Dayton v. Kennedy

Returning Senator Mark Dayton to the Ranks of the Idle Rich in 2006


Standing Up For Cowardice

Mark Dayton offered his explanation for Panicgate in today's Star Tribune. From the piece we get this tortured bit of logic: "If senators had wanted to send a message to the nation or the world, the Senate should have remained open through the election." To which we ask, would this have made any difference in Dayton's decision to flee?

We are told this decision was about "real people", namely his staffers. We commend the senator's commitment to the safety of his staff. A carefully coordinated letter to the editor by Ms. Jackie Johnston of Maple Plain explains that Dayton was traumatized by a bomb planted in a Dayton's department store a quarter-century ago.

But certainly Dayton must have known when he endeavored to challenge Rod Grams that the Capitol was a target to anyone who would wish to do harm to the United States government. Dayton's tenure in the Senate corresponds closely with the start of the Global War on Terror, a conflict likely to last a generation or more. What will persuade Dayton that the Capitol is, once again, a safe place?

Particularly troubling is the last two sentences of Dayton's explanation: "...the heightened risk surrounding the Capitol until the election is real, and it cannot be wished away. I could not face myself or the people for whom I am responsible, if I had not stood up to it."

To which Dayton v. Kennedy asks, if this is standing up to terrorism, what does caving in look like?


Post a Comment

<< Home