Blackstone, you are asking me to comment on a hypothetical. Not knowing how or in what form Bush would or could have responded, I choose not to take the bait.

Well, you're decent at reminding others publicly that they inject the debate with off topic handles. First with CR while somewhat answering the questions for debate, now with Eeyore. To a degree that includes myself, since I linked to Eeyore's post. If you wish the system was more "fair" may I suggest you report a post? It's an effective way to not feel like a mod is one up'in' ya.

I mean in any form at all. If he even broached the subject at all in defense against the charges that were raised then and there, could it have been appropriate? Was that the proper forum for a political debate at all?

Blackstone to avoid getting off topic, let's wait until someone asks Bush about this episode at a press conference, which I'm sure some reporter will. We can then start a new thread on whether or not Bush's response was appropriate, faux or whatever.

Sorry, but I refuse to play the game by your rules, which are based on hypotheticals and conjecture.

Blackstone I didn't list a bunch of charges, but I do understand your concern about my debating tactics on this thread. I tried to use neutral language and words like implied instead of advancing tangent debates, (the first link "direct lie" could have been worded better, I concede) but I also wanted to try to clearly make the point that there are much better places for outrage than this funeral. I also was implying that there is a reason for an attempt at deflection and distraction for the Republicans. Although I know I made tangential references I was trying to hit at this thread. I do not like it when people perceive that I am trying to bend the rules and hide behind a moderator button. So I apologize if I made you feel that was what I was doing. Reports against staff members are taken seriously and reviewed. That is always an option. I also suggest, that if you feel I have made charges that are incorrect interpretations of the stories I linked to, that you start a new thread for anyone of them and say your piece. I will likely join you there.

BTW the potshots were challenged. They have been widely challenged. So I don't understand the point about these comments not being held under scrutiny.



No I don't think a funeral is the best place to hold a debate. But each speaker has a chance to memorialize in their own way.

Would my outrage be loud because I am a Democrat and Bush is a Republican? Well, I would definitely make my comments. But likely I would focus mostly on the part of the message I disagreed with. And unfortunately (because I really wish I had more things that I supported the Republican Party on because they do run my government) I consistently disagree with the present administration.

I stick by my post as I did deal with the questions for debate. I would be happy to explore any of the side points I addressed in a new thread. I would have started a few if things were so hectic in Eeyore-land right now.

There's no need to wait for him to intone on the subject, and I wasn't taking the discussion off-topic. If you're going to make a pronouncement about something, you should be prepared to answer questions about the logical consequences of that pronouncement. Such questions are not off the topic.

But since you obviously have no intention of doing that, it can only follow that your pronouncement doesn't add up to much beyond a bias against one side of the political spectrum. The bottom line here is that in any venue where political debates are not appropriate, such as a funeral, it's also not appropriate to make political remarks directed at another participant, while taking advantage of his class and decorum that would prevent him from responding on such an occasion. It's rude, it's immature, and above all, utterly dishonest. Worthy only of a gutter politician who doesn't have what it takes to defend his positions in open debate.

That comment is directed at the funeral participants, by the way, not at present company. The other matter of controversy that I got into on this thread, I'll handle through private messaging to avoid derailing the main discussion.

Edited to add: Eeyore, I didn't mean to suggest that you were in any way abusing your power as a moderator. I only wanted to point out the irony of the situation. In hindsight, it probably wasn't an appropriate remark for me to make, and I'm sorry for having created the wrong impression.

You know what's dishonest, Blackstone? It's dishonest when people try to shift the focus of the funeral of Coretta Scott King from her to George W. Bush. Who gets to decide what venues are "appropriate" for political debates? You? Me?

When President Bush says for himself he took offense at the remarks made at the funeral, that's when all this beefing about Lowery and Carter may have some legitimacy. Until then, all this ranting and raving about how terribly Bush was treated is just the bleating of bored conservatives as unaccustomed and uncomfortable around dissenting voices as Dubya himself.

I repeat what I wrote earlier: The Right would like us to think that speaking out at the funeral of a lifelong activist was "not the right time or the right place" for such a thing. If it were left up to those who opposed much of what Coretta stood for there would never be a right time or place.

That is only true if you ignore Southern Funeral traditions, and ignore the political tradition of Correta Scott King and what her family has fought all thier life, and ignore the fact that this president is the anti-thesis of everything they have fought against, and every single position they have held in thier life.

The only truly classless behavior is GW not begging for forgiveness for his sins. That would have been in tradition, a tearful begging of forgiveness, and a promise to not backslide any further.;

If I were still living in those circles- my sermon would have talked about :Greed, Lying, bearing false witness, and lack of charity, and the central theme, the lack of repentance on the part of the wicked . And would have been completely appropriate for any Southern Christan funeral, white or black. That, and some fire and brimstone warnings of the unrepentant.

You mean like when Carter and Lowery did just that? I agree.


I didn't think there was really any question that funerals aren't appropriate places for political debates, or debates on any other subject for that matter. At least I've never heard of such a thing happening at a funeral.


First of all, this has nothing to do with whether Bush himself was offended. It was an inappropriate thing to do at a funeral, regardless. As for dissenting voices, it's not as though the types of remarks Lowery and Carter made aren't repeated day in and day out throughout the media. They're hardly lone voices in the wilderness being shouted down by the evil establishment.


What was it you were saying about dishonestly shifting the focus of the discussion? It wasn't the right time or place, regardless of what "the Right" thinks of it. This discussion isn't about whether or not Bush or "the Right" was justifiably upset by this behavior. It's about whether or not the behavior was appropriate. It wasn't.


Really? Bush is a segregationist? Who knew?

Sorry, my appetite for hyperbole tends to ebb at this time of night.


You're trying to turn this into debate on Bush's policies, and I'm not going there. If he really is that evil, why was he invited to the funeral? If he's worthy of attending, then he's worthy of being treated with a basic degree of courtesy. There would have been nothing wrong at all with, as you say, general sermons on greed, lying, and repentance, but if targeting a particular invitee is part of the "Southern tradition", then my impressions of the South could definitely stand some revision.

No- when a known sinner is in the congregation- let's say an alcholic is in the congregation- the tradition, without calling the person by name, would be to call out the sin.

For many southern christian traditions- it is very traditional to use this time to call the living to repent. Lowery and Carter are part of these traditions- they grew up in it- and know it's history.

I myself have been to several funerals, held in the southern "fire and brimstone" tradition- and, when I was younger, and still in the grips of Christianity, was called on to deliver one of these very sermons.

We invited the deacons and backslidden alike - in fact, in those traditions, this is your attempt to reach out to the 'backslider" and rebuke him/her, but in a manner that 'brings them back into the fold".

In my own experiance- we had an uncle/cousin pass away. his brother wa there, a known womanizer, drinker and gambler. So my sermon, as his favorite nephew/cousin, was to deliver this sermon on womanizing, drinking and gambling. Everyone KNEW who I was talking about- and the family member, at the end of the sermon, as is also traditional, took this time to "rededicate himself to the lord". And, at the end of the sermon, as family members (now- my family is huge- and with friends probably 300 or more strong at this funeral. )- so this "act of contrition" RAISED his respect in the family, this time to beg for forgiveness. It is the way of the bible really- the passing of life into "heaven' is an opportunity to remind others to take stock of thier lives- because they very well may be next.

There was very little difference between my family funeral in tradition and the King's funeral. Black Christians, in worship in the south, is very similar to the white christian traditions- I have attended both many, many times.

I think the rights attempt to "right wash" MLK's legacy (there has been posts here wondering, of all things, if MLK's legacy wasn't being sullied by affirmative action ) and they way Carter and Lowery put the "kabash" on it is what REALLY has the faux news listeners in a frenzy- with this one funeral- it set back all the recent attempts the right has made to co-opt MLKs and Correta's legacy.

they were political. they gave thier whole life to politics. They were left wingers. They even believed in <gasps> aspects of socialism.

Time for the right to realize this about MLK and Correta.

Based on the description you gave, there's a world of difference. There's no controversy in this country over whether womanizing, boozing, gambling, etc., are self-destructive tendencies. There is substantial difference of opinion - whether you want to acknowledge this or not - over whether Bush's actions were or were not right, or even, whether they were or were not in line with what the Kings advocated (whether the Kings themselves would have admitted this or not). Certainly Martin's dictum about how none of us are free until all of us are free could debatably be applied to the liberation of Iraq. Would it have been in keeping with his tradition to allow that country to continue to fester in the most abject tyranny? These questions are certainly worthy of debate, but not at a funeral. And it's not in the same noncontroversial category as womanizing and debauchery, no matter what kind of tortured logic you want to use to cram it into the same box with them.

Blackstone- in context of the audience, and who was being Eulogized- there is no controversy over who is the "sinner" in that funeral.

Of course it was inappropriate and in very bad taste. It's just that liberals don't understand these things, or even beleive the exist. To them it's all strategy, and they honestly believe that everyone else thinks the same way they do.

You do realize that Correta Scott King was a liberal, right? That her husband died for liberal causes?

Also- do you have the same critizism for GW at reagan's funeral- as was mentioned here? Is it okay when a conservative does it but not a liberal- and the real difference here- the King's had to make sacrifces, real sacrifices, to the point of giving thier very life, to pretty much everything that is the opposite of GW- while Reagan sacrificed nothing in his entire life?

Please tell me what you are talking about. I remember no such events at President Reagan's funeral.

Frankly I think your comments prove my point -- you honestly beleive everyone behaves the same way you do.

See post #22, this thread. If you are going to engage in debate- might be a good idea to read all the posts.

Quite frankly- GW behaved far worse at Reagan's funeral. Might even give it a read.

The number of people that are angry matters because that determines the answer to question 3 of this debate. The questions here were specifically framed to discuss election implications. This was not framed as a personal principles and philosophy debate where your opinion alone might be enough to prove something.

I doubt there is anything you can do in politics without making at least a few people angry. You have not shown that any significant portion of the electorate is angry about this so you have not proven that it matters, your personal distaste aside. Furthermore I think the media has long since stopped covering this.

And even if it did have election implications, who exactly do you think it'll effect at the booths? The only people I see angry are Republicans, were these people planning to vote Democratic in 2006? What about the african american community? I haven't heard a peep from anyone.

There will be no fallout on this because it is a non-issue.

CJ, you're making it seem as though I said that this would have major political ramifications...I answered number three by saying "maybe"...I never said that this by itself would cause an electoral backlash.

Whether or not this will have major ramifications, I believe [and answer the first debate question] by saying that this eulogy/funeral could have been done without making a partisan event of it, and by making a partisan event of it, the people involved acted classlessly.

CP

This was not a private funeral. The Left can't have it both ways. They can't say on the one hand that the Kings are figures of national stature whom the whole country and all our national leaders should respect, and then on the other hand say that their legacy is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Left.

Let's be clear on something: the Kings themselves may have been leftists, but it wasn't their "leftism" (by which I mean things like support for social programs, desires for restrictions on the police, opposition to the Iraq war, etc.) that earned them their legacy. It was their fight against segregation, and against racism in general. And that's something that both Left and Right (and virtually whatever other political label you want to use) in this country can understand and claim as part of their ideology. You don't have to believe in federally funded day care and midnight basketball to understand that segregation was a horrible evil.

There's a tremendously dishonest bait-and-switch game that goes on whenever the subject of the Kings comes up. Certain leftists say (or imply) that if you don't agree with the Kings' overall political outlook, you must be a segregationist and a racist and unable to appreciate the contributions they made in fighting those things. That is an absolute lie, and no one should have to tolerate it for a second.

In the final analysis, that's really what this debate is about: disingenuous use of the race card by certain factions to smear their political opponents.

Once again we hear this "the Left" this and "the Left" that stuff. Who on "the Left" is even talking about this anymore, it was a one or two day story at best with no significant statements from anyone. No one is complaining about this but a few people in this thread, a few people in the GOP and a few journalists (when it was current). It isn't even current news anymore, it has dropped off the radar. Yet somehow this is another part of the vast left wing conspiracy to discredit the poor downtrodden right.

Everyone who has defended the people who spoke at the funeral has done with consistent logic backed by evidence, there has been absolutely no evidence that this has "outraged" anyone other than a few people here in this thread. This debate was framed with the elections in mind, not as a personal principles and philosophy discussion. So unless you can show some kind of evidence that it will effect the elections then you really don't have an argument.

There's an even greater dishonest case of selective Alzheimer's among some contemporary conservatives to body-snatch King's legacy to America as part of their opposition to affirmative action, social and economic justice and eradicating poverty.

Go down the list of prominent conservatives of the last 60 years, both political and cultural, and you'll find many, far too many, sat out the civil rights era or openly opposed it. Now that the Rosa Parks, Constance Baker Motleys and Coretta Scott Kings of that time are leaving the scene, the Right seeks to convince everyone that they were behind them all the while. Yeah, right.

That's why while it was nice of President Bush to step away from his slashing of social programs for the poor while providing billions of tax breaks to oil companies, it wasn't that big of a deal. While Bush briefly paused in trampling over the powerless in favor of the powerful to honor Mrs. King it wasn't all that impressive. Bush speaks of equality, peace and improving the lives of Americans, but by action, he undermines his high-minded rhetoric.

That makes him a hypocrite and Joseph Lowery and Jimmy Carter zeroed in on his hypocrisy.

Cruising Ram nailed it with his analysis of how in some churches, you don't gloss over sins just so the sinners feel comfortable. If Bush is that unfamiliar with traditional Baptist services of a predominantly Black church, then he would have been smart to just hang out at the White House.



Absolutely right. But the funny thing this time about the "disingenuous use of the race card by certain faction" is it is being played by the Right to protect Bush from being exposed to the unpleasant truth.

I didn't say the Left was complaining about it. I said that their position on in this debate is illogical. If you have something to say in response to that, you're perfectly welcome to do so, but if all you're doing is objecting to the fact that this debate is still taking place because it's supposedly no longer "current news", no one's forcing you to participate.


The first question that was posed is whether or not the behavior was appropriate, and that's the question I'm answering. Your approval isn't required for me to do so.


It's news to me that conservatives have claimed that King's words support the idea of cutting or eliminating social programs, but maybe I just haven't been paying close enough attention. Either way, though, it's irrelevant to the point being made. The assumption that's being made here is that because Bush and the Republicans don't think that social programs are the way to go, they're no better than the Klan. That's a lie, plain and simple. Advocates of these programs are free to defend them on their own merits, and that constitutes a legitimate part of the public debate. But to imply that disagreement with their point of view is racist - that poisons the debate, is completely disingenuous, and those who try to use that argument don't deserve the time of day.


In other words, you disagree that his approach is the best way to accomplish that. That's fine, but many many other Americans disagree with you, and say that leftist policies have born their share of the blame for maintaining a chronically dependent underclass. Perfectly legitimate subject for debate, but if you think your pronouncements on this constitute objective reality instead of your own subjective opinion, you're completely wrong.


Here's the unpleasant truth that you're in need of exposure to: We don't have a Martin Luther King Day because the Kings wanted more social programs. His position in American history comes from his denunciations of racism. And no, racism does not mean lack of social programs. It does not mean lack of government action to make things "right". Racism is an attitude whereby people judge others by the color of their skin. That's the moral lesson that propelled him to his place in U.S. history. That was the contribution that Americans both liberal and conservative revere today. And that's the reason why the President would have been savaged in the press if he took your advice and stayed from the funeral. His opinions on economic policy had no more effect on this phenomenon than his opinions on theology.

That's what I mean by "bait and switch".

1. It was inappropriate and low-class. Could they have presented their eulogies without taking cheap-shots at the president? I don't know. That would require dignity, class, and a sense of perspective. One can't turn a dog into a cat. The behavior of some at the funeral was symptomatic of the problems that afflict his "community": A "race-centric" worldview filled with paranoia and the projection of "blame" everywhere except the individuals who make bad choices and exhibit bad personal behavior.

2. Will the president receive any benefits? No. The people who like, respect, and admire the president are currently the minority. The Bush haters will pile on, the press will drive that sentiment, and the "mushy middle" will follow the flow which is currently anti-Bush.

3. No. But the democrat's will more likely suffer from two primary factors. (a) they have spent 99.97% of their time bashing republicans and the President and haven't taken any opportunity to articulate any vision, plan, or strategy for the United States other than "just say no to Bush". Their childish approach will cost them since in spite of Bush's bad poll numbers, democrats poll even LOWER. ( While the GOP has been in control of the house, they've taken the opportunity (as democrats did in the past) to redistrict many areas which gives them an advantage that will be tough to overcome. The loud left is in a battle with the silent conservative (near) majority in this country and social issues (like abortion, morality, gay marriage, etc.) will continue to get the social conservatives out to the polls in great number.

I thought the comments were so good, that I decided to quote them again.
What President Bush said at President Reagan's Funeral....

President Reagan was optimistic about the great promise of economic reform, and he acted to restore the reward and spirit of enterprise. He was optimistic that a strong America could advance the peace, and he acted to build the strength that mission required. He was optimistic that liberty would thrive wherever it was planted, and he acted to defend liberty wherever it was threatened.

And Ronald Reagan believed in the power of truth in the conduct of world affairs. When he saw evil camped across the horizon, he called that evil by its name. There were no doubters in the prisons and gulags, where dissidents spread the news, tapping to each other in code what the American President had dared to say. There were no doubters in the shipyards and churches and secret labor meetings, where brave men and women began to hear the creaking and rumbling of a collapsing empire. And there were no doubters among those who swung hammers at the hated wall as the first and hardest blow had been struck by President Ronald Reagan.

The ideology he opposed throughout his political life insisted that history was moved by impersonal ties and unalterable fates. Ronald Reagan believed instead in the courage and triumph of free men. And we believe it, all the more, because we saw that courage in him.


To the democrat, that sounds pretty much the same as what Carter and Lowry said at Mrs. Kings funeral ---- which says loads about democrat party thinking processes.

Really? Care to expand on that or was it just a throw away insult that you don't intend to justify?

Throwaway insult? Hardly.
Look , I realize it's difficult to beleive, but I'm simply quoting him.

He posted the Bush quote, along with the comment that it was worse than anything Lowry or Carter said.
I simply reposted his quote. See post #67.

Truth is, if Carter and Lowry had said the same sorts of things that President Bush said, at EITHER Funeral, then this thread, and this controversy would not exist.

And the Truth is, to democrats there is no controversy, since what the president said, is the same as what Carter and Lowry said.

IE democrats REALLY DON'T EVEN SEE THE DIFFERENCE. They honestly beleive everyone acts as bad as them.

It occurs to me that by and large the same people who thought the remarks made at Coretta Scott King's funeral were inappropriate and did not belong in a private funeral saw absolutely nothing wrong with the Vice-President of the United States shooting a man in the face because that was a "private" matter.

Why does this make absolutely no sense at all?

The Washington Post reports on a rebuttal from Rev Lowrey.


I'm not an african-american and I've never been to a "black" funeral but this is certainly an interesting piece of commentary. I am sure there are some distinct cultural differences, and it would be interesting to have them validated or refuted by people in the know here.