes and not your darkest fears."

  Does anybody think Bush does anything but play on our darkest fears 24/7?

  Even if you think Reagan was evil and did effectively play on some fears, he at least said this point the right way - Bush can't even do that and must harp on darkness to coo the public as best he can.

  This is a clear demonstration of weakness that Bush has and Reagan didn't.  

  Therefore, W can't hold the man's jock for this very reason.  

  Impeach Cheney now.

  by Tug on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:02:28 AM PDT

•  With all due respect

  I watched the Wellstone memorial on television, and regardless of the motives of the critics...  The Wellstone memorial did turn political, the Republicans and Independents there were booed and treated with disrespect.  It was flat out disgusting, and I had to turn off the television during Rick Kahn's speach.  It was not what Wellstone would have wanted.  His gift was optimism and friendliness, not hatred towards the opposition.  Similar qualities as what Reagan had.

  Admittedly, it was not the plan of the Wellstone family to have a political memorial.  That was something that just happened due to the environment.  Perhaps the great mistake was in holding that public memorial just days before the election.  Especially as it was televised.  They should have had a private ceremony for the family, and held the public memorial after the election to forestall any problems.  

  I don't think the Republicans set any standard which was unreasonable, and yes I do believe they should be held to the same with Reagan.

  I'm extremely disappointed at how Reagan's legacy is misunderstood(by both left and right), and the TV coverage is already getting nauseating.  But let's not compound the lies by being unwilling to admit that "mistakes were made" at the Wellstone memorial.
  

  by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:09:10 AM PDT

  •  With all due respect

    You're full of shit.

    The Wellstone memorial did turn political, the Republicans and Independents there were booed and treated with disrespect.

    As has been pointed out above, the "booing" was well before the event started, not during as your post implies, and the Republican booed was antithetical to Wellstone's visions of fairness, equality and a voice for the underrepresented (Trent Lott) and the "Independent" that you feel so badly about being disrespected was Venture who was long before the memorial openly hostile to "That little prick" [Wellstone].

    They should have had a private ceremony for the family, and held the public memorial after the election to forestall any problems.  

    1) They did hold a private ceremony for the family and 2) putting the memorial on hold for two weeks because of the election would have created more problems than the "problem" of friends and family bringing politics into a memorial for an outspoken politician.

    I don't think the Republicans set any standard which was unreasonable, and yes I do believe they should be held to the same with Reagan.

    Yes they did and no they won't.

    by Thumb on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:29:12 AM PDT

    •  It's amazing

      That you deny this happened, and then in the same breath say "Well they deserved it anyway."

      Which is it?
      

      by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:37:52 AM PDT

      •  learn to read

        I never said it didn't happen, I said it happened before the event started. I also didn't say "Well they deserved it anyway" (learn how to use quotes). I explained how some people might have been compelled to react that way to those two individuals.

        But you knew that and still chose to spin it as something it wasn't in a weak attempt to make a point that's not there, just like you're doing to the Wellstone Memorial.
        

        by Thumb on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:07:11 PM PDT

        •  Two things

          "I never said it didn't happen, I said it happened before the event started. "

          Rick Kahn's speech was televised.

          "I explained how some people might have been compelled to react that way to those two individuals."

          Lame excuse, but as someone else noted this could have been countered with better event planning.

          "But you knew that and still chose to spin it as something it wasn't in a weak attempt to make a point that's not there, just like you're doing to the Wellstone Memorial."

          I didn't have to spin anything.  That's the way it was... I watched the damn thing unfold on television and had to put up a defense the fucking next morning with my coworkers.

          Quit making excuses for people who behave poorly.
          

          by Steve4Clark on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 03:18:41 PM PDT

          •  Still suffering reading comprehension problems?

            "I never said it didn't happen, I said it happened before the event started. "
            Rick Kahn's speech was televised.

            You said: "The Wellstone memorial did turn political, the Republicans and Independents there were booed and treated with disrespect."

            There was no booing or disrespect during Kahn's speech. But I agree it turned political BECAUSE WELLSTONE WAS ONE OF THE MOST OUTSPOKEN POLITICIANS OF OUR TIME! Maybe that could have been "countered" by insisting the speakers limit themselves to funny stories about the days Paul was a wrestling coach or the time he burnt the toast or dented the car. Yeah, just tell them to wipe those tears out of their eyes and not say anything that the republicans might react badly to. Good plan. Let's see if the Repubs stick to that this Friday now that it's their turn.

            I didn't have to spin anything.  That's the way it was... I watched the damn thing unfold on television and had to put up a defense the fucking next morning with my coworkers.

            Quit making excuses for people who behave poorly.

            No, it's not the way it was, it's the way partisans, and their enablers, wanted to spin it. It was your co-workers who were behaving poorly. Probably egged on by every AM disc-jockey and morning drive time team in the country (and I'm looking at Tom Barnard specifically, another outspoken antagonist of Wellstone's who felt free to besmirch the memorial). Also a group that makes it's living by behaving poorly. They, aided by the SCLM, made it "cool" to criticize the memorial, just as they've made it "cool" to ridicule all things liberal (which, not coincidentally, Wellstone represented to them). Only the most boorish of people (or partisans, or both) are going to criticize the emotions of grieving eulogizers for their "appropriateness" relative to their antagonists.
            

            by Thumb on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:32:42 PM PDT

    •  Hey

      Is it necessary to say to one commenter "Fuck you" and to another that he's full of shit?  

      Also, if you're criticizing him for not knowing that somebody (you) already said that the booing occurred before the event started, you might want to look at the time stamps of your respective comments.  The one you just responded to was written prior to your post stating that the booing occured before the event began.

      by DHinMI on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:44:10 AM PDT

      •   [. . . six . . . seven . . . eight . . .]

        How do you define necessary?

        Okay, I'm still being snarky. Sorry.

        You can probably look through my last 100+ posts and not find language like that from me in any of them. One of my biggest peeves however is someone posing as a Democrat when they're self-admittedly NOT (as pointed out in the "Fuck you" post). That is an old Moonie tactic that too often goes on today. Now combine that with my base reaction to want to reach out and throttle someone when they use that kind if false partisan dishonesty to put a spin on a MEMORIAL SERVICE for a politician who was one of a very few who was ACTUALLY FIGHTING FOR the average person and WELL I JUST . . . I . . . I . . .

        [One . . . two . . . three . . . four . . . blue skys . . . calm water . . . seven . . . eight . . .]

        And I wasn't criticizing him for not knowing that it had been pointed out about the booing occurring before the event by others (I didn't look at the time stamp), I was just making reference to it rather than post it again so soon after posting it the first time.

        But after my "liberal" use of language I can see where it looked as though I was being rude there too.

        Sorry to those I may have offended (and "you're welcome" to those who wanted to say it but are too polite).

        by Thumb on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:25:05 PM PDT

        •  Thanks

          I've tracked duplicity across comments, and I've even ratted out somebody who got banned under one moniker and came back under a new name.  It pisses me off when somebody pulls stunts like that.

          But thanks for recognizing how the language might have looked over the top.  

          by DHinMI on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:33:09 PM PDT

  •  Um

    "Wellstone's gift was optimism and friendliness, not hatred towards the opposition."

    Now, that's the truth.  Too bad it was a one-sided friendliness and absence of hatred.

    I'm glad you intend to hold Reagan to the same standard. I'll be watching for your reaction when they say, "But his work remains unfinished: Killkillkillkillkill...."

    by AdmiralNaismith on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:50:24 PM PDT

  •  Could someone make a list of speakers booed?

    With all of the partisanship going on, and the abismal tone of politics in recent years, it would be an amazingly easy and nice gesture to send some of the people who were boo'd an apology from democrats who feel that this type of reaction was completely inappropriate. I know I would send one, I wasn't there, and I haven't seen it on tv, but if anyone has a list of some of the people who were boo'd I would encourage you to post it.

    by niku on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:18:28 PM PDT

    •  Apologies were sent

      And sent. And sent. Immediately after and for a week Democrats were apologizing. In fact it was how quick the Democrats were to apologize that only fed the Republican's (and DINOs) self-righteousness. They then used this as an admission that something worse than Trent Lott getting booed by eight people out of 20,000 had happened when it hadn't. Maybe if the Democrats had come out and instead taken a "how dare YOU" attitude, like the Republicans would no doubt have, things might have turned out differently.

      But no. Thank You Sir May I Have Another is all to common among the Democratic faithful. And that's another problem the Dems seriously better learn to solve if they want to gain any majorities over the Republicans: Stop with the Battered Wife Syndrome. Enough with the "I got hit but deserved it" BS.

      Bringing a knife to a gun fight doesn't work. Bringing a bazooka, however, might do the trick.

      by Thumb on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 04:45:06 PM PDT

•  A huge difference between Wellstone and Reagan

  At least, in terms of their memorials: there was no way Paul Wellstone's son was going to go on national TV and criticize the Democratic Party or Clinton.

  Reagan's son has already drawn the distinction between his father and BushCo. And it wasn't a flattering portrayal of BushCo. Add Nancy Reagan's call for lifting the stem cell ban. I seriously doubt that Reagan's family are going to be troopers for the GOP on this, unless the GOP stays very respectful and avoids politicizing things.

  If they don't, I don't think it would be beyond the pale for the Reagan family to publically laud Kerry and diss Bush.

  by Bill Rehm on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:25:46 AM PDT

  •  They can't resist...

    As we have seen with 9-11, the war in Iraq, and many other instances, Bush and his campaign team will use Reagan's death in a political manner.  Rove has shown that his political strategy is fairly simply:  Everything is political.

    Don't be surprised to see Team GW find a way to squeak in a Reagan speech or Reagan quote into a commercial or two, trying to solidify the shaky support of traditional conservatives who idolize the Gipper.

    by islanddave on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:36:05 AM PDT

    •  The Convention will pay Reagan homage to

      great effect.  But they are in their rights to do that.

      kerry has to play the hand he was delat.  If JFK 2.0 stood for something, these events would have little effect.  But, as it is, Kerry is depnding on the gusts to bring his ship home, rather than setting the sails in the right direction.

      Fatal error, as far as I am concerned.

      by KingGeorgetheLesser on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:49:56 AM PDT

      •  I disagree

        I think that, so far, Kerry has made exactly the right decision to stay somewhat in the shadows as far as his own policy directions.  I say this for three reasons:

        1. Remaining a less-immediate newsmaker, Kerry allows the numerous scandals, the war in Iraq, and the conservative self-destruction to headline more often.  While this may not initially help Kerry, it clearly hurts Bush.  
        2. Kerry has plently of time to offer his message prior to the election.  Remember, the people who have yet to make a decision on one of the candidates will probably not do so until Oct-Nov, so any time spent defining and explaining his agenda will be wasted on the voters he needs the most.  
        3. Like has been seen with the poorly timed tax-cuts, education, and medicare reform plans, Bush's platform promises for the year leading up to the 2000 election caused expectations that he would fulfill such promises verbatim.  His promises were stale and outdated by the time he was able to work on them, but in the traditional conservative mindset, stubborn policy rules over policies which are nuanced and evolving.  Kerry benefits at the moment by refusing to lock himself into policy promises which may not be feasible this time next year, thus making him choose between enforcing an outdated promise or appearing to be a flip-flopper.  While that is forward-thinking, there is no solid reason to define himself now, subjecting himself to criticism early in the race.  It will be easier to directly battle GW later in the race, and Kerry can better develop, present, and defend his positions closer to the election.

        by islanddave on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:11:03 AM PDT

•  I'd like to see every Reagan Family member

  Walk on stage and explicitly call for stem cell research.

  By the 2nd one, the 'Phant crowd will be booing the grieving widow and children.

  Let's hope that they act like the thugs that they really are.

  by msaroff on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:33:23 AM PDT

  •  We'll see

    After a period of mourning, we'll see just how strongly the conservatives who were close to Ronald really support stem-cell research.  Republicans are typically short-sighted with very short attention spans.  They take up great causes only when they directly affect them, and drop them when their interest is no longer warranted.  

    Will Nancy (and the few other supporters) continue to fight for stem-cell research that she demands must be made available?  Or will she be a typical conservative and drop the issue now that the personal fight has been lost...

    by islanddave on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:39:15 AM PDT

    •  Alzheimers

      Question. Did Nancy advocate stemcell research before her husband was inflicted?  Do I think the family will make a statement about it at the memorial service or laud/bash a current political party leader? I think they have more class than that.

      by banjon on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:27:25 PM PDT

•  It's only hate speech....

  when spoken by a Democrat. Republicans NEVER lie or speak ill of others. they hate the sin but LOVE the sinner.

  and they really, REALLY believe that.

  I doubt that there is any possible positive net effect for liberals on this one, so I'm not gonna play. no matter what approach we take, we're gonna get reamed.

  I'll stick to my one-line assessment of the Reagan presidency: not as bad as GW Bush. and I'll shut up till the week is over.

  by susanp on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 10:34:57 AM PDT

•  Poor Planning Caused Wellstone Memorial Debacle

  There are ways to keep the tone of a crowd where you want it, especially if you have TV monitors to keep their attention.  Before the event there's no excuse for zooming in on various dignitaries, as that's going to elicit viceral responses, both good and bad.

  Pres. Clinton was the master of using music to get the crowd in the right mood.  "Don't stop thinking about Tomorrow" belted out when he wanted an energetic crowd, the PA always played softer, classical music before he came out for a more serious speech.

  The way they could have kept the right tone would have been to have a series of photo collages available for each of the dead.  Finished with that?  Put up the Lord's Prayer, a series of quotations from the dead, etc.

  Also there's no excuse for letting an inexperienced partisan hack get in front of the crowd without screening what he was going to say.  Bad things always happen when details like this aren't attended to.

  Crowd control is usually pretty easy if a little thought is given to it, no matter whether the crowd is a class of 3rd graders or 20,000 mourners.  The fact that nobody was responsible enough to take care of this doesn't reflect well on the staff.  And I fear the people of Minnesota came to the same judgement the next week.

  by Buckland on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:12:39 AM PDT

  •  Hack?

    Also there's no excuse for letting an inexperienced partisan hack get in front of the crowd without screening what he was going to say.

    This "partisan hack" as you put it was Paul's best friend and campaign treasurer. Maybe Wellstone's staff should have screened out the grieving and handed out "approved scripts" lest someone offend the tender sensibilities of the republicans taking notes.

    It's a shame they didn't have someone with your obvious sensitivity to help them run it.

    by Thumb on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:41:44 AM PDT

  •  partisan hack

    I was absolutely devastated by Wellstone's death--could not stop crying for days, and for the first time in my life, I wished that I was a drinker so that I could get the pain to STOP--and I had never even actually met the man. I cannot imagine the pain that the "partisan hack" (Rick Kahn)was feeling, given that he was caught up in the adrenaline of the craziness of the final leg of a heated senate campaign, and then his best friend/mentor dies in a horrible way that he had always feared. wouldn't you have gone a little wacko, too? of course the campaign didn't expect him to go wacko, he was one of Wellstone's best friends, so I'm guessing they expected him to give the same heartfelt, photo-montage eulogies that you suggest (some of which actually preceded his speech).
    My husband, a psychologist, caught a televised close-up of Rick Kahn while those other eulogies were being given, and he said (not knowing anything of his relationship to Wellstone or the campaign), "uh, oh, that guy's in real trouble." he was bent over, almost in a fetal position, and rocking in distress.
    so, yes, I was upset, too, by his speech, thinking that he just handed the Repubs all the ammunition they needed in a close senate race, but on the other hand, he and all the rest of the campaign staff should have been cut some slack. did you SEE the crowds outside of the Wellstone campaign headquarters, and on the MN capitol grounds on the day of Wellstone's death? we were all in shock, and reeling. who makes good decisions in that state of mind?
    as for the booing, I was told by my parents and others who were there, that the booers were a small minority, and they were immediatly shushed by other mourners. of course, the media replayed those boos over & over (ala the Dean scream).
    so, mistakes were made by the Wellstone staff, but those honest (I believe)mistakes were then hammered on, mercilessly, by the media and the Republicans.
    as an aside, Jesse Ventura reacted in his hallmark big-baby manner, the exact same way he dealt with criticism throughout his travesty of a tenure in this state.
    BTW, the Lord's Prayer would have been very bad form at a Wellstone memorial, given that he was Jewish.

    by Minnesota Deb on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 12:22:33 PM PDT

•  Franken's chapter on the Wellstone Memorial

  in "Lies . . . " has the definitive exegesis of the unconscionable distortion of the Wellstone Memorial by conservative writers who had not even seen it.  It's summarized in this Common Dreams article.

  by Upper West on Mon Jun 07, 2004 at 11:32:57 AM PDT

•  I was there...

  "Politics is what we create out of what we do, what we hope for, what we dare to imagine."

  It is hard to believe that it has been so long, that things have veered so far off course from where they were before the plane crashed. I met Paul twice after I came to college in the fall of 2001. These days I live in the center of Wellstone's base of support, in a neighborhood of west St. Paul.

  The last time I saw him was across the street from the Pad Thai restaurant on Grand Avenue, where he would frequently eat and his photos still hang behind the cash register. He was with Sheila, sporting a tight black sweater and a gold star of David on a chain around his neck, chatting with people outside a cafe. He had this kind of Jewish wrestler pimp style that you could only see from a particuar angle; it was usually only visible obliquely when the short man would bounce on the balls of his feet at labor rallies.

  It was late July or early August, and I told him that I thought the campaign was solid, that Coleman didn't have anything to run on. Indeed, at that point the polls looked pretty secure, and the ubiquitous green Wellstone! signs blanketed this last bastion of liberalism as the war clouds rolled in.

  The terrible morning of my fall break was when the news came. I was back home and my mom came in sobbing. What now? I'd already made plans to see the opening of Bowling for Columbine at the Uptown theater that evening, the tickets were in my wallet. I fitted my green pin and weaved through traffic like someone else on the last lap of sanity.

  Energy sapped. Then the memorial where we would channel our fury and somehow encapsulate the man's memory into a vessel to beat the detestable Mr Coleman. Paul was one of those people who always had our back, the channel through which some sense of a moral imperative would be exercised in Washington, a monkey wrench for the wretched machinery, stridently anti-war, Jewish and important. Too incongruous for the moralizers coaxing us into the desert.

  I went to that memorial with the Macalester liberal squads. We got into not the main room, but the women's basketball court, where we watched it on Simulcast. This deprived us of the manic energy caroming around that room, and afforded me a more placid environment to measure Minnesotan reactions.

  The whole event was thrown together in the classic hodgepodgy way, with black folk singers doing "Love Train" for far too long as the Wellstone campaign volunteers filed in. George Latimer, the portly and gregarious former DFL mayor of St Paul, was the M.C. at the event.

  Most of the speeches were excellent, really, and I don't think it was over the line for his kids to call for victory in the election. But poor Rick Kahn really blew it, really took the moment that the whole thing hinged on and chucked it out the window. You can rest assured that Karl Rove would vet every script at a televised Republican event, but the hobbled DFL didn't rein things in that way, of course. Imagine being George Latimer, as he had to transition from Kahn's speech into the next one. Not awkward, amazingly enough. But I saw how much distaste everyone had for Kahn's words, as the people in my room sat down from the standing ovations they'd been propelled to again and again.

  The event came down, the tears still spilled all over, and I only learned later of the thousands who chilled in the cold outside, watching the screens. (for we Minnesotans do know what it means to be cold together, oh yes) As I staggered outside past the news vans that would multiply Kahn and obliterate everything else, a grimacing, coiffed Norm Coleman darted right past me.

  "He's going back to Brooklyn," my soon to sour optimistic soul thought. It was not to be.... A couple days later, Mondale launched the campaign sprint right in front of me at the Macalester College ballroom, another wave of the news cameras in our cheated state. Nearly tackled the Fox News anchor outside campaign headquarters with my brother the day before, but I restrained... I still have to walk over that spot that I last met him on the way to class. Try not to think about what might have been.

  by HongPong on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 02:13:02 AM PDT

•  Preemptive rebuttal

  So, has anybody started compiling a collection of rightwing statements about the Wellstone memorial that we can point up should they politicize Reagan's funeral?

  This Weekly Standard editorial is a good start, with phrases like

  disgust bordering on shame
  beyond-the-pale politicization, and
  The late senator was treated as little more than one broken egg in a great get-out-the-vote omelet.

  I found other examples of such comments at http://www.gregabbott.org/C1911143254/E1967640945/

  by Lis Riba on Tue Jun 08, 2004 at 09:54:22 AM PDT