Tom Perdue, a Georgia Republican political consultant, watched Tuesday's funeral on television and said he was "ashamed of Jimmy Carter. I was ashamed for him. Today is not the day."
It seems, given the Paul Welstone memorial, that it is now an accepted practice to politicize funerals for certain members of the left. To Bill Clinton's credit he did no such thing, but instead spoke to the legacy and life of Correta Scott King.
But the bad taste crowd were certainly in evidence, led by former president Jimmy Carter.
Carter, during his remarks, said that Martin and Coretta King were "violated" by "government wiretapping and government surveillance."
The former president added that the struggle for equal rights is not over. "All we have to do is remember the color of the faces in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, those who were most devastated by Katrina," Carter said.
Of course what Carter left hanging was the fact that those wiretapping violations were the work of Democratic icon, Bobby Kennedy. And, of course, the color of the faces in the three states noted were pretty darn mixed as I recall them.
Rev. Joseph Lowrey took his shots as well:
"We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction," Lowery said. His words were met by "oohs" and long, loud applause. "But Coretta knew, and we knew there were weapons of misdirection right here.
"Millions without health insurance, poverty abound. For war billions more, but no more for the poor."
It's this false picture of conditions in America that keep alive the civil-rights careers of those like Jesse Jackson and Joseph Lowrey. If they ever once admitted that things are indeed better, they'd become bit actors in a marginal movement. That's why those like Julian Bond of the NAACP have become so horribly caustic and bombastic in their rhetoric. They're bound and determined to keep the movement alive by hook or crook, even if it means gross exaggeration and emotional appeals to past injustice.
But at a funeral? Of course there are those who would argue that Corretta King would want that sort of thing at her funeral, you know, speaking "truth to power". Well, I disagree. The one thing Mrs. King always had was good taste. And she was also always very civil. To pretend she'd sanction both bad taste and incivility at her funeral is a little hard to swallow.
Not that everyone agrees:
"If it made him uncomfortable, then we did our part," declared Teya Lucas, 23, of Atlanta. "You could see he was uneasy in his body language."
And not everyone agrees Bush should have even shown up:
The Rev. Jesse Jackson questioned why Bush would attend. "I'm not sure the pharaoh went to Moses' funeral," Jackson said. "Mr. Bush, honor Dr. King. Feed the hungry in the Katrina zone. Remember the homeless and helpless."
But I agree with this fellow:
Steven Byrd, 38, of Ellenwood said he felt a moment of sympathy for Bush. "Respectfully, those types of digs should have been left out of this kind of gathering," he said.
Respectfully. A word that was left out of the proceedings by some yesterday, much to their shame. As the NY Post notes:
To be sure, Mrs. King probably would have agreed with the sentiments — though she was far too gracious to openly insult a president of the United States to his face.
The left and the MSM do their best to put Bush in a "d@mned if you do, d@mned if you don’t" position at times like this. If he declines to come, leftists "leaders" such as Jesse Jackson blast him for his "insensitivity", and the MSM dutifully reports it with no rebuttal. If he attends, they use the opportunity to take direct shots at him while he’s there, again duly reported by the MSM.
I’ve got my own problems with Bush. But the obsessed hatred shown by the Democratic left these days is beyond anything I’ve seen in a lifetime of political observation. It’s unfounded, undignified, and tactically stupid, all rolled up into one.
I keep wondering when they’ll wake up some morning and go "Hey, Bush isn’t even running in 2008! We better start working on what happens next instead of worrying about him."
Instead of calling upon President Bush to feed the hungry, "Reverend" (just what church does he pastor?) Jesse Jackson should set an example for others. Let him donate his income to organizations that feed the poor, instead of pushing government to seize property from some to give to others.
Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot that a good chunk of Jesse’s money already goes to pay for his illegitimate child, so his sin makes it more difficult for him to care for the poor. Now that is something in bad taste.
I suppose John Kerry might have an excuse for not knowing his scriptures, but as an alleged minister, Jesse Jackson has none. First, Moses had no funeral, so Pharaoh couldn’t have attended even had he wanted. Deuteronomy 34:1-7 states that the Lord Himself buried Moses "in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is." Second, Jackson needs to read Matthew 25: Christ spoke of personal service to others, not willingly paying tribute to government so it can do those things for us.
I find it hysterical that someone like Teddy Kennedy was invited and revered there- after all, people like him have done more to hold African Americans back than any sheet-wearing racist idiots.
But it’s all good, the only one diminished by the actions of these morons was Mrs. King herself.
When good ole’ Jimmy is laying in the casket, and whoever the current president is has to praise him....I wonder if he’ll be able to do it with a straight face.
It’s frustrating but typical. The far left never sees anything wrong with ad hominem attacks on whoever has a different opinion from them. They see nothing wrong with attacking Bush and his policies just about anytime there’s a microphone and an audience.
Could you imagine what they would do if Bush got up and used the Funeral as a political pulpit? If he said something like "Mrs. King would have been proud of the good we’re doing in Iraq, opening new schools and hospitals", why every democrat in America would call him the most insensitive, racist, war mongerer alive!
Yet it’s okay for them. I used to have respect for Democrats, they seemed like they were the ones looking out for the little guy. Maybe I was wrong, or maybe they’ve just changed dramatically, but now it seems they can say or do anything, make up any falsehood, twist and spin things anyway they want, and it’s all okay because it’s for their cause.
And that quote "For war billions more, but no more for the poor", we’re spending BILLIONS for poor people every year in American and throughout the world! That’s a perfect example of how they can just make up catchy sounding things, or quote misguided songs, and it’s all okay. If a Republican had made a similar error every leftwing blog and news station would be reporting the error and using it as an example of Bush’s cluelessness.
I’ve got my own problems with Bush. But the obsessed hatred shown by the Democratic left these days is beyond anything I’ve seen in a lifetime of political observation. It’s unfounded, undignified, and tactically stupid, all rolled up into one.
I keep wondering when they’ll wake up some morning and go "Hey, Bush isn’t even running in 2008! We better start working on what happens next instead of worrying about him."
It is a common tactic of the right to equate any criticism of Bush with "hatred." It’s part of a larger effort on the right to demonize their political opponents as mentally ill/shrill, rather than engaging them on the subject matter at hand. (Sometimes the right even uses the tactic on some of its own, witness the 2000 GOP primary and what the Bush campaign did to McCain). The speaker usually says something up front about the speaker’s reservations about Bush, in an effort to make the speaker look somewhat moderate. Sprinkled in usually is some claim that the left’s "hatred" is beyond anything that has come before, or something like that. The speaker then concludes that the hatred is counter-productive, or something to that effect.
The tactic is losing its punch. After a while, equating every single little criticism of Bush as "hatred" tends to drain the term of any meaning. But that does not deter the tactic’s practitioners, obviously. Because, after all, when it comes to defending Bush, what are they going to do? Argue the substance of the matter? ROTFLMAO
As for what happened at the King funeral yesterday, we reap what we sow, Mr. President. I’m sure somewhere Mrs. King is very happy with what happended.
Oh - and wingers, playing the victim card doesn’t become you. And civility? Wingers wouldn’t know civility if it hit them in the face. After all, this is the party that attacked Jack Murtha as a coward on the floor of the House. Wingers calling Democrats uncivil is like Paris Hilton calling someone a slut. Give me a break.
McQ, I think the "Bush hatred" thing that he responded to was in my comment. But if anyone seriously maintains that the left doesn’t hate Bush with a passion unseen since the days of Nixon, then he/she just needs to take a look at the latest lefty protest signs. Or maybe watch some of Evan Coyne Maloney’s videos at http://www.brain-terminal.com/
I stick by my statement. The left is unhinged with their hatred of Bush, especially considering that he can’t run again. Claiming it’s a tired meme is just a way of trying to discredit the idea without any evidence against it. Typical MK rhetoric.
What can I say.. Funerals are for remembering people, celebrating their lives, and mourning their loss. Not making political attacks, or god forbid, questioning others reasons for attending the funeral. Anyone who doesn’t do that should take a long walk off a short pier. =|
But if anyone seriously maintains that the left doesn’t hate Bush with a passion unseen since the days of Nixon, then he/she just needs to take a look at the latest lefty protest signs.
I remember touring Washington D.C. in 1999. I remember seeing and talking to Right-Wing protesters who were dressed up like pigs carrying signs containing words like “Whorehound”, “Degenerate”, “Murderer”, “Criminal”, and the like.
Hatred for the opposition is not endemic to the Left.
Pogue, you’re missing the point. Those anti-Clinton protesters were not the mainstream of the Republican Party at the time. Bob Dole and Trent Lott were not posting over at Free Republic.
The faux equivalence argument that the left delights in is recognized for the fallacy that it is among the general electorate. You can claim that "both sides do it" all you want, but that does not magically change the fact that the left indulges in a campaign of emotional vitriol that (1) is constant and (2) is completely accepted as sane, rational, and appropriate by the leading lights in the Democratic Party (some of them even participate actively in it, as at the King funeral).
Go over and see those videos at http://www.brain-terminal.com/, especially the ones made at the protests for Bush’s second inarguration. Those folks are out of touch with reality. Granted that there have been folks on the right out of touch as well, but they didn’t have the party’s leaders taking them seriously.
