Instead of sounding the party line

No, the Dems were trying to turn a funeral into something it is not: a campaign rally. Do the politicizing on your own dime, not at the exspense of a woman’s funeral. You only get ONE funeral, and if someone did that on one of my relative’s funeral, I’d go up and punch the politicizing bastard in the face for disgracing my relative’s one and only funeral with such hack nonsense, regardless of whether I agreed with the point or not. It’s a matter of principle, not content.

“Jimmy Carter does not speak for all Dems. Many Dems respect Carter, but that doesn’t mean that this was a Democratic attempt to gin up contempt for the president. Our Dem leaders had NOTHING to do with this, and anybody who suggests otherwise is being intellectually dishonest and trying to score partisan points.”

Jimbo, “The First Black President”(who to his credit actually remembered this was a funeral for a woman), and Godzillary are no longer considered “Our Dem Leaders”? (Nevermind the fact Bubba walks and the Demos start throwing rice on the ground and kissing the path he walks on)

Thats news to me. The only persons I saw trying to score partisan points were Jimbo, Lowery, and Godzillary.

This is a test

Two editors were describing the scene at Coretta Scott King’s funeral. And all the rhetoric that flowed between the eulogies. And they admitted to having a grudging respect for the way Bush handled himself. When Rev. Lowery went off on his chant, the president sat there and took it. Didn’t bow his head. And afterward he walked right up and shook the man’s hand. (Mind you, I didn’t see the funeral; I’m describing their description of it.)

There’s a manly art to being a power figure and being dressed down in public and reacting with dignity. The political and religious figures engaged in open or thinly disguised bashing at the King funeral gave Bush the opportunity to show whether he had it or not. Call it a case of unintended consequences.

Jimmy Carter does not speak for all Dems. Many Dems respect Carter, but that doesn’t mean that this was a Democratic attempt to gin up contempt for the president. Our Dem leaders had NOTHING to do with this, and anybody who suggests otherwise is being intellectually dishonest and trying to score partisan points.

And by the way, the Wellstone funeral nonsense is a myth and I wish people would stop spreadiing it.

Also, Denise is FAR from a partisan hack. Do note, fellow liberals, that she didn’t accuse the Dem establishment of anything, she simply questioned the forum. I think a lot of Republicans are probably doing the same, even though the noise is coming from the far right-wing.

Also, it seems like lately you guys have really been getting a little out- of- control with the name-calling and nastiness. I’m getting a little tired of it, as I thought this blog was supposed to be a place where we could all engage in a civilzed debate.

A Funeral is not it.

Bush managed to stay on topic, Bill Clinton seemed to get this was a funeral for a woman, but none of the other Democrats did.

You’ve got Jimmy Carter, always the idiot, comparing taps on King to taps on terrorists for international calls.

And then Lowery, who apparently forgot to ask the Kurds about Saddam’s WMD’s. Whoops! The only weapons of mis-direction around here are coming from the Democrats who are more than willing to curb free speech and freedom of expression in order to kowtow to extremists about cartoons.

Oh, and Hillary was there. Apparently they let the race-baiter in, what is it with Hillary and race-baiting from churches recently. Hillary will be president when hell freezes over, as it stands, I’d vote for Rex the German Shepherd/Doberman Pinscher 2008 ticket before I’d vote for Hillary. They’d be lovable, better on defense (Rex is a war veteran), and make more sense.

It was a FUNERAL for RESPECTING THE DEAD, not the DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION. Save the partisan hackery for later, spineless cowards. If you need to exploit a woman’s death for political gain, you are uncivilized classless morons who should be kept out of power permanently. The Democratic Party: No respect for the living, no respect for the dead, no respect for your rights.

No one on this earth is less in need of lessons on how to throw a funeral than a black southern Baptist minister but Katie O’Bernie (on Hardball with Chris Mathews) insists that manners lessons will help those black people holding a funeral for their mom better themselves.

The Proper Place For Politics in The Funeral: This for the politician who, along with her partner, broke the back of Jim Crow in the southern United States. She needs no lessons. Lord, if I can’t have my say at my own funeral; just tip me over and cover me up.

The Proper Conduct of a Funeral: This to the abovementioned southern black Baptist minister, Bernice King. She needs no lessons. Thanks so much.

“…and if that Stevie Wonder would just improve his diction and do something with his hair he would be welcome in the finest churches in the land.�

Manners Lessons for Jimmy Carter, or was that Southern Lessons for Jimmy Carter?

What steaming gall!

It’s worth reading just as an example of powerful oratory:
http://www.progressiveaustin.org/mlkulogy.htm

It’s also interesting how pundits are making inferences about what was said, and those inferences become conventional wisdom. To the best of my knowledge, Jimmy Carter simply mentioned that King was wiretapped. This wasn’t a minor thing. It’s a well-known fact that has been referenced many times, and an example of the powerful enemies King had to battle. But the pundits decide it’s all about Carter giving Bush a facial, and suddenly Carter is insulting Bush.

Look at the Washington Post article. Phrases like “in an apparent allusion to the current President Bush’s eavesdropping program” and “his unspoken words seeming to suggest that he wanted to say future president, too” make it clear that the reporters were taking the lazy way out, and fitting everything into their storyline.

I do, however, think that everyone, Democrat and Republican, can join hands and ask, “What the fuck was Michale Bolton doing there?”

In the debate as to whether Mrs. King would have approved of the insertion of political rhetoric in her eulogies …
Actually, I believe that Mrs. King was striving for the day when behavior transcended politics and the associated pettiness that cloud the real issues and potential solutions.

Instead of sounding the party line, there should have been talk of how to develop true concensus building and take the high road in identifying ways to work in harmony.

Couldn’t the words that were bandied about regarding politics and policy be considered fuel for the continuing war between the political sides?

Quite the paradox, when you consider that to reach a more utopian society there has to be an emphasis upon what we have in common and to build upon that theme.

A more worthy testament to Mrs. King (in my opinion) would have been to speak about what has been achieved for the black community through her efforts and propose how to address the gaps. Proposing to throw $$ alone at the situation, as a fix-all remedy, will not provide the long-term solution that is needed.

When dealing with issues and topics as complex as the ones that were inserted as sound bytes into the respective eulogies, one has to realize the absurdity of such an exercise - it doesn’t achieve a thing.

Rather the more powerful act is to speak simply of the life that was lived and how those who knew her, as public or private figure, was better off by her time on the planet.

Now, as to the question of assigning a label to my political views …
I suppose, just like most things in life, it’s relative :)

Compared to some I could be viewed as being too far to the right, while others would say I’m not far enough to the right. Ultimately the way you assign my political leaning will be based upon your own.

I’d say, no matter the respective leaning, what’s essential is to listen to both sides and acknowledge that there will always be another take on the topic or situation.

The key is in the reaction … first will the objective be to see similarities or difference, second will it be attack or an understanding mode that is engaged?

Ok, before anyone says “diatribe,” I’ll close this particular reply up.

Just wanted to provide some food for hungry minds :)

Denise - everytime a liberal whines & cries & calls names, an angel gets its wings.

“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.�

Andropov was at Reagan’s funeral? Somehow I missed that.

While I have to agree that Denise tends to parrot the GOP line (see footnote) more than I’d expect from a site named “Donklephant,” I also don’t think that resorting to the same techniques that the left and right use to bring their folks into line is going to accomplish anything.

That being said, she’s once again stretching to discredit the left. Wanna guess when George W. Bush said this about Ronald Reagan? “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.” That’s right, it was at his funeral.

What’s the difference between what happened in Atlanta this week and the speeches given at Reagan’s funeral, other than this time it wasn’t the architect of the modern conservative movement? I wasn’t outraged then; I’m not going to be outraged now.

Footnote: I actually don’t read the bylines until I’m finished with a post, mainly because the names are so small. When I’m done, I can say “wow, that was a huge stretch and leap of faith in order to make the left look bad.” Then, I go to the top and say, “yup. Denise wrote that.”

I’ve never seen Denise profess to be a moderate. I don’t think
I’ve ever seen Justin say he’s a moderate either. I’d say the are both about equal distances from “moderate�.

Justin is FAR more towards the center the Denise.

He is willing to call the dem’s out when he disagrees. Denise has never met a right wing talking point she isn’t willing to defend.

Jimmy Carter and Rev. Lowery were personal friends of CSK. I think they know a little better than Denise what she would have wanted.

In fact, I have no idea what the problem is here. I’m pretty confident that CSK got the funeral she wanted, so are you mad the MSM covered it? What’s the problem?

BTW DosPeros: if sounding like an idiot was what you wanted, mission accomplished.

But if a political person would have wanted the issues she fought for her entire life addressed at her funeral, who are a bunch of pundits and bloggers to say what should and shouldn’t be included in a eulogy?

Ah, more right-wing hackery by the ‘moderate’ Denise.

I’ve never seen Denise profess to be a moderate. I don’t think
I’ve ever seen Justin say he’s a moderate either. I’d say the are both about equal distances from “moderate”.

This woman’s life was political. Corretta Scott King spoke out against the current war and poverty during her life. I saw a tremendous interview with Mrs. King that was taped about a year ago, and she spoke eloquently against war and against our nation’s ongoing failure to combat poverty. Mrs. King continued to advocate MLK’s dream in today’s political context.

To not mention Mrs. King’s opposition to war, her efforts to draw attention to poverty, her support of non-violent solutions would be to ignore and discredit her life’s works. A proper eulogy could not have been made without mention of the stances that she advocated for decades past MLK’s death, and up to the present.

What did you expect the speakers to talk about? Her favorite television shows and her love for sewing? I’m sorry if Mrs. King’s unwaivering advocacy of non-violence, civil liberties and greater equality makes you uncomfortable, Denise, but failing to mention her 40 year pursuit of these of ideals simply because they may contravene the Bush adminstration’s policies would have been an affront to her.