<p>I thought the conduct of Joseph Lowery, Jimmy Carter, and the audience at Coretta Scott King’s funeral today was really awful. I don’t care what you or they think of the president; he was there to show respect for fine American, and to eulogize her. It was supposed to be about her, and I think the president’s comments held true to that goal. The words of these two petty men who profess to be Christian teachers were mean-spirited and inappropriate to the venue (it’s not as if they can’t get face time to bash the president elsewhere). I think both Martin and Coretta would have been appalled at the cruel use of this memorial service.</p>
<p>I’m sorry if friends of the King family talking about the “senselessness of war”, racial inequality, and victims of secret government wiretapping in their eulogies made President Bush uncomfortable.</p>
<p>I don’t know how any friend of the King family could possibly eulogize Coretta Scott King without mentioning those topics. I believe that Joseph Lowrey and Jimmy Carter are both lifelong friends of the Kings.</p>
<p>Generic references to war and racial inequality would have of course been appropriate. Reference to “Weapons of Mass Destruction” as a self-serving segue to pulpit poetry was gratuitious, as was the talking point genuflection to Katrina. Reference to the wiretapping of Rev. King by the Kennedy administration, signed-off on by the sainted Bobby might have been appropriate. But of course, context is everything, and that wouldn’t have worked as a pie-in-the-face of President Bush. No matter. This, as so much else, will redound to the detriment of the churlish people.</p>
<p>Let’s remember that it was Bobby Kennedy, when he was Attorney General (imagine President Bush appointing his BROTHER as Attorney General, what the hue and cry would be from the Left) who WIRETAPPED Martin Luther King, Jr. Yet there was little brother Teddy Kennedy giving a eulogy to King. What irony! </p>
<p>Let’s just hope the Left implodes due to their hate of President Bush.</p>
<p>The American public is just getting sick of partisanship - and most of it is coming from the Dems/Left.</p>
<p>I’m confused. Since they have sole control of all three branches of government, wouldn’t “partisanship” be a good thing for the Republican party?</p>
<p>Seems to me that, if the public is in favor of more bi-partisanship, that would tend to favor the party that doesn’t currently enjoy any “partisanship” in government. By definition, moving to even the slightest bit of bi-partisianship in government would require giving the Democratic party a voice. As it stands today, the Democrats don’t even have the power to obstruct legislative, judicial, or executive branch actions.</p>
<p>Of course, it was mean-spirited. Who would expect anything different from Jimmy and Willie. What is it about the Dems/libs/progressives that they so thoroughly enjoy turning a casket into a soapbox.</p>
<p>Given BigGreen’s appreciation of irony, I assume he was trying to be funny by offering such a polarized, partisan view of the origins of partisanship in Washington.</p>
<p>ID, I think BG’s point has to do with actual examples of bipartisanship in action. For example, you might compare the votes on the Ginsburg and Breyer SC nominations with the votes for Roberts and Alito. Who buried partisanship, and who wielded it? You might also look at the recent blow-up between Obama and McCain.</p>
<p>Yes, Joseph Lowery was a real beacon of light with his rude comments.</p>
<p>Why don’t we prove our own bipartisanship by citing moments when our preferred party acted in a way we considered shamefully partisan? Unless, of course, such moments have never occurred.</p>
<p>It would be much easier for us to identify the times when the two parties haven’t acted in a partisan manner. I think I can pretty much sum those instances up:</p>
<p>Democratic:</p>
<p>Republican:</p>
<p>Actually, the senate votes on Ginsburg and Breyer belong in the R column. Completely nonpartisan.</p>
<p>And what did Lowrey say that wasn’t true and in line with what Mrs. King thought and spoke about</p>
<p>Bush was fake, he didn’t even want to go, but after some polling or something changed his mind</p>
<p>And Bush was laughing at his father making a joke, nice and gracious that was</p>
<p>And MLK jr was wire tapped- that was true, and there were no WMD and Mrs. King was very vocal against the war, you think she was the kind of woman who would have wanted a service that was hypocritical of all she stood for?</p>
<p>too bad the truth hurts</p>
<p>cgm</p>
<p>It was a funeral for God’s sake. Don’t you guys have any decency at all?</p>
<p>Of course, you know that I know the answer to that question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s because Clinton was bi-partisan enough to actually consult with the Republican leadership before nominating Breyer.</p>
<p>Breyer had served as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee and was respected by key senators on both sides of the aisle.</p>
<p>He had been a key player in the deregulation of the airline industry which made him attractive to Republicans and, in fact, had become a circuit appeals judge under Reagan.</p>
<p>He also had a track record of upholding notification laws in abortion cases, so there was even some middle ground there. And, when he encountered some financial recusement issues, he was questioned most harshly by a Democratic senator.</p>
<p>Given that Bush offered absolutely no middle ground to the Democrats with Alito or Roberts nominations, I’d say their confirmations went through without much real opposition. It was the Republicans who waged the smear campaign against the crony woman appointee.</p>
<p>Expected display of outraged entitlement. Given the GOP’s pattern of diluting black voting power in every way possible, I thought Bush’s hypocritical pieties about Coretta Scott King during the SOTU were bad karma. If the karmic bill came due today, fine.</p>
<p>Yes it was a funeral. But it wasn’t YOUR funeral, Driver. The people who planned it knew what it would be like. You think the speakers were inappropriate. I think it is inappropriate to make judgements about the behavior of others at a funeral when you know nothing about the personal relationships between these people. It’s not the kind of funeral you would want. Fine. It just might be the kind the King children thought their mother would want. Not for you to decide.</p>
<p>“I thought Bush’s hypocritical pieties”</p>
<p>Speaking about hypocrits, I did see an endless and despicable parade of bible-toting hypocrits, but I doubt any of the ones I saw were Republicans.</p>
<p>I am really sorry I watched … or dare to have an opinion about such questionable public display.</p>
<p>ID,</p>
<p>True enough about Breyer. But what about Ginsburg?</p>
<p>I’d also note that Alito and Roberts were approved by the Senate for lower court positions by a wide margin. Both received the top rating of the American Bar Association. It appears to me that only the more conservative justices have a heightened level of scrutiny applied to their nominations.</p>
<p>Additionally, I hate the term bi-partisan. By its very nature it is polarizing. I prefer non-partisan, though I see little of it from either side of the aisle. That is why the fastest growing “party” is registered independents.</p>