I saw these two events today. I saw Rosa Parks' funeral; I saw Bill Clinton and so many others get up and praise the woman. And then I saw President Bush and his wife having lunch with the Prince of Wales and his wife.

Question: should the president have attended the funeral? should he have rescheduled his meeting with the prince? should he have arranged to bring the prince to the funeral?

I'm sure the prince has never been to an event like that. It would have been quite a lesson in American culture, methinks.

Maybe it was a conflict in the schedule, that is maybe W did not plan for such. I guess it would help for me to pay attention if W has made any statements regarding the death of such a historical figure, but I have not paid much attention to the whole issue actually. I read about it for a little bit in a completely non W related theme.

I was thinking about this very thing today.

LyricReckoner I agree. I am sure this would have been an interesting field trip for the "royal" visitors.

I agree that Bush should have attended the funeral. Rosa Parks is a part of Americana. I guess she didn't fit in with Bush's drive to reestablish his "base." Bush could have gone and been back in plenty of time for the black tie dinner. Uh, isn't that why he has use of AF-1?

The president who pledged to be president of all the people is fast becoming president of almost none of the people.

Bush knew this funeral was coming up. I imagine that he could have either rescheduled the prince's visit, or he could have gotten him an invite.

Bush had time to prepare a speech for this event. He could have gone there and persuaded a lot of people that he really admires Rosa Parks and what she did. But could he pull it off? Could he be sincere?

I don't think so. I think the president isn't comfortable around black people. I'll bet that's why he decided to bypass the NAACP convention when he was still governor of Texas. Those ain't his folks.

Question: should the president have attended the funeral? should he have rescheduled his meeting with the prince? should he have arranged to bring the prince to the funeral?

First: the death of a civil rights leader is not something to be celebrated. Her actions in life are to be celebrated. Her passing did not further the cause, her life did.

Second, the presence of the President of the United States would change the focus of the entire event. It is no surprise that media darling William Clinton was there (with his wife, of course), but the presence of Bush would have detracted from what was a memorial.

Bush does not operate like other Presidents have. He does not use tragic events as a media spotlight on himself. He is more humble than that.

Bush attended the ceremony in Washington DC (link), presenting a wreath Sunday night to her casket. He ordered flags flown at half staff today. He said in a speech at Boiling Air Force base in Washington that she was "one of the most inspiring women of the 20th century".

Should he have brought a foreign prince to Detroit? Have you been to Detroit? Just kidding... Again, I think it is Bush's aversion to the spotlight and not wanting to disrupt the ceremony.

EDIT to respond to LyricalReckoner:



You do know that his Secretary of State is one of those "folks", as was the one before her? That kind of statement boggles the mind. Did you realize he went to the ceremony in Washington??

I disagree with Amlord about the funeral on this point: A funeral is a celebration of person, generally for the welfare of those loved ones who need healing.
People go to funeral's to support the family of the deceased, to help in the celebration of that life and to show respect to either one of the famiuly or the deceased person.

In that vein, the funeral of Rosa Parks was more significant. So saying that,

is missing the point a bit. While I hate going to wakes and funerals and such I go because I am there for the cause, not for the body of the deceased person. I didn't even want to be at my father's funeral because it was not the way I needed to heal. I was there because it was the way OTHERS needed to heal.

In the death of Rosa Parks a nation is asked to revisit the life of someone who symbolizes freedom and equality in our country. One would go to that funeral to support the bereaved (in this case much of the country) and to celebrate the meaning of her life. I would argue that her passing DID do more to further her cause because, one last time, our nation had the opportunity to look at it's civil injustices using the lens provided by Rosa Parks. George Bush, as the President of the U.S. should have been there.

Anyway, without looking at popularity polls I would venture to guess that Bill Clinton would be more of a distraction from such an event than G.W. would be right now.

Sorry, the first paragraph in my last post was poorly worded.

I do agree that the funeral (or memorial) is for two things: remembering the deceased and consoling the family.

Bush was already at the ceremony in Washington. Should he also take center stage in Detroit? Or should he allow other people the chance to speak about the remarkable deeds of Rosa Parks?

Sorry about my lack of using the quote system, I understand it and will use it in upcoming posts.

The presidents presence at this funeral indeed would have gravity on the situation in total, I do agree with that. On the other hand, the current president has and does use situations to bolster his vision, desire, etc… The man wears religion on his sleeve more then any recent president I can remember, Regans son even made note of that during a speech. Again, I do not know the highlights of W’s interaction with the recently deceased civil rights legend, or the overall actions or stance W holds about such, so I really can’t speak on it.

The president also has the rights still as an individual, if he does not see any merit to either be there in person or make note of it to the public via his position, that does not denote negativity on the situation, if anything all it can truly due is raise questions on such. Most by now after the years of this administration know somewhat the political motivation and aspirations of said leadership, and I do not know of any serious race related issues coming to bear, being he has a minority female in a rather large position of power within the U.S government as it is, she not being the only non European white to hold a position in the current administration also.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not fond of the current government, but to sling mud as one could say usually does not produce anything positive.

On the topic of funerals, there are many ways I have observed of rituals people perform around the deceased, and I am sure that besides the funeral, which close to the deceased may have not wanted to be an utterly televised event will provide many more ways to learn about her, if only locally like at her institution for human development and race relations.

I would find it a bit odd though, if said president of the American people at large did fail to note her passing at any level he can control.

If we followed this line of logic, then a president would be a distraction at any funeral other than that of family and friends. Perhaps presidents should not attend funerals except in the cases I mentioned.



How do you divine the motives of other presidents who have attended funerals? Please be specific about what other presidents you are talking about and what evidence you have to support that conclusion.

I suppose Bush's alleged humility is in the eyes of the beholder. Until his poll numbers started going south, I more frequently heard terms like swagger and arrogance.

He already gave a speech about her, is he required to do so again? He is a citizen just like everyone else, can he not be seated with other dignified guests? Perhaps it's assumed that he says something, but he already did, and if someone else is giving the eulogy then I think he would be fine.

Her death was sad, but her funeral was quite a big afterward, enough time to where I would say he had enough time to either reschedule the royalty visit or allow them to come with him. I'm sure the Prince of Wales would understand, and also understand the gravity of the situation.



Is this my stop? Oh, no, it's rationalization station. He is apparently too humble even to pay respect at funerals, knowing full well that it would be a media blitz only comparable to if The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, with a reincarnated Stevie Ray Vaughn played a set together, for free. ::rolls eyes::

Honestly I think he thought he could get away with just giving the speech and calling it a day, but that's just my hunch.

Question: should the president have attended the funeral? should he have rescheduled his meeting with the prince? should he have arranged to bring the prince to the funeral?
Only if he gave a damn. As he clearly doesn't, I think it's appropriate that he stayed away. During his speech about her the other day, he couldn't ever get her name right - kept calling her Rosa Park.

It reminded me of Mia Farrow in Woody Allen's Radio Days. Her character is fairly dim and, when her radio broadcast is interrupted due to the December 7 attack, she's like, "Who is this Pearl Harbor anyway?" I can just imagine Bush responding to news about Rosa Parks: "Where is this Rosa Park anyway? Pasadena?"

should the president have attended the funeral?

I don't know, but I lean towards the view that he should have. People generally go to a funeral of someone they are not personally close to in order to pay their respects to the deceased. Not going to such a funeral could be construed as a way of saying that you didn't really have that much respect for them.

should he have rescheduled his meeting with the prince?

No. He should have cancelled it, or taken the Prince and his new (or not so new) bride with him to the funeral. If the Prince and the Adulteress of Cornwall didn't want to go, I'm sure they could have found something useful to do instead. Like read a science textbook, instead of the hippyish mumbo jumbo the "Defender of Faiths" put his trust in, like the third-rate liberal arts graduate he is.

should he have arranged to bring the prince to the funeral?

Yes.

But really, I don't see what all the fuss is about. (Before I go on, and it case it isn't already obvious, I am a not a monarchist, and Charles Windsor Esq is my least favourite member of The Firm)

It's not as if the Prince is a foreign head of state yet. He doesn't have any symbolic significance here, let alone in the USA, and won't have any until his mother dies. And even when that happens (which I hope will not be for a long time yet - Queen Elizabeth is by far the best of an otherwise bad bunch. As monarchs go, she's been a much better one than she has been a mother, if the kids are anything to go by.), his significance will be purely symbolic - the only constitutional reason we still have a monarchy in the UK is for symbolic purposes.

Charles doesn't seem to think so, however. At every opportunity, he spouts his half-baked opinions, most of which are either 90 years out of date or demonstrably wrong (he likes homeopathy - I rest my case).

The only reasons he and Camilla are on their US tour at all are "to be taken seriously" (for a republic, you don't half give royalty a lot of respect) and to try and repair the PR damage he did to himself by treating his first wife so appallingly. By, need it be said, having an affair with his current wife all the way through that first marriage.

Charles and Camilla needed the kudos of dinner with the President far more than he needed it.

Frankly, if it were a case of honouring a civil rights campaigner who was instrumental in improving the lives of millions of black Americans, or honouring a spoiled cheating useless crackpot who is openly contemptuous of his meal ticket (the British public) who was instrumental on sending upper-middle-class British kids on Outward-Bound-style holidays (the main function of The Prince's Trust) and his spoiled cheating useless crackpot wife who's never done anything for anyone, I think the decision should be obvious.

However, pretty much every president since WW2 has found the "glamour" of monarchy irresistable, so it was a foregone conclusion that he'd choose to bask in the glory reflected from tiaras rather than that reflected from coffin handles.

For a president so keen on the spread of democracy, he doesn't appreciate the irony of supporting the most visible remnant of non-democracy Britain has left. But then, he doesn't do nuance, so it's only to be expected.

Oh, and before anyone accuses me of class envy, need I remind you that I just want what America has - an elected head of state. Heck, I would have no objection to the notional private citizen Mr Charles Windsor, of Tetbury and Kensington, standing for the office. He'd probably win if he did (though without my vote).

Amlord, I'm sure the president doesn't mind when a few black folks show up. In fact, he sometimes prefers it when a few do. But if he found himself surrounded by black folks -- whether in a church, or in New Orleans, or in a locker room -- he'd be mighty uncomfortable, methinks.

Are you not aware of racism, the more subtle forms of it? Asking Powell or Rice to be secretary of state is one thing; attending an AME church is quite another.

Will liberals stop at nothing to lambast the president? This has become absurd.

The President on Monday, paid their respects to Rosa Parks while the casket laid in the Rotunda (sharing something only given to people like JKF and Lincoln).
From CNN.com:
Bush and congressional leaders paused to lay wreaths by her casket, while members of a university choir greeted her with "The Battle Hymn of the Republic."
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/30/rosa.park...=cnn_topstories

Aware of racism? Sure. We're aware of racism... like calling Collin Powell or Condi Rice "race traitors" or "non-blacks" because they serve the President. I believe, that by itself is surely racist.

I'm no George Bush fan, and believe he's done plenty of absurd things, but frankly, pushing him under the bus on this one is a stretch....

Of course he should have attended the funeral of one of such an important social activist. She has been an icon during her life and played an important role in the struggle against segregation. Because of his political function as president of the U.S. he should have on the funeral (Giving a quick speech, and then meeting Prince Charles is not paying respect to such an important historical figure.) It is, in my opinion, in fact his responsibility as Head of State to pay respect and attend the funeral of such an important and influential person.

(I wonder how the Afro-Americans and their organisations have responded to the President's absence. I have to look that up. )

Wertz

Or maybe his listened to the radio listened to Outkast's song Rosa Parks and only remembering the part of Bombs over Bagdad"" lallalalalalalalala.

Editted to add:

Aevans176



What a wonderful words in relation to Rosa Parks. She wanted to sit in front of the bus, George Bush is getting pushed underneath the bus.

I'm not lambasting the president. I merely asked whether he should have attended the funeral service rather than spend time with the prince, or -- better yet -- whether he should have gone there with the prince.

Yes . . . I think the president missed a significant opportunity when he decided to stay in Washington. But you can't call that lambasting the man, now can you?

Should Bush have attended the funeral of Rosa Parks? I think I'm going to give him a pass on this one. Attending or not-attending was a lose-lose proposition. Go and Bush would get it from critics who would say it was all politics. Don't go and Bush would be perceived as insensitive.

I'm going to give Bush and the Republicans credit for extending the rare honor of lying in state in the Capitol Rotunda to Mrs. Parks. Despite Bush's mangling of her last name, Mrs. Parks's significance was not ignored by the GOP.

Whether it was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a service in Montgomery, Ala., or Oprah Winfrey at the observance in Washington, it was clear that this country has moved on from the day when a white man, with the backing of the law, could tell a black seamstress to give him her seat and move to the back of the bus.

Let's hear it for uppity black women.

But no symbol seemed more powerful than Parks' coffin resting at what really is the nation's ultimate place of honor, in the Capitol Rotunda.

My, my, how times really have changed.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/e...outlook/3432198

I'd much rather Bush entertain a British twit than go somewhere he probably wasn't really wanted. His appearance would have been more symbolic than significant and a unnecessay distraction.

Would you say that he shouldn't attend funerals of those in the military killed in combat? Attending a funeral of someone he's never heard of is symbolic, and his contingent of security people would be a real distraction for a small, home town funeral.

Should the president not make appearances that are largely symbolic? Is throwing a huge dinner for the Prince of Wales more significant than symbolic?

Yikes, just thinking about Bush showing up at dh's funeral (he's serving in Iraq as we speak) makes me ill.

I agree with nighttimer. As much I think it would have been respectful and maybe appropriate to go, it's one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't things. I recall the media spectacle surrounding Bush's attendance at someone's funeral last year (many of the funeral-goers saw it as nothing but a photo-op for the prez), so I imagine it would (or at least could) have been much of the same at Rosa Parks' funeral. I think he *should* have gone, but I can certainly understand why he didn't.

Yes Wertz. I'm sure that George Bush has lived in the United States for his whole life, attended Yale and Harvard and somehow was completely aware of Rosa Parks. It's a good thing that Karl Rove told him to order the nation's flags to half staff, and to make her the FIRST WOMAN EVER to lie in state at the capitol rotunda. Boy, just think if he 'gave a damn' or knew who she was



Here you go. Look at the photo - he looks REALLY uncomfortable surrounded by all of those black people. Note the date. Not campaign season, not after the hurricane, just promoting his faith-based initiatives. At an AME church.


As long as it's directed at George Bush, it seems like the most hateful baseless accusations can be made without proof. Some of you guys need to take a deep breath and look inward.

If Bush would have attended the funeral, at least he wouldn't have felt compelled to make up a story for the occasion. Bill Clinton actually said that, when he was 9 years old, he and his buddies celebrated Rosa Parks' protest by going to sit in the back of the bus. Seriously.

Should the president have gone to Rosa Parks' funeral?

Yes, if he had any respect for who she was and what she stood for. I guess we have our answer on that one.

Should he have rescheduled his meeting with the Prince of Wales? Should he have arranged to bring the prince to the funeral?

I think he should have given the Prince and the Duchess an opportunity to attend the funeral with him. It would have been quite an honor shown to Mrs. Parks for them to be there, especially after they went to all the trouble to fly here in their gas-guzzling private jet so that Charlie can lecture us Yanks about conserving fuel. LOL

Maybe we'll get lucky and Milly will stuff the Shrub into her carry-on bag and take him back to Old Blighty with her. Mind the gap! LMAO

Jeez, Carlito. I think some of us were giving Bush a pass for not going to the funeral, but why's it got to be a spat between you and Wertz? This isn't ABOUT Bush vs. Clinton so why try to turn a celebration of a great American's passage into who's more sincere?

Good grief, do you really believe this statement you wrote?



As Marlon Brando once said, "Was you there, Charlie?" How do you KNOW Bill Clinton didn't do exactly what he said? How do you KNOW George W. Bush would not embellish his own remembrances. In the urge to say something nice about the dearly departed people, have a tendency to turn them into saints. Politicians are particularly prone to lapse into exaggeration.

I'll paraphrase your own words: "As long as it's directed at Bill Clinton, it seems like the most hateful, baseless accusations can be made without proof. Some of you guys need to take a deep breath and look inward."

The funeral for the Mother of the Civil Rights Movement should not degenerate into a partisan pie fight. Shame on those individuals---on the Right AND the Left--that would make it so.

The debate topic is not a celebration of a great American's passage, it is actually almost verbatim "who is more sincere." I was responding to accusations that Bush "doesn't give a damn," may not know who Rosa Parks was, and that he's a racist.



Yes they are. In the urge to say something nice about Rosa Parks, Bill Clinton turned himself into a saint. It's a bit of a stretch for a 9-year-old to even be aware of such things. But no, I wasn't there, and I guess I shouldn't question such an upright guy.

I have great respect for Bill Clinton. He had so much potential. At the same time, he has a history of embellishing the truth to fit his audience. Particularly with respect to race. I don't understand why blacks don't find this to be patronizing, but when someone says what you want to hear...

- Speaking to a black audience in Harlem "I have fond memories, when I was going to school in London, of flying into LaGuardia and walking down to Harlem" (no London flights landed there)
- Speaking of black churches burning "I'll never forget seeing those black churches in Arkansas, burning due to the hatred blah blah." (no such fires occured while Clinton was young)

Given the above, plus various Lewinsky-related tales, I tend to question him when he makes an assertion that, when he was NINE he was into civil disobedience. Sorry for bringing it up, but he was the one speaking, and I thought what he said was a bit implausible, and frankly self-serving. If you believe him, more power to you.

If there were a celebration of Rosa Parks thread, I'd start with "Sister Rosa" from the Neville Brothers Yellow Moon.

One thing is certain, carlito. George Bush has lived in the United States for his whole life, attended Yale and Harvard, and didn't even know the woman's name.

I believe you are quite right that the Executive tribute to Rosa Parks was not President Bush's idea. I don't know whether it was Karl Rove or Condi Rice or Andrew Card or Laura Bush, but, no, I don't think it would ever have occured to Bush himself to honor Ms. Parks. That is not a "partisan attack", it is simply a personal opinion based on observation of President Bush over the course of the past several years.

I think Bush attendance at the funeral would have smacked of politicizing. He would have come off phony, noone would have bought it and he surely would have made some egregious mistake like not pronouncing her name correctly or making up some story that he clearly has no experience with.
He did his bit in Washington and his advisors were right on this one. A private affair for those who actually care. Its just not his realm and he never could have pulled it off with any kind of sincerity.
Better to be accused for not showing than a recorded phony and usually bumbling showing.



Here you MUST be kidding. He has no concept of tragic events, more akin to ego prancing about in a self made delusion of victory and accomplishment.