Is saying that Tim Russert was something of a Bushco shill the same as "dancing on his grave"?

[El Pinko]

I personally don't think it is. I have nothing against the man personally, but I won't especially miss him, either.

I think that as a reporter, he was sorely remiss in the way he did his job.



As a man, a father, a husband, he may have been a prince - but that is not where his life intersected mine as a member of the public.

As a member of the fourth estate, it was his job to ask tough questions about a war that would put American kids' lives at risks, and he threw softballs.

I'm not happy that he's gone. Many people have epiphanies later in life and go on do to great good - if he had lived, maybe he would have.



But eulogize him as some sort of "great journalist" or a latter-day Edward R. Murrow? Puh-leeze.



So are my comments above grave-dancing? Is Tim spinning in his grave? Are his kids weeping because of them?

Or is it harmless talk on a web discussion board?

[Leopolds Ghost]

1. Tim Russert explained his fears to Matthews. "It's the nukes. If Saddam has them, we HAVE to go in."

Last night Chris Matthews cited Tim's private admonition (after Matthews asked Tim Russert why he wasn't going after the more obvious Iraq War lies designed to get us into war, which Chris didn't buy) as proof that Russert was "literally just like Every American, and loved his country so much that he understood the danger Americans were feeling". Whereas Chris Matthews was showing his detached elitism by questioning the war rhetoric, proving that Tim was the one with the finger on the pulse of America. In other words, he could let down his impartiality when needed.

David Gregory said it best -- "he was the classic Reagan Democrat -- Eastern, ethnic (but not in a bad way), hardworking."

That said, insulting the man is grave-dancing and pathetic, especially coming from supposedly "liberal" supporters of certain candidates.

A bit of criticism is OK but blanket insults are too much. I thought it was mean of folks to dance on Reagan & Nixon's grave, too.

Actual murderers, maybe. But being President is a veritable license to kill people in other countries -- it's expected -- so that doesn't count. (The US Legal Code requires us to have a war every 10 years or the system of military officer promotion falls apart. Most people don't realize this.) Why blame Tim Russert for getting swept up in the times when others were actively lying?

Media critic Howard Kurtz, for instance, another "dean of the Washington media" who did two huge articles -- one attempting to prove the Bush TANG letters were a fake, and the other attempting to prove Kerry's war record was a fake. Oh, and Kurtz wrote ombudsman-like articles attacking the left for anti-war position, calling it fringe and irrational.

[timtom]

2. The only thing that is a mitigating factor

is the timing.

Two weeks from now, anything goes. (An arbitrary period of time).
But, just hours after the death, Russert-bashing is insensitive to issues that are not political (family and loved ones, etc.).

We all know who and what Russert was. No need to rehash the obvious in an extraordinary time.

[arcadian]

20. That's is the dumbest thing I ever heard.

It's not like anybody on this board was friends with Russert or played golf with him. And I seriously doubt that his family or freinds read DU. The guy died, in a month nobody will even remember who he was. I think Russert, as a journalist would enjoy the controversy.

[tom_paine]

3. NO, but that won't stop people from using that bullshit as a rhetorical club.

It's easy, it's powerful, and it doesn't require any troublesome thinking.

[davidpdx]

4. Yes, it is dancing on someone's grave

and utterly disgusting at that.

[Cassandra]

7. Some of us wouldn't feel compelled to correct the record...

if Russert weren't being lauded as a saint of a journalist. He spent quite a bit of time as a Republican stenographer, which indicates he really didn't understand his job and set a poor example for his colleagues. He seems to have been a very good guy otherwise and I'm sure his family appreciates the loving memories, but we don't have to claim him as the greatest journalist of all time.

[spoony]

5. Dunno about dancing, but it sure is grave PISSING

And one certainly isn't better than the other.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Of course it is, but it's par for the course here at DU.

It is truly embarrassing how many people have absolutley no self control.

[earthlover]

8. And we wonder why we lose elections....

I think some of us don't have a clue how our actions are viewed. When someone pisses on a grave before it is even dug yet it makes the group you are in look like a bunch of wierdos and idiots. People with no class. We are ambassadors for the Democratic Party of sorts. When we act like ass holes we make it harder to elect Democrats. Could the grave pissers have the self control to wait a few weeks? What is the pressing issue to piss now? Can't it wait? After all, he is dead.

[Buzz Clik]

9. I think the notion that we are being watched stimulates this kind of reaction.

It's sad.

[earthlover]

10. I was living in MN when Paul Wellstone died.

This was, of course, days before the election. It was a very tight race against Norm Coleman, with Wellstone just inching a bit ahead when he died.

His memorial service got all the media attention and was covered live on all the media. One of the speakers got over-board and used his memorial speech to make political points.

I can tell you there was a HUGE (understatement) BACKLASH in MN to the memorial service. People were put off that it was used as a means to further politics.

Most agree that this memorial service is the reason Norm Coleman was elected to the Senate.

Yes, our actions do have consequences. Yes, people notice if we do things in poor taste. If enough Democrats are disrespectful to people who haven't even been buried yet, this is off-putting to a lot of people and doesn't help our chances of victory. In fact, it just may provide the Republicans with some ammunition to use against us. As in, "the Dems talk about change but look how they treated Russert's family and friends at the time of his death....this is not change we can believe in...."

[El Pinko]

17. That memorial service was a perfect tribute to Wellstone.

Activism was what his life was all about, and the memorial was in keeping with that.

The right's twisting of that into something dirty is what was really disgraceful.





And who the hell casts their vote for or against Obama thinking about how some liberals on some obscure website talked about some hack TV pundit's death?

Get real. Most people couldn't care less what is said here or on FreeRepukelick.

They are just two sides of the same coin - partisans talking smack on the web.

[earthlover]

19. Do you enjoy Norm Coleman being Senator from Minnesota?

Mondale lost BECAUSE of the backlash from the memorial service. Yes, it could be argued that it was a fitting memorial service for a political man and liberals enjoyed it. Liberals, however, are not the only ones who get to vote. Rightly or wrongly, hordes of Minnesotans thought the memorial service was in poor taste and was trying to win political points on a memorial service which was broadcast free in the media. I enjoyed the speech, but even the speaker was sorry he made it seeing the result I believe.

I don't see how you're relegating DU to irrelevance makes a good point. I would not agree with your premise that this is an obscure website.

If so, my point still stands. Even if it is an obscure website, when people piss on a grave they hurt their own cause (which in this case is all of our cause, electing Democrats). If it hurts just a little bit because DU is "obscure" it still hurts, does not help. If you magnify these actions to these same people pissing on graves elsewhere, not on DU but in their other interactions with the world, this negative only magnifies. Some people here seem not to have a clue that pissing on someone's grave makes you look like a friggin idiot and does NOTHING to further your cause.

I can't stand Norm Coleman. Althougth the speech at the memorial service went along with my beliefs, it was instrumental in a good man, Walter Mondale, losing an election he otherwise could have won, and was ahead in the polls at the time. As such the memorial service hurt the cause Wellstone fought his life for. Ironic.

[El Pinko]

24. I disagree wholeheartedly that Coleman is the MN senator from MN.

Wellstone left a void that couldn't easily be filled.

As websites go, I suppose DU has some prominence, maybe not as much as Kos, a bit more than Randi Rhodes, but at the end of the day, very few people vote on the basis of what is said on any website, even Bid Daddy Drudge's.

IMHO.

Mondale is a good man, but he had some baggage, having lost in 1984.

If you can cite anything crass or unbecoming that was said at that memorial, I'd be shocked. To my knowledge, everything that was said was in keeping with Wellstone's beliefs.

It's a miracle someone like him got elected in any US state, as round-the-bend looney-right as this country is.

[earthlover]

30. I don't know if you lived in MN, but I did.

The memorial was all over the media. Most of the speeches were great. One of them "crossed the line" and politicized the event IN THE EYES OF MINNESOTANS. Should Minnesotans have taken this view? Maybe, maybe not, it was their call. But one thing almost everyone, including the speaker, can agree on was that the backlash from this speech was HUGE. At least those who were there in MN at the time.

I am not attacking the speech's content. However, the timing was counter-productive.

It was a close race. Wellstone had just gotten a small lead in the polls when he died. Mondale was ahead in the polls until the memorial service.

The memorial service should have made a distinct push in favor of the Democrats. It would have, too. Except for one thing. Actually, except for one speech. This speech was the classic example of a Democrat snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.

The Dems loved the speech. The Reps hated it. In a close election, what matters is those in the middle. They hated the speech. Not for what was said, but for crossing the line and politicizing a death. Enough said.

[El Pinko]

26. Good grief, what did I type there?

I meant to say "I disagree wholeheartedly that Coleman is senator from MN due to the Wellstone funeral."

No, I wasn't high, just typing in too much of a hurry and didn't look again until thread-edit deadline had already passed.

Sorry for the incoherence.

[Reterr]

13. You do realize that that is not the sort of thing there is an objective answer to

"of course" it is grave dancing in *your* eyes but apparently not in the eyes of a vast number of DUers. Something that is essentially related to social norms isnt something you can make a proclamation about as though it is some objective truth.
This isn't some empirically measured quantity.

Correcting inaccurate statements about how glorious a journalist he was is not grave-dancing in the eyes of many and the fact that you think differently does not make what you believe the objective truth. You have one opinion on it and many others have a different one.

[Buzz Clik]

16. No. You're engaging in some sort of relative morality, and I'm not buying it.

This is typical behavior at DU, and it's horrid.

[YankmeCrankme]

22. BS...this only comes up when a person is perceived

by many to have negatives and he gets praised by others. This happened when Reagan died people praised or showed respect for him and others, who had a totally negative view of him, reacted to that vociferiously. Many times people in the news die and they get threads with nothing negative said about them. Harvey Korman died and no one posted negatives about him. Why? Because he wasn't perceived as having any negatives.

If you want this to stop a good step would be to quit posting referential threads on people that many here hold in low regard because of their politics, enabling of the Bush administration or NeoCon agenda, etc. And if there are threads like that and someone wants to post their opinion on them refuting the adulation, let them. There's no need to comment on the post or to decry their lack of humanity in your eyes. You had your say they had theirs.

[Rosemary2205]

11. yes it is - but if one needs to dance, then dance.

I have an uncle that abused me when I was a kid. If that SOB dies before me you better damn believe I'll dance on his damn grave. Nothing wrong with "ding dong the witch is dead" in the right circumstance.

Having said that, Russert's death being one of those circumstances is open to debate.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Or, bay at the moon. Mark territory with urine. Crawl under a rock during the winter.

I keep hoping that humans will someday take pride in their evolutionary progress and put it to good use.

[DavidDvorkin]

12. De mortui nil nisi bonum

Especially on DU.

[mzmolly]

14. Where is option 3 - push poll?

:hi:

[conflictgirl]

18. I don't think so. But maybe the reaction is due in part to timing

I don't think its wrong to criticize the actions of people who died. However I do think that in general its kind of in poor taste to do so immediately in the first couple days after their death. There's this natural tendency I've noticed over the years that when a person dies, particularly when it's unexpected, people initially seem to paint a more rosy picture of that person's life. Its kind of like many people seem to think that a period of mourning has to be allowed before starting to question that person's legacy.

[GoldieAZ49]

21. Yes it is, but what goes around comes around

and we do have freedom of speech. The comments made say more about the person making them than who those words are about.

[MedleyMisty]

23. Going to post this link one more time

because some replies on this thread show that it's even more appropriate than I thought it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

"Panics have a number of outcomes, with one being the certification to the players within the panic that what they are doing appears to warrant observation by mass media and therefore may push them further into the activities that led to the original feeling of moral panic."

In reality, no one cares about what we say on DU. Russert's family isn't here reading our posts. If there is anyone who would be willing to destroy their future and vote for the greater evil over the lesser evil just because of some random meaningless posts on a random internet board, then I would be willing to bet that they were always going to vote for the greater evil - I mean, they can't care about actual issues much.

[El Pinko]

27. How dare you downplay the supreme significance of the almighty DU!?!

The website that singlehandedly stopped the vote fraud in Florida in 2000, prevented the war in 2003, and got Kerry elected in 2004!

What about its 122,000 posters?!

When we talk, people listen.

:sarcasm:


"If there is anyone who would be willing to destroy their future and vote for the greater evil over the lesser evil just because of some random meaningless posts on a random internet board, then I would be willing to bet that they were always going to vote for the greater evil - I mean, they can't care about actual issues much.


You hit the nail on the head there.

[SirDaddybear]

25. He was the best

and far from a Bushco.... he was fair and right on....he is already missed and will be for years.

[Evoman]

28. It's not fucking "grave-pissing". It's balancing out the unwarranted adoration of a partisan hack.

[ogsbee]

29. He was a propagandist, not a journalist, IMO

nt