home

The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Funeral

Rev. Joseph Lowery gave an impassioned eulogy at Coretta Scott's funeral today. You can watch it here.

Four U.S. presidents were in attendance at the funeral, including President Bush. Among Reverand Lowery's statements was this one, which was greeted with thunderous applause and a standing ovation:

We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. [Standing Ovation] But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor.

Former President Jimmy Carter spoke as well. He mentioned that Martin Luther King, Jr. had been the subject of wiretapping in the name of national security. (At the behest of J. Edger Hoover, who thought one of King's associates was a communist sympathizer, then Attorney General Bobby Kennedy signed an order allowing King's phones to be tapped. Years later it was revealed that Hoover had been bugging King's hotel rooms and more -- without Kennedy's or any court approval.)

Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin spoke after President Bush.

[She] describ[ed] how Coretta Scott King spoke out against "the senselessness of war" with a voice that was heard "from the tintop roofs of Soweto to the bomb shelters of Baghdad."

Tonight, right wingers are blasting the speakers at Corretta Scott King's funeral for insulting Bush and making comparisons to Paul Wellstone's funeral. (If you must read them, Seeing the Forest has a round-up.) They are charging that the Democrats shamelessly politicized the funeral and went out of their way to insult Bush.

This is all nonsense. The tributes were appropriate. They were on topics not only relevant, but central to the lives and work of Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King, Jr. I'm wondering why Bush was granted speaking privileges to begin with? Their lives have nothing in common and I doubt they were close friends.

Rather than read the silly attacks by the right, read John at Americablog:

How dare a black man not know his place at a funeral, they'll say. As if the Republican party and its surrogates have any right whatsoever to speak on behalf of Mrs. King, to tell black America what they can and cannot do to honor one of their most revered leaders.

And Digby and Is that Legal, and others who put the lie to this right-wing attempt to change the subject from commemorating the life of a great woman and her husband to fabricated insults.

Why was President Bush even there? Was it because Clinton and Jimmy Carter were going? As late as last Friday, Bush's staff said he planned to speak in New Hampshire today. Then, Saturday, they announced his change of plans.

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said in an e-mail message on Saturday that the change had been made because "the funeral arrangements were only very recently finalized" and the White House had not been ready to make an announcement until then. Mr. McClellan said "the president and Mrs. Bush are honored to be attending."

But Bishop Eddie Long, who will be officiating at the funeral services at the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, said in a telephone interview on Saturday that he had initially heard from the King family that Mr. Bush would not be attending and that he planned to send Mrs. Bush and his father, the former president, instead. Mr. Long said he found out only on Saturday morning that Mr. Bush would be present after all.....The president, he said, made the right decision. "I'm sure that somebody gave him some counsel," he said.

President Bush's poll numbers among African-Americans was minimal to begin with and sank lower after Katrina. Did he view this event as an opportunity to honor Mrs. King or to shore up Republican support among blacks?

The remarks made about weapons of mass destruction and wiretapping would have been made by the speakers honoring Mrs. King if Bush had not been there. Why should anyone have had to alter the content of their planned remarks just because Bush decided to attend? The service was to honor Mrs. King and her life, not Bush. If President Bush's toes got stepped on during the course of it, maybe he should rethink his policies and get in touch with the views of the ten thousand others who paid tribute to Mrs King in Atlanta -- as well as millions more watching the news coverage of the funeral tonight at home.

< Cheney: 'We Have All the Authority We Need' for NSA Spying Program | Violence Over Anti-Muslim Cartoons Grows >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#1)
    by aw on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 07:38:32 PM EST
    The service was to honor Mrs. King and her life, not Bush.
    You said it all, right there.

    From WaPo, 10/05:
    In what may turn out to be one of the biggest free-falls in the history of presidential polling, President Bush's job-approval rating among African Americans has dropped to 2 percent, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. ...By comparison, 45 percent of whites and 36 percent of Hispanics approve of the job Bush is doing.
    He should not have been allowed to speak at her funeral.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 08:01:41 PM EST
    Nice defense, but it won't work. Bush was there to represent the country. His remarks were on target and respectful. The actions of those who attacked him were outlandish and insulting to the millions who sent him there to express their regrets at her death and sympathy for the family. They were blatantly political and completely out of place. If we can't keep politics out of funerals then there is little difference between us, Hamas and the IRA. May God help us if we continue on this track. I am embarassed for the Democrat Party.

    That's pretty rich: the party of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, without whose racist followers the Republicans would never have elected a single President, nor won a single house of Congress for a single term, presuming to lecture MLK's admirers on how to conduct themselves at the funeral of his widow.

    huh?

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#5)
    by demohypocrates on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 08:27:00 PM EST
    deleted

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#7)
    by Johnny on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 08:30:49 PM EST
    If we can't keep politics out of funerals
    Is that why bushie doesn't attend military funerals? So if politics is central to an individuals life, why should it not be central to an individuals death? FWIW, I think it's classic that bushie hadda sit through some firm reminders of what he and his hand picked cronies have done wrong... The comments about the amount of surveillance MLK underwent is very timely. I'm sure bushie (as well as most wrong wingers) are smug in their conviction that the people they are watching are infinitely more deserving than MLK ever was... I think it was a fitting tribute to a woman who carried the torch of equality (against the wishes of millions and millions and millions and millions of otherwise rational men and women) after the untimely death of her husband. In conclusion, Jim, celebrating this woman's life means things will be said that do not reflect your views. Tough for you I guess.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 08:32:28 PM EST
    The service was to honor Mrs. King and her life...
    Period. Rest peacefully, Mrs. King... And thank you.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#9)
    by aw on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 08:47:04 PM EST
    If we can't keep politics out of funerals
    We? We? Who is we, PPJ? Maybe you should contact the family and tell them you disapprove of they conducted the funeral of their mother.

    I heard Matthews tonight say, "Bush was there representing the nation." Leave it Matthews to find and/or choose the right talking point for the Republicans. (Funny that PPJ already posted this line before I had a chance to post. Just proves my point that it is just a talking point) You're right, everything that was said would have been said anyway. His appearance was purely, politically motivated. This WH does nothing that is not calculated out to the final digit. The realization, that going to New Hampshire to talk about (iow, defend) domestic spying or trying to convince (iow, scam) people that his health savings scheme is any different than his SS savings scheme, while sending his wife and father to "represent," would truly look awful. On top of that, just knowing that he'd have to sit through, what they had to know would be said, could get him a sympathy bump from all those (and sorry to generalize, but can't think of a nicer way to characterize) NASCAR families who probably didn't care about this event and didn't watch a second of it. They got their perspective from clips and comments on Fox news (or Hardball), so they might just feel bad for dear leader and the next time they were asked a poll question would remember "how badly he was treated" and give him a break. I mean, if I can think of this stuff, surely Karl has been pondering it, since the moment he heard she had passed away. Oh, and PPJ. I will agree that Bush's speech was respectful. Why wouldn't it have been? However, I believe it was originally meant for his wife to deliver, since she and daddy were the ones he was going to send. And what, do you think all the speakers got together and said, "OH! The President is coming. We need to coordinate and make sure we change all of our speechs, so we make sure he knows we don't like the way he's running the country? Don't forget to mention how we hate the war and know he lied about the WMD. Oh, yeah, and we can add stuff about Katrina and the NSA and maybe embarrass him enough he'll actually help the Gulf Coast like he said he would and make him see his domestic spying is against the law, because we 'know' how it's 'really' being used. Since he's only recently said he's comimg, even though everyone else had committed much earlier and we don't have a lot of time, let's email one another so we can make sure we hit all the high points?" I'm embarrassed for you. OT, sort of, question... Does the hair on the back of anyone else's neck stand up, when you think about how close it was to MLK's birthday CSK died and today's service being held during the first week of black history month? I want to sing, Will the Circle Be Unbroken.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#11)
    by Johnny on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 08:58:32 PM EST
    My grandmother died on the same day, (albeit 16 years later) that my grandfather died.

    Why was Bush there and why was he given an opportunity to speak? Uh, because he's the President? Political divisions aside, if the President asks to speak at a funeral, I'd be surprised if any family says no. But holey moley, I can't believe how the shouters are up in arms that somebody said something that Mr. Bush might not like. If he's never been shamed by what a preacher has to say, he hasn't spent as much time in church as we've been told. And PPJ? Comparing this to Hamas? Over the line, mister.

    QB: if the President asks to speak at a funeral, I'd be surprised if any family says no. GWB is not allowed to speak at my funeral. My next of kin have been notified and claim to be on board.

    I think the pertinet question is what did Mrs. King's family want and how did they receive it. Nothing else matters. A funeral, IMHO, is for the living and it's purpose is the celebration of life, in this case Mrs King; whatever form the family wishes that take, then those are the ground rules. If others are/were offended, then don't go or leave. If Dubya had half a brain he would have known how to manage the situation rather than let Karl Rove and his lieutenants run off swift-boating as so aptly put Jeralyn. Did you notice how Clinton so easily brought the swell within a certain level in just seconds. He went straight to the salient point, "there is a woman in that casket..." and there was an immediate peace in the valley. If one can't take a look at him/herself through the eyes of others, they have no business being in political office. It is a prerequisite. So any offended politician should have the inherent ability to place that "offense" where it should be, or capitalize upon to his/her advantage on the spot. It's improper to look at it this way I suppose, but how many points could Dubya have scored politically if he had risen to the occassion - he had an overwhelming force before him that he could have utilized respectfully, intelligently and to the betterment of Mrs.King's agenda, his agenda, his party's agenda, and the agenda of the American people. I suggest let's NOT do what the GOP would like us to do - fall into their trap of spin rhetoric that serves only their agenda, which is not Correta Scott King's, not her children's (presumption on my part), and definitely not her husband;s. We can easily fall prey to there trap (Rove is too good at these things) and let this get out of control and to their advantage. Stand firm, tell the swift-boaters to stick it in their ear as appropriate, and let Mrs. King's final mortal event be a celebration of who she_is_today through her legacy. If her children were offended, then that too should be addressed. I just buried my father, and I can assure you the family's desire is to carry out the wish(es) Mrs. King sought as well as the mortal aspects of what the family needs as their mother passed beyond their grasp - a rude awakening no matter how long they anticipated her passing.

    Rev. Lowery:
    We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. [Standing Ovation] But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor.
    All of this seems appropriate material for the funeral Coretta Scott King. The applause and standing ovation suggests that the attendees thought so.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 09:43:18 PM EST
    bush wasn't representing the nation, bush was representing EVERYTHING WRONG with our nation. It is a travesty that he was even allowed in that church, much less any church. bush is the epitome of everything MLK & CSK fought against. An undeclared war on a nation without the means or intent to attack us. The worst suppression of people of color since Jim Crow. The highest number and percentage of people of color ever incarcerated in this country. Today a hero was laid to rest ... and a coward p----- on her grave.

    Where was the outcry when Bush's campaign website was taken over by Reagan images during the week of the funeral? It's ridiculous to think that when someone dies whose life was devoted to political struggle there should be a taboo against mentioning politics at the funeral. But there is a place to look if you want to find disrespect for the dead. Where is the outcry when the Republicans constantly use the deaths of three thousand people in speeches and ads for their party and candidates? Most of those murdered on September 11 were not Republicans, and they deserve better than four years of being used as props in Republican campaigns.

    A funeral -- including the funeral of Mrs. Martin Luther King -- reflects the life and concerns of the person who died and their family. The preacher and other speakers were there for the family and represented the family's point of view. As they should. How dare the Swift Boaters suggest that THEY should decide what is appropriate for the funeral of someone else's mother! How outrageous that the news media are complicit in sharing that outrageous message.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#19)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 11:11:13 PM EST
    I thought it was a great service. If the King family is OK with it, who are we to judge the content? Bush was a joke and Clinton was in his element. What else is new? Too bad Hilary supported Bush's abomination.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#20)
    by phat on Tue Feb 07, 2006 at 11:59:04 PM EST
    As soon as I heard about those speeches I could already hear the howling from the Republicans. In fact, I half expected this before the funeral. How could we not expect this righteous indignation? This tedious, disingenuous whining from the Bush apologists is already old. Whatever happened to the complaints about PC? Luckily, we won't have to worry about them being in power for much longer. Granted, they'll keep whining. But we'll at least have a chance to clean this mess up. phat

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#21)
    by phat on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 12:55:12 AM EST
    You know what? The more I think about it. Bush got off easy. phat

    JimakaPPJ -- They were blatantly political and completely out of place. If we can't keep politics out of funerals then there is little difference between us, Hamas and the IRA. May God help us if we continue on this track. Mrs. King WAS political. Mr. King WAS political. Their lives were all about the struggle against entrenched power and government tyranny. Mrs. King's funeral was a celebration of her life and what she stood for, and a reminder of what she stood against -- as it should have been. If Bush can't stand to hear what our most respected leaders stood for and what the rest of the nation is thinking, he should stick to his carefully pre-screened and staged little Bushie love-fests.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#23)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 06:49:09 AM EST
    It's truely pathetic to see democrats and "civil rights" leaders fall all overthemselves to defend what happened yesterday. That those who spoke could not put aside partisan feelings or their own selfish agendas to honor a women who lay dead in a casket 20feet away shows what is wrong with the looney left. No matter how innapropriate or how bad it looks democrats/liberals/progressives feel that becasue they hold the moral high ground in their own eyes they are allowed to say anything anytime, anywhere no matter who it turns off. And then when they're called on it it turns into a right wing conspiracy. In is ironic that this sense of superiority is felt so strongly and seems very similar to the Muslims rioting in the streets because they too think their beliefs are superior. I posted yesterday that Bush is a big boy and can take criticism. He probably knew that he would be slammed for showing up but leave it to the democrats proove him right and screw up a funeral, just like they did Wellstone. You can claim swiftboating if you like but this is a mess the speakers made for themselve. Clinton knew better and was gracious, funny and appropriate as always. Funny the only democrat who knows how to win elections knew better.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 06:53:15 AM EST
    et al - Your remarks demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of why Bush was there, and why the remarks of Lowery and Carter were so out of place. He was there representing the United States of America. He was there to show the nation's regret at Mrs. King's passing, and the nation's sympathy for the family and its loss. The attacks against him were attacks against the nation. They were in total bad taste, and even worse, actually dishonor two people who spent their lives trying to unite people in the cause of equality for all because the attacks were designed to separate and splinter by seeking cheap political gain. As I wrote early, if we continue to insert politics into funerals then we approach the level of the IRA and Hamas, seeking to stir the followers using the emotions generated by the death of a loved one. Shame on the Democrats. Shame on reverand lowery and ex-president carter.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 07:02:54 AM EST
    What is ironic is the same people defending the remarks would be piling on if TL put up a post decrying the president for not being their.

    would be piling on... decrying the president for not being their. not true

    ppj: Shame on reverand lowery and ex-president carter. they were personal friends of the deceased. that gives them the responsibility of celebrating her at her funeral as she'd have wished. nothing anyone has said suggests that they did anything less.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 07:21:20 AM EST
    aw - I doubt if the family knew in advance what ex-president carter and the reverand lowery were going to say. rebmarks - The fact that Mrs. King was political make the remarks even worse. Can't you understand that some of the fruits of her life is that her death commanded the nation to send the President to her funeral? What should have been the celebration of her life's accompolishments was turned into a political affair that cheapened those who did it and should embarass all of us. MS writes:
    The preacher and other speakers were there for the family and represented the family's point of view. As they should.
    Then the President should have been informed, in a public manner, and asked to not come. That was not done. This was just cheap partisan politcs. KCinDC writes:
    Where was the outcry when Bush's campaign website was taken over by Reagan images during the week of the funeral?
    I don't remember anyone using his funeral to attack the Democrats. punisher - The fact that the audience thought so means nothing. If the purpose was to be a Democrat rally, the President should have been advised. Maggie - For your benefit I will remind you that I am not a Republican. And I never listen to Mathews because his style runs me crazy. When he comes on, I click off. And if my comments are in line with what the Repubs are saying, then it is because they are right. et al - On another thread last night TL deleted a sentence of mine because it was in bad taste. She was right. Decorum, people. Decorum.

    punisher - ...If the purpose was to be a Democrat rally, the President should have been advised. Don't you go callin' my Preznit a stupid!

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#30)
    by aw on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 07:32:21 AM EST
    aw - I doubt if the family knew in advance what ex-president carter and the reverand lowery were going to say.
    As I said, PPJ, why don't you tell the family how they should have done things and just how politically naive and unsavvy you think they are.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#31)
    by John Mann on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 07:44:33 AM EST
    ...there is little difference between us, Hamas and the IRA. May God help us if we continue on this track.
    Jim, well said: you're finally getting it.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#32)
    by desertswine on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 07:49:04 AM EST
    Must have been tough for President Stupid without his usual hand-picked audience.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 07:52:02 AM EST
    ppj-
    He was there representing the United States of America. He was there to show the nation's regret at Mrs. King's passing, and the nation's sympathy for the family and its loss. The attacks against him were attacks against the nation.
    Emphasis mine So dissent, protest, disagreement are traitorous. You are in the wrong country bub. You would be happier in a fascist dictatorship. Leave this country and stop lobbying for fascism here. It is un american.

    PPJ, 7:53 a.m.: "if we continue to insert politics into funerals then we approach the level of the IRA and Hamas," PPJ, 8:21 a.m.: "Decorum, people. Decorum." Would somebody call an ambulance? I'm sure Jim must have whiplash.

    A lot of children in Afghanistan were killed when u.s. missiles destroyed a house THAT THEY THOUGHT a terrorist was inside. Shame on the Republicans. Shame on PPj and Unelected prwesident Bush. I mean really

    PPJ the Herring tosser and cohorts You guys are so sensitive about your Preznit! Poor a-lickers can't stand seeing you Royal liar get a little reaming. I guess you expect every event He attends to be like his anti Social Security and all the rest of his faux town hall meetups. Well get over it! Your former alcholic, vietnam war Coward deserves it. Rember you shall reap what you sow. He can't even stand a little T-Shirt criticism. Oh! By the way when will you Coward King put himself in a venue where he can hear the truth once or twice. I buy a ticket for that one.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 09:02:37 AM EST
    Would Coretta have wanted George at her funeral?

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#38)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 09:13:22 AM EST
    If Al Sharpton is allowed to go is there anyone who isn't?

    "Talking about peace and economic justice at Coretta Scott King's funeral is as natural as talking about, say, Catholicism at the Pope's. Deaths have meanings because of the particulars of a life, not because they can be reduced to fortune cookie messages. Lowery, Carter and others stated, to the President's obvious, slouching discomfort, that the woman's life work continues, and if that makes some people unhappy, well, they weren't too happy with the work or the life to begin with."

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 09:22:53 AM EST
    Let me rephrase that. Would Coretta have invited bush to her funeral?

    Here is a quick history lesson for our historically challenged Democrats. Hiram Revels (R) of Mississippi became the first African American senator in 1870. Born into slavery in 1841, Blanche K. Bruce (R), Elected to the Senate in 1874 by the Mississippi state legislature, he served from 1875 to 1881, becoming the first African American to preside over the Senate in 1879. The first African American elected to the Senate by popular vote, Edward Brooke (R) of Massachusetts served two full terms, from 1967 to 1979. Notice that all of these minorities are from the Republican party, I guess for a "racist" party they haven't done to bad. What does that say about the "non-racist" Democrat party? What have they done for Americas minorities, besides use them for there own gain?

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 09:33:44 AM EST
    Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Dr. King, Corettas husband and the main reason for the presence of the presidents, a political activist? How would he feel about the war? I have heard some of the intellects on this site say "read some history" on a number of occasions, I wonder how many have read Dr. Kings views on Vietnam? How would Dr. King feel about so many not having health care. I wonder what he would have said at this funeral. Unfortunately, some white a**hole murdered him despite his peaceful and reverent ways. Political discourse at a funeral with politicians looking to "represent" the nation is fair game. And what better venue to address it than at the funeral of the greatest civil rights advocate in the history of this nation save for Mr. Lincoln?

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 09:44:35 AM EST
    et al - Like it or not... AOL has a poll showing 69% disapprove of the political comments. Yeah, I know, I know. It's not "scientific." But it sure shows the feelings of over 119,000 Americans. And remember. The bigger the sample, the more accurate the results. The Demos. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Again.

    Uh, let's see. I am prety political. I have been since I was child. I think Bush and his cronies are destroying this country. If, god forbid, my funeral were held tomorrow, I would love to have the president be forced to attend to listen to my friends and loved ones talk aboutnot only my sharp sense of humor, but also my intolerance of war and racism and and my belief that this disgusting war in Iraq must stop. Repubs who are in power love to pretend that they are above politics. C'mon, everything is political. Reagan's funeral was political. Do not tell me that the cold war wasn't mentioned during his funeral. It was acceptable to the Repubs b/c the cold war is a done deal, so they define it as not political. That definition, of course, leaves those not in power always vulnerable to being smeared with the label of being political when they bring up unsettled issues such as the Iraq war, wiretapping, etc. The cold war is JUST AS POLITICAL as the Iraq war, the only difference is that the Iraq war is not over. ANyone familiar with the lives and legacies of the Kings know they were against war. Bush did not represent the nation at the funeral-at leat not 49.9% of it. He was there because politically, it was the smartest thing to do and believe me, I bet the Kings were smiling down at the scene of the most powerful man in the world, the one whose handlers insulate him from all opposing points of view, having to sit there and be lectured by the close friends of Mrs. King. Hallelujah.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#45)
    by Al on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 09:56:13 AM EST
    Hey PPJ, thanks for brightening up my day -- I needed a laugh. You of all people asking for decorum! It's a well-known, albeit rather lame, strategy when you want to silence a protester, to tell them that complaining is bad manners. A variant is to say it's "politics". Politics is bad when the other guys do it, apparently.

    PPJ: AOL has a poll showing 69% disapprove of the political comments. Yeah, I know, I know. It's not "scientific." It will be interesting to see how the public feels about this. As you note, the aol poll isn't scientific, and probably isn't much of an indicator. PPJ: The Demos. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Again. I don't know which victory you're referring to. Either way, this was the funeral of a great woman, and honored her well in a way that was fitting to her legacy. Political calculations are what's out of place here.

    BurgerBoy's rant is worthy of the ignore button.

    Ignoring BurgerBoy is an insult to the fine men he names. Here's a bit of real history. Hiram Revels: "Revels was imprisoned in Missouri in 1854, for preaching the gospel to Negroes." "In January 1870, Mississippi elected Hiram Revels as a U. S. senator. Mississippi was readmitted to the Union, but the New York Herald predicted that Revels would never be allowed to take his Senate seat. But finally he was seated on February 25, 1870" Blanche K. Bruce: (Senate speech, March 31, 1876) "The evidence in hand and accessible will show beyond peradventure that in many parts of the State corrupt and violent influences were brought to bear upon the registrars of voters, thus materially affecting the character of the voting or poll lists; upon the inspectors of election, prejudicially and unfairly thereby changing the number of votes cast; and, finally, threats and violence were practiced directly upon the masses of voters in such measures and strength as to produce grave apprehensions for their personal safety and as to deter them from the exercise of their political franchises." Edward Brooke: "In 1967 he served on the President's Commission on Civil Disorders. He was a member of the liberal wing of the Republican Party, and often had conflicts with President Richard Nixon, particularly in 1970 when Brooke helped lead the movement to stop the Senate confirmation of the President's nominee to the Supreme Court, Harold Carswell."

    Hiram Revels (R) of Mississippi became the first African American senator in 1870. Born into slavery in 1841, Blanche K. Bruce (R), Elected to the Senate in 1874 by the Mississippi state legislature, he served from 1875 to 1881, becoming the first African American to preside over the Senate in 1879. The first African American elected to the Senate by popular vote, Edward Brooke (R) of Massachusetts served two full terms, from 1967 to 1979.
    Well, with that great big head start, I'm sure the GOP has dozens of black Congressman serving in the House and Senate today. Right?

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#50)
    by glanton on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 10:24:46 AM EST
    This really bothers me, such rhetoric at funerals. Paul Wellstone was one of the only politicians I actually believed in, I thought he was a really decent human being. And because of this, I didn't like the way they carried on at his funeral. I agreed with most of what was said, but that doesn't matter. And I agree with a lot of what was said at Coretta's funeral, but that doesn't matter either. With Wellstone it should have been an event for grieving the passage of a human being whose life meant a lot to a lot of people, those who knew him personally, those who never had the pleasure. I'd even guess the man had the grudging respect of many Republicans because they knew he had courage--he cast a helluva lot of lonely votes. At any rate, he deserved better than a partisan rally during his funeral. Same thing for Coretta Scott King. I hate to say this but I believe PPJ is right: this was the Dems snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Victory, in this case meaning not vying for votes, but victory by way of doing the rigbht thing. If the speakers had simply spoken to the woman's life and the things she believed and the people wbo loved her etc., they would have been doing the right thing, that's what you do at funerals. People had better not turn my funeral into a rally or I'll haunt the hbell out of them. And incidentally, I'd say most Americans knew that Coretta's politics were far more aligned with the Dems than the GOP, just as everyone at Wellstone's funeral knew what he was about. So not only was it tasteless, but redundant.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#51)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 10:32:24 AM EST
    Since the thread has been hijacked I'll pile on. Is the claim that the democrats take the black vote for granted and do not reward this consituancy a valid claim? I mean they routinely vote 95% for democrats even though some of their core values, religion, gay rights etc... are not represented by the party they vote for. At the same time are Republicans really rascist or simply...and wrongly I might add...given up the black vote because of spectacles like yesterday? I mean Pres Bush has several prominent black cabinet members and they are routinely called traitors or "tokens" to quote the NAACP. What's up with that? Why should republicans try and respond to the black public when it's obvious that no matter what they do they're vilified and no matter what the democrats do they get the votes? Just asking.

    What is this "core values" non-sense? The core value for black voters is equality, period. Some fight w/in a party to promote it. See the great men above. Some gravitate to a party that professes to fight for equality as one of its main platforms. Others fight for it w/ any means and at any time (like the funeral of a great woman and leader) they can.

    I mean Pres Bush has several prominent black cabinet members and they are routinely called traitors or "tokens" to quote the NAACP.
    I call. Can you show us such a quote from the NAACP?

    slado: Why should republicans try and respond to the black public when it's obvious that no matter what they do they're vilified You make a good point, and I think you're not OT at all. The interests of African-Americans just cannot be squared with anything that the Republican party has been able to offer them. Their interests have been served not too much better by the Democrats, but better enough to secure 95% of their votes. I'm sure that if the GOP could've done things any different, they would've, but the southern strategy has made it electorally inexpedient.

    PPJ is always taking this or that, slapping a cliche on it, and saying that this is the reason 'people don't(or won't) vote for Democrats". SSDD.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 11:08:13 AM EST
    Looks like the wingnuts are showing their colors. Digby had a post on the funeral. Here is what he says about his post:
    I received more right wing links to the post below than any post I've ever done. I also got more right wing hate mail than ever before wherein I was called "sick," "hateful" and "fat." Apparently we ruined their Ladies Swooning League funeral etiquette seminar. What a shame.
    digby Gee wiz what does all this imply about the wingnuts relationship to MLK and his, er... flock?

    Glanton I'd like to point out to you in New Orleans funerals are considerd Joyous events and celebrated. I have attended many Afro American Funerals and crys of joy and laughing and screaming permeate! It is not consider bad taste or rude. These are not quakers. If you think about it in the hearts and minds of many Baptists belivers Mrs King is going to Her God and her Husband.

    Where was the wingnut outrage when bush laughed and joked while thousands were abandoned to drown in New Orleans after Katrina hit? Was PPj the Red Herring tosser flushed with rage?

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 01:22:28 PM EST
    ppj - As Ive said before, if MLK were alive today there would be a "swift civil rights vets for truth" commitee and you'd be one of thier foremost spokespersons; so quite regurgitating Faux swill. Btw, What Coretta and King family deems appropriate for her funeral is absolutely none of your, (or Rush's or Ann's) f'ing business. You should know when to keep your mouth shut.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 01:29:02 PM EST
    Oh, and your pin head elect dosnt represent me; he wouldnt be my first choice for head dog catcher.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 01:57:12 PM EST
    here is a little snippet between Tucker Carlson and Rev. Joseph Lowery
    CARLSON: It's not hard to hear that [your remarks] and not draw the obvious conclusion that that's an attack on President Bush, which of course is your right to do, and I think completely fair. But again, it seemed very uncomfortable to say something like that in a funeral with the president right there. It seemed like bad manners.
    LOWERY: Well, I don't think so. I certainly didn't intend for it to be bad manners. I did intend for it to -- to call attention to the fact that Mrs. King spoke truth to power. And here was an opportunity to demonstrate how she spoke truth to power about this war and about all wars.
    that says it all: Video at think progress

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 02:04:58 PM EST
    If Bush had any genuine integrity, he'd realize that his entire F' the poor, Texacute em for pol numbers career makes a mockery of everything the Kings stood. He should have stayed home and cleared some more brush and watched Abu Ghraib re-runs.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    jondee writes:
    You should know when to keep your mouth shut.
    Alas dear jondee we live in a country that treasures free speech. Even such speech as you may find disagreeable. But even after enduring your attack, we are quite in agreement that the funeral was under the control of the family. That they have not disputed the acts of the reverand lowery and ex-president carter speaks volumes, as it also does for the Demo party and various Left wing organizations. The issue, which you evidently are incapable of understanding is simply this. The President was there representing the country. If they wanted to attack him they should have told him to stay home. i.e. When you attack him while he is doing what is essentially a state function, you are attacking those who sent him and who support him. It is called "good taste" and "decorum." And if they had exercised same and passed up a chance to "cheap shot" a President who could not defend himself and insult the country's foregn policies that millions support, they would not have energized the Repub's base and have about, from the last look at the AOL poll, about 175,000 people, about 69% of the total, saying their actions were wrong.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 02:36:44 PM EST
    Ah, dear jim detaching the meaning of Kings life from politics or, more accuratly, political struggle and that much larger more beautiful meaning that the political struggle stood for, is impossible. That certain posters have a problem with the struggle continuing and the King family countenancing it is a side effect of the underlying belief that politics is always about "self interest"; a cynical belief that the Kings lives undercut. Sorry if the King family hurt the g.o.p's feelings.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 02:56:52 PM EST
    ppj-
    If they wanted to attack him they should have told him to stay home. i.e. When you attack him while he is doing what is essentially a state function, you are attacking those who sent him and who support him.
    That is a load of horse pucky. The president can handle a well deserved dressing down once in a blue moon. He knew what he was walking into. Your comments about how thems folk aint gots no manners is pompuos, rascist and unamerican. You think the world is scripted like some tv show. Well most of the time when it comes to events where Bush attends it is. The WH neocon famous brag is 'we create reality' Thank god this was not the same old fake, made for tv, stale whitebread act repeated a gazillion tomes over. We saw that Americans still do have some blood left in them and are not afraid to talk about the 300 lb chimp in the room. Refreshing. Nice to know that all the living are not dead.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#66)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 03:06:01 PM EST
    Did anyone else notice the brilliantly tactful way President Clinton took the King children and Atlanta at large to task for their exploitation (read embezzlement) of the King legacy? Swift-boating name-gate; on another note, can we please kill all this water this, gate that, swift-boat crap. It is very, very tired.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 03:41:12 PM EST
    Glanton - The King family apparently approved; do you think Coretta and Martin would have? Btw "bad taste" is close to 2 out of 5 kids in my city (Rochester N.Y), living in poverty.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#68)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 03:47:22 PM EST
    Bond made many outrageous comments during his Fayettevill State speach. link link

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#69)
    by Slado on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 03:50:09 PM EST
    In all fairness Bond says these statements are taken out of context and that he didn't make some of them. Controversy ensues blah, blah, blah... So my point simply is Repulicans actually put blacks in powerfull positions and that gives them no points because they are tokens and don't count. Bush gets blamed for Katrina even though a black democratic mayor, a democratic govenor did just as poor or even worse job them Bush.

    JimakaPPJ: The President was there representing the country. they wanted to attack him they should have told him to stay home. i.e. When you attack him while he is doing what is essentially a state function, you are attacking those who sent him and who support him. Anyone would think that in the US there is no right to free speech. Bush was at no point personally attacked: that would certainly have been inappropriate. He was required to listen to a good deal that was critical of things he had done, but that was highly appropriate for Corretta King's funeral, and in no way disrespectful to the country Bush represents. After all, Bush is supposed to represent all Americans, not just those who slavishly agree with everything he says at all times.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#71)
    by glanton on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 04:01:49 PM EST
    pigwiggle: Yes I noticed that, and thought it was quite smoothly done, as you say. In principle I agree with Clinton but I would remind you that the King family has always made King footage available for free, for educational purposes. As in, if I wanted to show MLK's "Dream" speech for my rhetoric class, no problem. The commercial aspect is where the tension is and I submit that there is no clear cut right side on that issue. One can see both sides pretty clear. Illustratively, often when I teach rhetoric I use that case, and it sparks some lively debate on both sides. jondee: Yes, the family seems to be supportive of the anti-Bush rhetoric at the funeral. And absolutely, it was their show, their right to do what they want, etc. But I still think it's a shame that an event which could have served strictly to honor, grieve, and celebrate all at the same time, instead will be primarily remembered as an event where people lashed out at Bush. And while the Kings' legacy is obviously political, they were, first and foremost, wonderful human beings who touched a lot of lives. I don't know. It's hard for me to articulate exactly what bothers me about this. I just know that it does. Many of my friends here have been pointing out that Bush needs to be confronted more, that the White House controls reality to a fault and so it was good that he finally had to share a room with dissenters and actually hear opposing views, etc. I sympathize with the idea. But y'all, the problem of how damned insulated this Administration is--that problem can be attacked and solved without taking it to a funeral. How about we direct some more energy into calling for more courageous questioning/reporting in the media? How about we stop nominating milquetoast me-tooers for top Democratic office seekers? These are ways to contest the neocons, ways I infinitely prefer, again, to bringing the fight to a funeral.

    glanton, what do you do for a living? No snarks, no nothing, just curious...

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#73)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 04:41:14 PM EST
    glanton-
    "The commercial aspect is where the tension is and I submit that there is no clear cut right side on that issue."
    Not that I would normally be following this, but I was in Atlanta last year and the papers were quite critical of one of the King children's handling of a non-profit they were running. Something to do with this non-profit purchasing services under the direction of said King, from a business owned by that same King family member; all at quite inflated prices. I don't know what ever became of it.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#74)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 04:46:08 PM EST
    That they have not disputed the acts of the reverand lowery and ex-president carter speaks volumes, as it also does for the Demo party and various Left wing organizations.
    See, the swiftboating is in effect. While some may call for 'Decorum, people. Decorum.' it is obscenity the Dr. and Mrs. King were concerned about. The obscenity of siccing dogs on humans. The obscenity of an illegal war. The obscenity of dead and disfigured Americans sacrificed for a lie. The obscenity of spying on Americans and 'leaking' to the press the results of the spying, the obscenity of cutting social programs to fund an illegal war ... ad nauseum. But that was just the 60's and has no relevance now.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#75)
    by glanton on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 05:12:45 PM EST
    sarcastic: At the moment I serve as an editor for a literary journal.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#76)
    by Sailor on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 05:19:38 PM EST
    That they have not disputed the acts of the reverand lowery and ex-president carter speaks volumes, as it also does for the Demo party and various Left wing organizations.
    See, the swiftboating is in effect. While some may call for 'Decorum, people. Decorum.' it is obscenity the Dr. and Mrs. King were concerned about. The obscenity of siccing dogs on humans. The obscenity of an illegal war. The obscenity of dead and disfigured Americans sacrificed for a lie. The obscenity of spying on Americans and 'leaking' to the press the results of the spying, the obscenity of cutting social programs to fund an illegal war ... ad nauseum. But that was just the 60's and has no relevance now.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 06:33:51 PM EST
    Sailor - I just noted facts. BTW - Instead of this: The obscenity of spying on Americans... Why don't you say this: The obscenity of spying on Americans who are calling or being called by international terorists... Johnny: Bait? It is a simple question. BTW - Here is an interview of interest.
    In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Akkari said he did not mean for his mission to lead to such violence. He said while he is still angered that the media would print images offensive to Islam, he would like to find a way to end the current crisis. During his visits with Muslim leaders, Akkari also showed images that had not been published in any newspaper, but were part of hate mail sent to his colleagues. Those drawings show the Prophet as "a pig, a dog, a woman and a child-sodomizing madman," says the Globe. He said the images were not meant to be mistaken for cartoons published in newspapers, but protesters have cited the drawings during their rallies.
    edger - It is as easy as falling off a log. et al - Glad to see the thread has become an Attack Christans thread. But you know, I could find no riots, murders or..... Oh. I forgot the Crusades....800 years or so ago, but hey, who keeps score?

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#78)
    by Johnny on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 06:45:41 PM EST
    Johnny: Bait? It is a simple question.
    Wrong thread, fisherman. Try again.

    Maybe if the leader of the church that ran the funeral didn't drive a Bentley (truth, look it up), he'd have more money to give to the ppl he was critizing Bush for not helping.

    right. people who help people don't deserve to drive nice cars.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimcee on Wed Feb 08, 2006 at 10:18:57 PM EST
    Glanton, Editor of a literary publication? Cool gig! That explains why your posts are always well written unlike mine and some others. Best, Jim

    glanton: Yes, the family seems to be supportive of the anti-Bush rhetoric at the funeral. And absolutely, it was their show, their right to do what they want, etc. But I still think it's a shame that an event which could have served strictly to honor, grieve, and celebrate all at the same time, instead will be primarily remembered as an event where people lashed out at Bush. Yes. What a shame Bush supporters want to have it remembered that way. Let's hope that they don't get their way on this one: it would be a very evil thing to do, to lie that Corretta Scott King's funeral was "an event where people lashed out at Bush" when they did nothing of the kind.

    Slado: See the WND retraction here. Note the tell-tale phrases that indicate that no one associated with WND actually attended the speech.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#84)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:31:50 AM EST
    From QIB's link:
    Bond said, according to the tape, Republicans' "idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side." The quote reported to WND left out the word "Confederate."
    That's a pretty big omission, no? It's easy for the neocons to affect outrage when compared to Nazis, even when their policies and rhetoric beg such comparisons. But it's quite a different matter when you bring in the wird Confederate. Here the Rethug must be careful. He cannot deny outright, with derision and self-righteousness and all that, because ultimately he knows substantial portions of his base are still proud of the Confederate flag. Yet at the same time, he cannot defend the Confederate flag, because a lot of people know that it does in fact belong to the same nuclear family as the Swastika. So, what's a spinmeister to do? Omitting the word "Confederate" and then correcting it later in a little-read retraction might seem a nice start...... Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#85)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 10:46:34 AM EST
    Now come the wrongwingers to tell us an atta ck on bush is an attack on christianity. gee, in one easy step he went from Fearless Leader to Saviour! I actually managed to type that with a straight face ... if you consider the post-retching grimace a straight face. BTW, wan't cheney there? You know, the guy who voted against MLK Day.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#87)
    by Edger on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    Limbaughs remarks on the funeral : "I wonder how many women are going to get picked up and how many will be pregnant 9 months from now." Can we get him put back on the OxyContin now? Just to cool his jets a bit?

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#86)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 04:16:32 PM EST
    Speaking of "decorum" did anyone else catch g.o.p mouth piece Limbaughs remarks on the funeral : "I wonder how many women are going to get picked up and how many will be pregnant 9 months from now." That your people he's talking to Jim? I think it is. All those red state folks who "know better."

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 05:58:43 PM EST
    jondee - As you know, I'm not a fan of the big guy. He is, as I have noted many times, and entertainer, as is Franken, King, etc. When his market is gone, so will he be. But I must admit that after read some of the comments on this thread that he is starting to make sense. BTW - Do you have a source for the quote? I'd like to see it. glanton - Your argument doesn't hold up. If the intent was to effect outrage by the "base," then having Bond compare confederates to nazis is a double scoop of insult.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#89)
    by Sailor on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 06:21:47 PM EST
    Ahhh, the smell of swiftboating in the night ...

    I finally can't stand it. Black America has constantly inflamed White America since the 1960's. There have been causes, of course. Black America has certainly been justified in their right to pursue the civil rights movement, and have gained from that movement. However, there is reverse racism in America these days, my brother. Do you want a unified America? I doubt it. Black America continuously votes with the Democratic Party, which approves the unification of wealth. What happens when the producers of this country are equaled to the non producers--black or white? Look at the commercial for Two Brothers, Inc (in Atlanta). Do you think that these black citizens of this country agree with socialist initiatives to spread their hard earned wealth to the masses? I have never understood why black America will blindly support the Democratic party while it is in fact the Republican party that passed legislation that unbound them from the shackles of slavery. I think that the comment goes "don't bite the hand that feeds you." If you enjoy an America that will step up to its enemies, that is all about encouraging free enterprise, that is all about equal rights, that will not harbor the terrorists that brought down our sacred symbols, that STAND UP AND TAKE OUR HATS OFF WHEN THE NATIONAL ANTHEM IS PLAYED, then why vote quasi socialist. As a white American, I am tired of reverse racism. I see the sneering stares EVERY TIME that I board MARTA (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority). I have grown to resent it. I am tired of hearing that black people will gain entrance into a University solely based upon the fact that they are black. Not eskimo, not buddhist, but black. Plain and simple, black. I don't care what you think, or say or do, but I will never lay down based solely on the fact that I am white. I just want to exist peacefully, among people (black or white or whatever) that want to produce and succeed, and not pay attention to the people, black and white, that continue to drag it on and envelop the real issues of socialism that confront America today. Signed-- A Concerned AMERICAN CITIZEN AND PROUD OF IT.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 06:52:12 PM EST
    porphyry-Poor Baby.WAH WAH BOOHOO. You can try a race change operation. Or if you're not rich enough try cosmetics. Still not rich enough for that, well just dip your head in the toilet. Maybe then you will get the respect you feel you are missing on the bus. If your house gets burned down, I guess there is always insurance. If you get lynched well, maybe make sure your Life insurance is in order. There is always KKK. I guess you are already a member.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#92)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 06:52:49 PM EST
    Jim, Your response indicates either you don't understand what I said or, more likely, you're doing the very thing I criticize above. If you don't understand, here it is more plainly: my point had to do with the Right omitting the word "Confederate" so that it wouldn't have to either defend that wretched piece of filth they call a flag, or distance themselves from it. When the word is only "Swastica," they can affect (not "effect": there's a difference) outrage. But for the record, if you really think its unreasonable to compare the confederate flag to the swastika, then that's a new low of blindness even for you. If you cannot even bring yourself to recognize for what they are the morons who fly and revere that thing, it make me extra sorry that we are in agreement as to the main thrust of this thread. Stay alert, and stay with Fox.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#93)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 07:02:08 PM EST
    porphyry: Your outburst is refreshing. I wish more Republican voters and the people they elect, especially when they're in front of television cameras, would decide that they "finally can't stand it," as well, and drop the phony side of their rhetoric, and just blurt out the bigotry.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#94)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 02:52:33 PM EST
    "He's starting to make sense." What a shock. As if you ever differed from that racist p.o.s on anything. I dont want to see "Ward Churchill" coming from you again.

    Re: The Swift-Boating of Coretta Scott King's Fune (none / 0) (#95)
    by Aaron on Sat Feb 18, 2006 at 06:08:17 AM EST
    JimakaPPJ I must say, I agree with you. I watched some of the funeral and it was painful and as a matter of decorum, out of place. On the other hand Coretta Scott King, by way of her husband, was and is a revolutionary symbol in US history. The civil rights movement was no less than social revolution, and from that perspective all revolutionary leaders are inherently political and will continue to be politicized down through history. That's undeniable I won't speculate on whether the speeches were tailored specifically for the the presence of the president, but to think they were not, is to underestimate the Democratic Party. For most part I have to say the actions of the Democrats during this funeral give the appearance of a party desperately in search of a mission. Despite the fact that the Bush administration continues to fumble the ball domestically and internationally oftentimes on a grandiose scale, the Democrats have made frighteningly little progress under what would appear to be prime conditions, at least if it weren't for the ongoing "war". It seems the Donkeys are looking pretty frantic to regain some measure of validity as the representatives of the majority in this country, a position they seem to have let slip a way while they weren't looking. If they're going to make any significant political progress now they better start acting like the underdog. Time to start taking risks. And I think that's what we saw happening at Mrs. King's funeral. But ultimately the impact was negligible.

    Aaron - Bush showed up to Coretta Scott King's funeral to attempt to make political capital out of a woman whose causes he (and his father, come to that) strongly opposed. Bush's presence was out of place. The idea that the speakers should have toned down their comments out of respect for George W. Bush is to elevate Bush above his deserts. None of King's family felt any of the speakers were disrespectful or out of place: and it's their idea of decorum that counts. I see the title of this piece is the "Swiftboating" of CSK's funeral, but it would be more accurate to call it the "Wellstoneing" - lies told about the funeral of a public figure to serve the political purpose of those who oppose everything that public figure stood for. It would appear that Republicans have no shame, not even regarding the dead.