At Coretta Scott-King's funeral yesterday, which lasted 6 hours, a number of people spoke to memorialize her. This included our current President, as well as former Presidents Clinton and Carter. The latter two, along with Reverend Joseph Lowery, decided to turn the event into a bash fest of the present administration.

In an interview with political analyst Jeff Greenfield on CNN, an argument was made that this funeral could constitute a "Wellstone" moment, a reference to the highly political funeral for former Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone that some have argued created enough of a backlash that delivered that senate seat to the GOP.

Questions for Debate:
1) Given the political influence that both Dr. King and his Wife had exerted on American history, was it appropriate to politicize the funeral to the degree that took place? Could it have been done without taking shots at the present administration?

2) Since George W. Bush attended and spoke at the funeral, is it possible he might benefit from any backlash that may be generated from the event?

3) Given that the election is still 9 months away, is there any chance this backlash (if any) could impact the outcome of specific races in the House or Senate? If so, could it prevent the Democrats from retaking either chamber?

1) Given the political influence that both Dr. King and his Wife had exerted on American history, was it appropriate to politicize the funeral to the degree that took place? Could it have been done without taking shots at the present administration?
It wasn't just inappropriate, it was insulting to Dr. King and his wife. Both of their lives were monumental in changing the culture in this country. Turning her death into a stage for petty politics is very sad, and this comes from a guy that agreed with some of what they said. There is a time and place for everything, and that was not the time nor the place.

2) Since George W. Bush attended and spoke at the funeral, is it possible he might benefit from any backlash that may be generated from the event?
It could possible make an impact, but I don't think he has much to benefit from it. He's not up for reelection and this isn't going to change any opinions about his policies.

3) Given that the election is still 9 months away, is there any chance this backlash (if any) could impact the outcome of specific races in the House or Senate? If so, could it prevent the Democrats from retaking either chamber?
Once again, I think if it has an impact it will be minor. The press will drop it before too long and it will leave the forefront of most peoples minds. If the election were next month, it would be different.

It's very difficult to know how inappropiate it was or wasn't without some sort of information on what was actually said. Do you have any links for us Doctulus?

The only actual quote I could glean from the article:



Seems entirely appropiate. Not only are these comments being made 9 months before the election (As opposed to 3 or 4 days as in Wellstone's case), but Carter is making the point that Mrs. King and her husband provided many valuable lessons about abusive government controls, and it's certainly food for thought in the light of contemporary events.

I'm flabbergasted someone could be offended by something as subtle as that.

Quotes from the Funeral

I'm as down on BushCo as anybody, but that entire fiasco was inappropriate. Instead of celebrating the civil rights progress for which Dr. King and his wive's lives were directly responsible for, it was mediocre Bush bashing. I mean, they didn't even have anything new to say. It was a cheap shot to make an old claim.

There's a time and place for accountability. That wasn't the place.

Um- the guy is an American Hero- but an American Hero with leftist ideals and beliefs. A great many of those beliefs he spoke about, marched on, and eventually died for. He talked many times of economic freedom, supported Affirmative action etc etc.

And above all, he was part of the warf and weave of American politics.

But he was also a leftist- and the right wing today is trying to make some kind of revisionist history in saying he is not.

Every thing Carter and other old leftist said was not only true- but something MLK himself probably would have said at one point or another- if he wasn't paraphrased in the first place.

I find it kind of nauseating this attempt to "move the King Legacy to the right".

The right got , in old timey Christian-y terms "rebuked".

First of all, I've seen no evidence of an attempt to move his legacy to the right, and secondly, that has nothing to do with the questions being asked. All that was asked is whether the comments were appropriate for that venue, and what the fallout might be.

Personally, I do think it was inappropriate. Maybe the wiretapping remark was OK (I'd have to look more at the full context in order to form a judgment), but the direct swipes at the administration really showed a lack of decorum. As others have said, there are plenty of opportunities outside of the funeral to bring that up. And it's not like the media don't provide plenty of air time for those views.

Reagan's funeral wasn't used as an occasion for bashing the GOP's adversaries, and I don't see why this should be any different.

1. There is a phrase that both Dr. King and his wife lived their lives by: Speak truth to power. As Reverend Lowery said today on NPR, both he and the Kings were activists who spent most of their lives pointing out hard truths to powerful people. All this false piety coming from the Right about how inappropriate it was to tell off the President while he's sitting right there is nauseating. This is the same President whom in one breath, lauded the life of Mrs. King after she passed away, yet in another breath, lavished praise on the appointment of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, a devout opponent to affirmative action.

The real act of bad taste would be in sugarcoating the fact that Coretta Scott King was a liberal who dissented peacefully against the racist status quo that kept Black Americans oppressed. The true insult would be to merely mouth empty platitudes about Coretta and gloss over how committed she was to peace, eradicating poverty, and championing the causes of social justice and racial equality.

2. Oh sure. Bush could actually listen to what Lowery, President Carter and Mayor Shirley Franklin said. He could benefit from being removed from his bubble of hand-picked audiences selected by his handlers and hearing a different perspective than he normally does. A cold splash of reality might do wonders for President Bush. This is not a Chief Executive who is familiar with voices of dissent.

3. No. There's absolutely no chance of this event having a carry-over effect into the November elections. All politics are local and someone voting here in Ohio isn't going to have their mind changed one way or another by what went down in a Atlanta church one afternoon when President Bush (finally) had to hear a discouraging word.

I'm sure it's terrifying for some of his supporters that fear Bush might curl up into the fetal position if someone dares to publicly challenge him. But fear not. I am confident Bush will survive his brief brush with the cold, hard truth and muddle on just as myopic and disconnected from reality as usual.

I find it refreshing that some functions Mr. Bush and his wife attend are not scripted by his handlers, and I applaud Nighttimer's remarks addressing the pointed, critical comments made for the president's edification.



1. It was entirely appropriate for such remarks to be made at the funeral of an activist.

2. I can only hope that he would take into consideration what was said--I am unaware that he would have been able to hear such candor in any other venue.

3. I am sure that some Republicans are going to gripe and moan about the criticism not being polite or appropriate at the funeral, but I am just as sure that, given the truth of the remarks made, not much political hay can be made by the GOP as it plans its election strategy.

Eventually Republicans are going to have to address 1) the fact that our country was misled into waging war on a country that was not involved in the 9/11 attacks and was not a threat to the U.S., 2) there are widespread problems of poverty, under- and unemployment, inadequate health care, and underfunded educational institutions right here in our own country, and 3) while our national borders are porous to the influx of illegal immigrants, they are also porous in relation to the outsourcing of American jobs. And all of this cannot be blamed exclusively on President Bush's predecessor.

nighttimer, did you actually watch this event? Bush's dad actually joked that Maya Angelou had no cause for worry (from Lowery's bad poetry). They did listen. They did respond. President Bush embraced Lowery on stage. And affirmative action? Can you show me where Dr. King wanted black children to be let into school if they have lower scores and lower grades? Is that what he meant by equality? The only empty platitudes here are the left parroting their talking points. Bush's eulogy was excellent (heck even Ted Kennedy was good, unlike his talk at the Wellstone thing).

This funeral was held in probably the richest black town in America. The speakers were, in effect, incinuating that racism leads to black poverty. Who is in a bubble here?

Honestly, I did think that Carter's remarks were inappropriate, but he just seems to be losing it more and more every day. To speak about wiretaps authorized by Bobby Kennedy because King Jr. was associated with known communists, and make some weird parallel with Al-Quaeda phoning the US, is just out there. And the race of those killed by Katrina has been well documented - this storm didn't pick its victims by race. There was ZERO correlation among those killed by race. You may as well have surveyed the Superdome and said "hey, there are a lot of women and children here - where's the men? must be a sexist storm. Bush hates women." Ridiculous.

To directly respond to the debate questions, the comments were inappropriate, but not anywhere near the Wellstone funeral. No one was chanting "we will win" 3 days before an election or anything like that. There shouldn't be an effect on any elections from my point of view.

Yes, carlitoswhey, I did watch the event. I also downloaded the program of the funeral that was given out to the attendees of Mrs. King's funeral. I was pleased and felt it was an honor that four of the living Presidents of the United States were present. This was in sharp contrast to President Lyndon Johnson who did not attend Dr. King's funeral.

Perhaps the fact that the President embraced Lowery even after being chided by the old civil rights leader means Bush has a thicker skin than you or I give him credit for. Oh, I'm sure he didn't like being publicly taken to the woodshed, but he's a big boy now. Bush took the remarks in stride. So what's got you so upset?

In regards to affirmative action, here's what the woman who knew him best had to say in a interview with Wolf Blitzer in 2003 just before the war in Iraq began.

BLITZER: Mrs. King, thank you so much for joining us. Let's talk a little bit about the legacy of your husband. How much has the racial situation in our country improved since his death, if you believe, indeed, it has?

KING: Yes, I think it certainly has improved tremendously, but we still have much more to be done. Martin defined the evils and the injustices in our society in three areas -- poverty, racism and war. And he said that we cannot solve one problem without solving the other, working to solve the other one. And I think we have remnants of all of those. We've made some small progress in some areas more than others, but we still very much have poverty. We still very much have racism. And we still very much have a threat of war.

...I think that President Bush is, in terms of the cabinet appointments and in terms of a few other things, I suppose, you know, he has worked, I think, to bring the country together. But I think that this administration has a great opportunity to end this problem. But they are very much against affirmative action. And I think affirmative action is a very important part of making this -- towards eliminating racial discrimination. (emphasis added)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/14/cnna.king.wolf.interview/



If you don't think racism leads to poverty, Carlito, then I've got nothing for you. If you don't think racism retards access, opportunity, achievement and excellence, then I would suggest that it is you who is in a bubble.

President Carter's remarks probably bothered Ted Kennedy more than George Bush. It was Bobby Kennedy who authorized the wiretapping of Dr. King, not Alberto Gonzales. Why should Bush43 take offense if he is serene and confident that his wiretapping is legal and constitutional? Then again, if Bush's wiretapping is not legal and constitutional, then Carter was entirely justified in rebuking Bush for endangering cherished American values.

Carlito, what we have as regards whom Hurricane Katrina most victimized is a difference in perception that is directly determined by racial lines.

...a Pew Research Center survey found that 71 percent of blacks say the disaster shows that racial inequality remains a major problem in the country, while 56 percent of whites feel this was not a particularly important lesson of the disaster. And how's this for a racial perception gap: Sixty-six percent of blacks say the government's response to the crisis would have been faster if most of the storm's victims had been white, while 77 percent of whites disagree.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte.../administration

In the case of Katrina perception IS reality. Blacks and Whites view the same issues and arrive at vastly different conclusions. Same as it ever was.

Finally, it is critically important in all this drama over what occurred during the funeral that we do not lose sight of who Coretta Scott King really was. The following remarks come directly from the program.

Mrs. King functioned as a liaison to peace and justice organizations and as an advocate for the unheard and disadvantaged in the councils of public officials. She continued to stand up for social justice for the rest of her life.

Mrs. King has traveled across our nation and world speaking out on behalf of racial and economic justice, religious freedom, dignity and human rights for women, children, gays and lesbians, people with disabilities, universal healthcare, educational opportunities, nuclear disarmament and environmental protection.

As one of the most influential women leaders, Coretta Scott King has tried to make ours a better world, and in process, has shaped and made history.

This not the epitaph of a right-wing, defender of the status quo. This is the epitaph of a woman who made a difference in the world despite the terrible cost she had to pay personally.

Thank you Coretta for being a shero and inspiration for all Americans.

And here I give you a hearty "amen." It's nice that we acknowledge progress.

I'm really not upset. I think that affirmative action is wrong. You disagree. You say that Coretta-Scott-King favored it. I disagree with her as well. The only thing that had me marginally upset by your post is that you (and the Senators on the judiciary committee) equate Bush, Sam Alito, and anyone else who disagrees with affirmative action as being "racist." No, you didn't say it overtly, but we catch your drift.


So, president Bush has not eliminated Poverty, Racism or War. Which makes him a failure, because MLK was soooo effective in eliminating racism and keeping us out of Vietnam. Call me crazy, but after Ghandi, Stalin, Bill Clinton, Jesus and Mohammed, we "still had remnants" of racism, poverty and war.


I bet you anything that, if you took the demographic information for the former Klan stronghold of DeKalb county, you would find that the black families there are more likely to be married and complete their education before they had children. There are many reasons for poverty, and racism is but one of them.
He is justified in rebuking Bush in any venue he chooses, but this was (in my opinion) inappropriate. If I was a bad pizza delivery guy, and I was attending a funeral of the wife of a neighborhood florist along with other pizza guys, it would be inappropriate for you to criticize my bad driving in front of that funeral. It's unrelated. Tying the Kennedy's unchecked domestic spying and Bush monitoring Al-Qaeda is insulting to both Bush and the King family. Did I mention that it's inappropriate?

No, actually, reality is reality. Perception is perception. So-called black leaders will exploit the perception to improve their reality. Same as it ever was.

Amen and Hallelujah. We had a nice talk about her life at my church on Sunday. We didn't feel the need to discuss the NSA or the hurricane though

1) Given the political influence that both Dr. King and his Wife had exerted on American history, was it appropriate to politicize the funeral to the degree that took place? Could it have been done without taking shots at the present administration?



There are those of us on the board who have long argued that Bush has been given a pass on almost everything. Apparently, at least in the minds of some, it is never appropriate to criticize Bush. Do you remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks? This was, in my opinion, the grakels finally congegating in Bush's back yard.

I will now to address the larger issue of the appropriateness of politicizing the funeral. In my opinion, a funeral or memorial service should honor the desire of the deceased and reflect his or her life. I somehow do not think that Mrs. King would have been put off by remarks aimed at Bush at the funeral. When I start hearing complaints from King’s daughter or other family members, I might change my mind.

Until then I have no problem with the remarks. Whether Karl Rove had anything to do with this or not, the feigned indignation of Republicans has Rove’s signature all over it.



That’s why we have so many different churches. I am technically Unitarian, but haven’t done church in a number of years. I’m sure other churches had something other than the seemingly sanitized talk your group had.

2) Since George W. Bush attended and spoke at the funeral, is it possible he might benefit from any backlash that may be generated from the event?

I’m sure Bush knew he was walking into a lion's den, so to speak. I doubt he’ll get much of any bounce out of this. The bond of trust between Bush and the American people has seemingly eroded. I don’t think sympathy can rebuild that.

3) Given that the election is still 9 months away, is there any chance this backlash (if any) could impact the outcome of specific races in the House or Senate? If so, could it prevent the Democrats from retaking either chamber?

No! This is yet another diversion rather than a real issue. It will not have an impact one way or the other.

Sanitized? We, black and white, were discussing the death of a civil rights hero. Some in the congregation had marched in the 60's, and even been beat down in Chicago in '68. Why on earth would a hurricane or terrorist wiretaps come into the conversation? Not all of us spend our lives thinking of how to score political points.

Well, let me put it this way. If you can't eulogize a civil rights leader and semi-American icon without bringing partisan politics into it there's something extremely wrong with you. The snipes at the President was absolutely classless [which is becoming par for the course for an aparently very desperate Democratic pary lately]. The funeral was a celebration of Mrs. King's life, WMDs and wiretapping should be put aside and these politicians: Hillary, Carter, Bill etc. should at least pretend to be humans for a few hours.

The American public will see Dems Bush-bashing at a funeral, 'nough said.

Maybe, but as I said, this is becoming par for the course for the Democrats lately, so I'm sure that combined with their other outbursts will hurt the Dems in '06.

CP

That's a srange statement given that one of the most notorious Republican talking heads Kate O'Beirne of the National Review, very much tried to "score political points" with her tirade on Tuesday's Hardball.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11237163/

"Liberals?" I didn't realize Jimmy Carter carried such powerful liberal credentials or that he is a spokesman for liberals!

Step back, take a deep breath and ask yourself - why would Kate O'Beirne or Chris Matthews be mentioned at a funeral or civil rights discussion. Who cares. Are you hearing me now? What did someone say about living in a bubble? Everyday americans don't know who either of those people are.

This funeral, like the example of my church discussion, were about a civil rights hero. Not about political cheap shots. Wow. If I had a beer with my neighbor and discussed Mrs. King, this crap just wouldn't come up.

You didn't get the picture. O'Beirne was commenting on the funeral on Hardball. Neither was mentioned at the funeral nor was there a reason to mention them.

The point is that O'Beirne was trying to make political points. Are you hearing me now?

"Who cares?" You must. You've already posted four times on this thread.

Congratulations on putting yourself above "Everyday Americans." I thought liberals were supposed to be elitists.

You answered your own question. They led political lives, they will be politicized in death. Nothing incomprehensible there.

Everything Bush does is according to politics. But it's a double edge sword. If he shows up it's for good points. If he doesn't he doesn't care about the plight of blacks. He may bnefit from unenlightened Americans who feel a President ought never be put to task over his policies. If you're elected president, you're under no obligation to be honest? To be fair? To be truthful?

If there's one thing we've learned about Americans post-911, it's that they have no variety as far as memory is concerned. Examples: In Afghanistan, the US bombed Al-Jazeera's offices. Accident they say. Then in Iraq Al-Jazeera has their offices bombed. Accident again they say. Yet no one finds that odd. It's like they forgot the first bombing ever occured. As defence, recall that Al-Jazzera gave the US their GPS coordinates to prevent any accidental bombings. Two precise mistakes like that?
So in 9 months the basic American won't even remember this eulogy incident. Besides, by that time, there will be new boogiemen to fear, and that will keep Americans minds' occupied.

Really? I'd say that nighttimer's post here pretty much puts the notion that these topics are "insulting" to rest, unless of course you believe their life's work was insulting to members of their family. It may be insulting to you and to Republicans, but I'm betting his family doesn't care about that.

The domestic spying thing is highly relevant if you take a quick little look at history. Why not just head over to Wikipedia and read up on the domestic spying that Hoover engaged in against King in his day. And I noticed the nice little spin you put on that with "monitoring Al-Qaeda" when it is becoming clear through new information and testimony that Americans have fallen into this.

King and his supporters fought that in his day and it appears not much is changed. Were he alive I'm sure he'd still be fighting it today.

CJ, really. The purpose of Bobby Kennedy spying on King was to spy on King. You may wish to read up on Hoover, the Red Squads and the rest of the spying that went on in both Democratic administrations in the 60's. The purpose of monitoring international calls into the US is to catch terrorists who have already attacked our country and killed people. Yes, Americans have "fallen into this" but that is not the purpose of the program. Spin indeed.

But you are right, the Kings would be against today's program, no question. Maybe that makes it OK to bring up at the funeral, I don't know but the audience ate it up.

BoF - I said that "most of us" don't go around spinning political points all day, and you correct me by telling me something that happened on a political show on cable TV. I don't know what to say. Matthews gets about 300,000 viewers per night, vs. network news total of 25-30 million (ABC, NBC, CBS) per night. That makes him (and Beirne, star of Capital Gang on CNN) obscure. I don't see anyone I know Tivo-ing the Capital Gang or Hardball. Not being elitist, just being numerical. Debaters on are a little more attuned to politics, I'd say.

Well there you go Carlito. Until someone in the King family steps up and says the comments are out of line then they weren't. It doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what I think, I certainly doesn't matter what the media or the Republican party thinks.

If the statements really bother you that much then perhaps it is just the Kings that bother you, because nothing that was said is contrary to what they believed. Political issues were the focus of their life and it seems appropriate they would be mentioned at their funeral.

Edited to add:
Oh and by the way, here is Bush's speech from Reagan's funderal, sure sounds political to me Blackstone.



If that isn't (eloquently) bashing and calling out his adversaries then I don't know what is.

One of the things I've always admired about you ConservPat is your willingness to challenge other conservatives and Republicans when you think they are in error, but on this subject it seems you've been listening to too much Ken Mehlman, Bill O' Reilly and Glenn Beck.

I am not surprised that the right-wing propaganda media machine is serving up this foul Kool-Aid, but I am surprised that you apparently swallowed it.

These faux expressions of outrage and "shock and awe" from our conservative brethren on the board would ring with more authenticity if they bothered to ponder that in both word and deed the presidency of George W. Bush has been virtually the antithesis of everything Coretta Scott King stood for.

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=20323

I am amused though by ConservPat and Carlitoswhey implying that it was impolite of President Carter and Reverend Lowery to say things that might discomfort our current Commander-in-Chief. Then again, I don't recall what exactly Senator Kennedy, President Clinton and Senator Clinton said that indicated they were not "human," ConservPat? Perhaps you could point out their inflammatory rhetoric as I must have raided the fridge when they made these scurrilous remarks.

Lordy, Lordy, what might Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have said had they been invited to speak? Probably best that they did not. They might be responsible for thousands of conniption fits by furious Bushniks across the country.

What the Right fails to grasp in their transparent desire for another issue to club Democrats and liberals into submissive silence is Martin and Coretta would have been proud of old Joe Lowery. This was a homegoing ceremony for Mrs. King, not the coronation of King George.

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. Certainly not when our boy-in-the bubble of a president is within earshot. Heaven forbid that George W. might find out that everything is not sweetness and light.

However, all this gnashing of teeth and self-flagellation by conservatives proves true the quote by Mignon McLaughlin, "Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."

For the Right, they came not to celebrate the activist spirit of Coretta Scott King. They just wanted to make sure she was really dead.

I will never cease to be amazed by your anti-conservative and inflammatory remarks. Frankly, it is as almost as if there is some internal hatred towards those whom may happen to fall across the political aisle....

We came to "make sure she was really dead"???

This is absurd. George is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He doesn't speak to an outwardly hostile (and nearly radical) NAACP and gets lambasted, but he goes to Coretta King's funeral and snide remarks follow.

Frankly, I believe that eulogies are great places to remember the contributions, memories, and character of a person that has passed. Mrs. King was someone that aided in the change of the American landscape and should be regarded as someone important.

I, however, find it interesting to ponder how things would be regarded had Mrs. King fallen on the other side of the aile. Let's use Colin Powell as an example. A self made man, a veteran, and a pillar of American society as well dies... let's say... and say John McCain speaks. What if he used this as a political stepping stone? A political platform? Would that turn people's upper lips??? OF COURSE It's distasteful and only acceptable to you NT because you have some internally driven hatred towards anyone that might happen to disagree with your liberally subversive ideology. (i.e. the we wanted to ensure her true death comment and ones like it...)



Well, NT, if someone is listening to too much Glenn Beck, then it surely might be more healthy than listening to the nasty little voices that some might have broadcasting in their heads.... Maybe it's entirely too painful for you to actually believe that a self-proclaimed republican could actually form an opinion of our own?




Propaganda machine??? That sounds a whole like the pot callin' the kettle black...

It doesn't matter what I think, and here I am thinking that my opinion on the debate questions was the point of this website.



Yes the Kings bother me. That's my whole problem. Just a big fat racist too. Thanks for helping me see the light. Anyone who thinks an ex-president should act classy at a funeral must hate the deceased.

nt, you routinely toss out this type of remark.
I know that you find it hard to believe, but there are independent-minded conservatives, libertarians, and liberals who don't just regurgitate the media propaganda machine. I for one commented on this topic long before I heard anyone in the media even discuss it. I was too busy working earlier this week to see any of the coverage, other than making it a point to see the service itself. Isn't it just possible, that the reason some of us thought these remarks were inappropriate is just that it was our opinion, based on what we saw? That's the beauty of this site, people with different perspectives see things differently. For what it's worth, I do occasionally catch O'Reilly, not sure who Glen Beck is.

Aevens- to clarify your statement- the example you used of Colin Powell- you do realize he is a beneficiary and supporter of Affirmative action as well, correct?

If John McCain , especially as a fellow Vietnam soldier- were to reiterate Colin Powells political beliefs, had he been a purely political force of nature as MLK, would have been entirely appropriate- ESPECIALLY if someone powerful in the audience had acted intentionally in exactly the opposite philosophies as Colin Powell.

The outrage is simply another attempt to "right-wash" MLKs legacy.

This has become utterly ridiculous. How on earth is being upset about anti-GW rhetoric at a funeral "right-washing"?

For the record, I didn't say that I agreed with everything that Colin Powell believes. However, here is a good site to get an idea of where he stands:
Colin Powell on the Issues

My point about Mr. McCain speaking at Mr. Powell's funeral was to simply make the point that I believe that in most cases, had the roles been reversed that there would likely be staunch liberal outrage.

For instance, if a speaker, regardless of who it is took the time at Mr. Powell's funeral to make an anti-gay marriage case... it would be tasteless and tacky.

I appreciate your compliment Nighttimer [no sarcasm here], thanks. However, I am not trying to be a wise-guy when I tell you that up until recently I didn't even know who Ken Mehlman was, I haven't listened to Bill O'Reilly in at least a year and am not sure who Glenn Beck is, due to Sirius Satellite radio, these terrestrial radio sorts aren't on my radar...But anyway...

Just because I agree with some "right-wingers" doesn't mean that I arrived on their side of the issue due to their propaganda. Similarly, you have taken the same position as many liberal groups in America, but I think much too highly of you to think that you think the way you do because liberal groups have gotten to you with their Kool-Aid. I think independently from time to time as well...

Saying something is "par for the course" isn't exactly a textbook sign of shock Nighttimer. I'll repeat what I said, No shock there, in fact, I wasn't surprised at the comments at all, which is sad, really.

Human beings tend to be somber and well, un-abrasive at funerals...Using the death of a civil rights leader and great American to take political pot-shots at the current President when he is sitting mere yards away from you is not something that most human beings would have it in them to do, just a shot in the dark, but I think [and I'm normally cynical] that most people would have the courtesy not to attack people at a funeral. I don't even care if it's the President. If Bill Frist attended the funeral and talked about the fact that a Democratic White House and a Democratic Justice Department were the ones who authorized the wire-tapping of MLK Jr., that would be inappropriate as well. This is not an issue of Bush's standing as President, it's about common and human decency.


Absolutely...The Right should have celebrated King's life by you know...attacking the opposition...at a funeral...That's what Martin and Corretta would have wanted.

CP

I've already covered this just a few posts above here aevans, unless the person in the casket has to be black for your example to work.

If you'll go read that I think you'll see that it was "used as a political stepping stone" for him to take yet another opportunity to press his agenda with Reagan's death.

Did you find that distasteful? Did the media? I certainly don't recall that they did but it was the same thing in principle.

My bad, aevans176. I didn't know you were a psychologist. Or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn last night?

At the risk of being redundant, it's not that I hate conservatives. I don't care much for conservatives who try to lecture others on what the proper way to celebrate a person's life and times. I give little weight to the words of conservatives whom imply a president is above and beyond criticism.

THAT is the kind of conservative I've got a problem with and while it isn't "hatred," it isn't the least bit "internal" either. I'm right out front with it.



Common and human decency was in short supply in President Bush's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina, ConservPat. While many have criticized the timing of Lowery and Carter's remarks, the basic accuracy of them have gone unchallenged. Additionally, as you have not provided any evidence of any remarks by President Clinton, Senators Kennedy and Clinton that lacked "humanity," I'll presume that was just hyperbole on your part as were my remark that conservatives wanted to be sure Mrs. King was dead.

That's the thing about "inflammatory remarks;" no matter who's using them they tend to generate far more heat than light.

I'm not going to, nor have I ever defended Bush's performance after Hurricane Katrina...And no one has challenged them because that's not the point. People are outraged because you just don't bring things like that to a funeral, that's just bad form...really, really bad form. And the point I was making "human"-wise was simply that normal people don't attack others at funerals, of course I'm not calling the Clintons or Kennedy sub-human, that, as you pointed out, was a hyperbole. The point remains though that what they did was in extremely poor taste.

CP

Who is outraged? Other than some people aligned with the GOP and a few journalists I haven't seen anyone outraged.

The fact of the matter is that Matthews and O‘Beirne and a few other journalists have tried to make news about it but no one really cares. FoxNews, in typical fashion, tried to make news out of it by showing Lowrey's remarks, editing out the clapping that ensued and then commenting there was no one clapping...

Has there been any report that any family or friends of the King family are "outraged"? If not then perhaps it is best to quit pretending to be outraged and see this for what it is, a few journalists trying to create news and manufacture anger that doesn't exist.

There's no answer to this question. I don't know America. I said "people" instead of "a lot of people" or "many people" to avoid having this particular conversation. But I assume that a decent amount of conservatives are angry, and they aren't just pundits, or idiots who just listen to pundits, I think that's a safe assumption to make, unless you know for a fact that it isn't true.

I really don't care if the King family is "outraged" or not. I'm not angry because I think Coretta Scott King wouldn't like the way her funeral went...That's impossible to know. My point is that what some of the liberals/Democrats/others did in that funeral was classless, whether or not the King family was offeneded is irrelevant to me.


I'm not pretending. I'll say it again. What that group of people did at the funeral was classless...Why would I pretend to be outraged...I'm not running for office.

CP

And why should the world, America, the Kings, anyone care if conservatives are outraged? I don't, and I'm fairly sure that most of the country doesn't. This amounts to a few journalists deciding they would appear outraged to cover a story.


Careful there CP. It certainly isn't a new thing for the funerals of political figures (and the Kings are political figures) to touch on politics, especially the politics they cared about during their lives. I'm sorry those politics don't agree with Republican and Conservative ideas but that is the way it is and all of you "outraged" conservatives need to learn to deal with it

If you'll kindly go read the excerpt of Bush's speech at Reagan's funeral I think you'll see that he was trying to turn that into positive coverage for his agenda. He was promoting his whole war on terrorism gig and was in generally taking a stab at liberals/democrats/anyone-who-opposes-him with that "There were no doubters" rhetoric. So is Bush classless now too or does that only apply to people you don't agree with politically?

I hope, for the sake of the Democratic Party, that they do not adopt the stance of "who cares if conservatives are outraged". Conservatives make up a significant chunk of this country and "who cares-ing" them is not something that any political party should do.

Deal with it? You mean like liberals and Democrats "dealt with" Trent Lott's comments? Deal with it? What does that even mean Cube Jockey? Does it mean, "shut up", does it mean "Democrats don't care, so shhh", what does that mean? If I, or other conservatives think something is classless, we're going to come out and say it, if Democrats/liberals can't "deal with that" then that's not our problem.

No, he's not classless because I don't ever question conservatives/Republicans. I think that no matter what Bush says, he's okay and it's not classless...That wasn't classless because I'm clearly one of the most partisan Republican and Bush supporters at AD. Come on, CJ, I'll be consistant, I've got no problems calling Bush classless. So yes, Bush bringing HIS agenda to Reagan's funeral was classless. I'm not seeing what the point was to bringing it up though to be honest.

CP

Getting on Soap Box . . . .

For months I have followed the news, mouth agape, wondering, "Where is the outrage?"
Well here it is. And yet now I don't completely understand why.

Yes, I'll grant it, a few liberals took advantage of the president making a rare appearance away from his home turf and showed him that he was visiting an area where his policies have been resented and made some negative remarks about those policies.

One doesn't have to look far to see some genuine outrage that should be out there about recent events.

The Attorney General equivocating when caught in a direct lie to a Senator
Our present not literally meaning a reduction of dependence on foreign oil
Bush offering a judgeship to the Abramoff prosecutor
Libby directly implicating the Vice President in leaking Plame's identity
The White House being caught misleading the American public about when it learned of the levee breaks
The Pentagon admits to improper domestic surveillance
The government seems to be reviving the data mining of American information
New Reports of abuses of Gitmo hunger strikers
Delay gets placed on a subcommittee investigating Abramoff
Abramoff e-mails imply a much stronger relationship with Bush than Bush has claimed
The New Majority Leader lives in an apartment owned by a prominent lobbyist
A Young NASA appointee who pressured NASA scientists reputedly lied about graduating from college
Warrantless Wiretapping seems to have been more than only those talking to Al Qaeda


These stories are all recent.

Stepping down to a lower soap box

1) Given the political influence that both Dr. King and his Wife had exerted on American history, was it appropriate to politicize the funeral to the degree that took place? Could it have been done without taking shots at the present administration?

Of course the funeral could have been done without making political references to programs that disturbed Ms. King. But how to you separate the King legacy from social activism? How can one fail to see the parallels between illegal surveillance of King and the broad claims of executive power to surveil the American public in very general terms?

The president arrived shortly after unveiling a budget that pushed up the American deficit extended tax cuts that include substantial tax relief for the very wealthy and at the same time cutting or freezing the growth of a variety of social programs. The widow of the man who lambasted the immense costs of a debatable foreign war while funds for a domestic campaign against poverty foundered, would very likely have been pleased to hear a reference to a modern version of that problem at her funeral.
News was breaking about the White House knowing more than it revealed about the Katrina debacle while Carter's remarks were being delivered.

These were not unfounded direct attacks. But moderate criticisms of present policies spoken at the funeral of a Civil Rights leader.

I believe the liberal talking point that this was appropriate speaking truth to power.

I think the measure of appropriateness is to be taken from the King family who suffered this loss. Until I hear them complaining I see this as sound and fury resembling static trying to distract from the more genuine issues that we all should be outraged about.

2) Since George W. Bush attended and spoke at the funeral, is it possible he might benefit from any backlash that may be generated from the event?

I do not think this is a Wellstone moment. That IMO was well above and beyond. It turned a funeral for a man that was respected on both sides of the aisle into a campaign rally. This is a few remarks in the midst of a tribute to one of America's first ladies. And I think the general public will also acknowledge the lack of access people with criticism of present policies have to the president's ear. I think this is an example of an uncomfortable moment where the president was in between a rock and a hard place. Showing up or not showing up was going to get him criticism. He did take his earful reasonably well.

I felt sorry for the Republicans who were at that funeral. They were treated unfairly.


3) Given that the election is still 9 months away, is there any chance this backlash (if any) could impact the outcome of specific races in the House or Senate? If so, could it prevent the Democrats from retaking either chamber?

I don't think there will be any positive backlash from this for the Republican party.

I'd say the current party in power is a pretty good example of how you can blow off both liberals and conservatives and stay in power.


What I'm saying is that this is all much ado about nothing and will not have any effect on the elections. You have said people are "outraged" but you have cited no facts to support your claims and aside from your personal opinion and a few journalists (a one or two day story at the most by the way) I see no outrage.

Outside of land no one cares about this and it has been forgotten.

1) Given the political influence that both Dr. King and his Wife had exerted on American history, was it appropriate to politicize the funeral to the degree that took place? Could it have been done without taking shots at the present administration?

This is another non-story in my opinion, but at least it's entertaining. The faux outrage by the right over remarks at the funeral is just as silly as the faux outrage by the left at the faux outrage of the right. (I've always wanted to use the word faux three times in a sentence )
The King family had every right to designate the speakers and the message. The left has shown a historical penchant for politicizing funerals in a manner that the right has not, regardless of Cube Jockey's quote from the Reagan funeral. Doesn't even come close.
But that aspect shouldn't bother conservatives. What should bother everybody is the possible alienation of many people who looked up to Coretta Scott-King and her husband. Regardless of accusations by both sides concerning her political slant, nobody owns her or MLK's message of equality and justice, and it is disgustingly self righteous for either side to think that they do.
Both liberals and conservatives alike looked up to aspects of the King's message and work. I would think that some of those conservatives feel slighted by the funeral remarks, but in the end it won't matter in the election cycle. The Wellstone funeral didn't exactly propel the Democrats into the majority, nor was it an issue used by conservatives.

CJ, you've admitted just a couple of posts ago that "some people aligned with the GOP" are outraged, or at least upset. But I'm still trying to figure out why the number of people angry at this matters. My whole point is that I think it's classless, if I'm in the extreme minority I really don't care. My only point is what some of the speakers did at this funeral was classless.

CP

Really, CP, this is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what Mrs. King and her family wanted. The Republican party does not speak for the King family.

I think we have a cased of faux outrage on the part of Republicans.

I really don't see the big deal with this whole situation. Bush knew full well that the other people who were attending that funeral and also speaking are for the most part against his policies and that it was highly likely they were going to take some shots. Was anyone honestly surprised? How could Bush not know what was going to happen? But he attended the funeral anyway.

The fact of the matter is that this is nothing to go crazy about. It was just clearly in poor taste and anyone who disagrees is obviously not looking at the situation objectively.

Leder are you saying that anyone who disagrees with you is not objective? Again, it's all about what the King family thought. Your self-proclaimed "objective" opinion is irrelevant.

On the point of using a funeral to take shots at others in attendance...than yes I am saying that you are wrong if you don't think it was in poor taste. I am not saying it is as important as people make it out to be...but it was just not the right thing to do in that situation.

I have no problem with your having an opinion that using a funeral in this way was "wrong." What I disagree with is your self-proclamation of "objectivity."

As my grandmother used to say, "if nobody else will toot your horn, then toot it yourself."

It's rather hard to be objective about one's self. Perhaps you should leave such assessments to others.

Again, the King family's opinion trumps yours.

Alot of you folks are missing another piece of the puzzle - the southern christian "preaching" legacy of a funeral. I have been to several. It is a sermon time! Little fire and brimstone and call to revival is perfectly normal and expected. "Raise your hand if you haven't accepted Jesus as your personal lord and savior, or if you wish to rededicate your life to the lord". Lots of talk about sinning and rebuking sin. Talk of going away from sinful ways and stop doing evil, that the end of this life is time to take stock of your bad deeds. Sometimes there is known "backsliders" in the congregation- and they are not QUITE called out by name- but everyone KNOWS who they are talking to. Lot's of "amens" and prayers for the sinner- and the sin called out over and over.

After reading the transcript- this funeral was in perfect accordance with that tradition, adn was not even partially or even marginally inappropriate- accept that GW didn't repent like most do when the sin is pointed out at these things - and beg forgiveness for his transgressions.

Questions for Debate:
1) Given the political influence that both Dr. King and his Wife had exerted on American history, was it appropriate to politicize the funeral to the degree that took place? Could it have been done without taking shots at the present administration?

Sure it could have. But hey, Bush was there for his cameo, so why not take advantage politically against him as well?

2) Since George W. Bush attended and spoke at the funeral, is it possible he might benefit from any backlash that may be generated from the event?

IMHO, every time Bush takes a podium and is publically humiliated, it hurts Bush. Unfortunately the country is so divided that no listens any more, they just DEFEND their own positions. SO at this point it generates no backlash nor helps his opponents.

3) Given that the election is still 9 months away, is there any chance this backlash (if any) could impact the outcome of specific races in the House or Senate? If so, could it prevent the Democrats from retaking either chamber?

Naw. Not IMHO. The democrats can just stream commercials of a congress that refuses to watchdog it's own, show Delay and Cunningham, Abrahmoff, etc. Show Bush spying on people without warrants, etc.

This will be quickly forgotten. It's like adding a few drops to an already blood bath.

Given the political influence that both Dr. King and his Wife had exerted on American history, was it appropriate to politicize the funeral to the degree that took place? Could it have been done without taking shots at the present administration?
As in Sheehan's charges being dropped for "protesting" at the SoTU, I can't get excited about this. See: Eeyore's list for why.

Politicians of all stripes take themselves too seriously. Republicans have been mum about the fact that Lowery's critique could as easily implicate Ted Kennedy. I assume, then, that it's only inappropriate, or more inappropriate, when the criticism is directed at the president or at a Republican president.

I could be wrong but the GOP outrage may also have to do with what I perceive as a tendency within the party to simultaneously re-court the black vote and avoid answering for past election practices which, IMO, wastes the courting effort. Seriously, what’re Democrats going to have on the GOP if more Republicans than Ken Mehlman start speaking up and owning it? After Democrats respond with “A-ha!” it’s time to huddle. Sounds like the beginning of a win-win situation for black Americans to me.

I'm not sure how Jeff Greenfield could call it a Wellstone moment. Mrs. King doesn't have a family member in the running and people didn't call for electing so-and-so that I'm aware of.

Since George W. Bush attended and spoke at the funeral, is it possible he might benefit from any backlash that may be generated from the event?
Certainly. With these things we're never certain which side of the coin will face up when it stops rolling.

Given that the election is still 9 months away, is there any chance this backlash (if any) could impact the outcome of specific races in the House or Senate? If so, could it prevent the Democrats from retaking either chamber?
For the first part of the question, I think if there's any it will be a local issue. For the second, I doubt it. There're plenty of reasons why Democrats may not retake either House in 2006. So many, in fact, that second guessing this event is not worth it.

P.S. As one of those Christians living in sin CR’s funeral description is right on the money.

And since when does the King family decide what I think is in poor taste? Again, I believe that what was done at the funeral was classless, in poor taste, whatever you want to call it. Some don't, including the King family...That's fine, but just because the King family isn't on the same frequency as me doesn't mean a thing.


This comment was strange to me. The King family's opinion on what's decent or not does not have any bearing on what I think is decent. Again I'm not saying that Mrs. King wouldn't have wanted her funeral the way it was...I can't possibly know that...What I AM saying is that I thought what some of the speakers did was in bad taste.

And I don't speak for the Republican Party .

CP

Eeyore, your post quite ironically hits on the whole reason for this controversy. Any attempt to respond, on this thread, to the various charges that you listed in your post, would almost certainly trigger a nastygram from a mod (maybe even you) warning us not to go off the subject of the thread. The upshot is that you were able to make a several statements of opinion and pretend that they were indisputable, generally accepted fact. There's been quite a bit of that on , people hiding behind the rules to take off-topic potshots that they know won't be challenged. And that's exactly what happened at the funeral as well. When people do that, it seriously calls into question just how sure they are of themselves in their opinions, if they constantly have to try to insinuate their accusations into venues where they won't be held up to scrutiny.


So tell me, if Bush or another Republican were to have responded to any of the charges, right there and then at the funeral, would you have considered that appropriate? Would your objection be "faux" or genuine?