Wellstone memorial low road?
Perhaps you've followed the whole controversy over the Wellstone memorial: was it somehow "too political," undignified in its championing of the liberal causes that were Wellstone's mission in life? Joe Conason has been covering it well and thoroughly here in Salon. But Joe is an outspoken liberal Democrat who would, you know, be expected to take this position. Today I found myself in relatively rare agreement with cranky Slate blogster Mickey Kaus, who offers further good defense of the Wellstone event:
| |
People react to death with something less than rationality, often by plunging headlong into some action -- any action -- they can take that might restore some sense of control or efficacy. They found Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They file lawsuits, demand compensation, lobby for new procedures to make sure the plane never crashes/building never collapses/blood gets screened/airbag deploys. They campaign for Megan's Law or the Amber Alert system. Or they try to win the Senate campaign the deceased was in the middle of fighting. |
In the end, Wellstone was the sort of politician who actually cared about the issues he stood for, and the sooner we in the media move on from "who should have said what" questions about the memorial and back to matters of substance, the better. [Scott Rosenberg's Links & Comment]
10:41:12 AM 
|
|
