<p>Unless I missed something in previous comments, no one has referenced the circus that Senator Wellstone’s funeral turned into. As I remember it turned into a democrat pep rally for electing Fritz Mondale to the Senate seat that Wellstone had just vacated by dying. I may have disagreed with much of what Wellstone had to say, but he was a decent and honorable man and deserved better than a campaign rally at his funeral. </p>
<p>The final wonderful irony - Mondale lost and Norm Coleman won.</p>
<p>And driver’s original point was that it was a FUNERAL - does anyone really believe that Coretta Scott King who, with her husband, preached about coming together would have wanted a political rally?</p>
<p>The greatest moment of nonpartisanship in the history of American politics took place back in the election of 2000, when George Bush stood nobly up and proclaimed himself a uniter, not a divider. As our political threads here prove, he has fulfilled this mission in a way we can all be proud of. After all, it’s indisputable: we’re a less polarized society today.</p>
<p>As I looked at the funeral, I told my husband that, should I die in circumstances that would allow Bush to attend for political advantage, I hoped that he would tell Bush he couldn’t come.</p>
<p>What exactly was Bush doing there? Who invited him to speak? It’s not like he’s shown a lot of respect for King’s values. Carter I could understand; the rest were political opportunists.</p>
The last time I checked, in 2004, the PEOPLE re-elected President Bush. And I believe that each member of Congress has been elected by the people they represent. That a Republican president would nominate conservative judges/justices should not be a huge surprise, and should just motivate Democrats to work harder during the next election cycle. That’s democracy.
I imagine that the King family invited the President – I can’t imagine him crashing the funeral or being given such a place of honor in any other circumstance.</p>
<p>I didn’t see all of the funeral, but the people who I enjoyed the most were Maya Angelou and former President Clinton. They seemed to be there for the right reason – to honor the memory of a wonderful woman and mother, and to offer comfort to her family. I thought former President Carter was inappropriate in his comments.</p>
<p>dmd, you’ve go to be kidding. Had Bush not been there, it would have been the target of the Dems barbs as “proof” that Bush doesn’t care about blacks.</p>
<p>then there are the bumpy nations who transport a coffin through the streets while firing machine guns into the flag-burnt air,…let’s look at the bright side of our funerals here. Rude words are still dang civilized, comparatively. With me the coffin is always half full,…</p>
<p>"More like the every 30-minutes incendiary comment, n’cest pas?</p>
<p>N’est-ce pas? -when spelled correctly- is added to the end of a yes/no question when the speaker expects an affirmative response. </p>
<p>I do not think the affirmative response is coming any time soon. Now, if you were to send the same rethorical question to CGM, your chances would increase dramatically.</p>
LOL!
My objection to the conduct of Lowery and Carter had nothing to do with the “style” of the funeral…certainly that was the choice of the family. I was struck by the cruelty of their remarks, in what should have been a neutral zone. It was a very un-Christ-like thing to do in such a setting…turning a memorial service in a house of worship into an auto-da-fe of the man sitting directly behind the speakers. (There’s another foreign phrase for you to look up, tsdad–not in your Larousse, though). I can’t imagine the celebrant or her husband participating in such a thing.</p>
<p>BTW, I only tell the truth, and they think it’s incendiary…</p>
<p>Why should it have been a “neutral zone”? Who determines that? The people who were in the congregation who were there to mourn someone who had impacted their lives did not seem offended by Carter and Lowery.</p>
<p>And the struggle against injustice can never be a “generic” struggle. It always speaks to specific injustices and specific violence. One of my pet peeves is when children are asked to write about their dreams on MLK day. MLK’s “I have a dream” speech wasn’t about generic dreams, it was about overcoming racial barriers in 1960s USA. A very specific dream. He spoke out against the specific Vietnam war, not some “generic” war.</p>
<p>You don’t like what was said. Fine. You don’t have to. I am sure I will not agree with everything that is said at Trent Lotts’ funeral either. But it will not be my place to criticize what his friends say when he dies. This funeral wasn’t about George W. Bush. It was about celebrating Coretta Scott King’s life.</p>
<p>And much of her life was spent working in opposition to the kinds of policies the current administration supports. That is why it is not up to you, a supporter of the current administration, to decide what is said at her funeral. You don’t have to like it, you don’t get to judge whether or not it is out of line.</p>
This may be true. One of the things that used to be admirable about our body politic was the ability to put such differences aside, and show respect for a valiant “foe” in death. You seem to support the current churlishness. That’s too bad.</p>
<p>Of course it isn’t up to me–or to you–“to decide what is said at her funeral.” But I certainly “get to judge whether or not it is out of line.” This isn’t Syria, or Denmark.</p>
<p>I think Ginsburg had also been vetted with the Republican Senate leaders before her nomination. She was well-known, having served on the Appelate Court for the DC district for more than a decade.</p>
<p>Note to future Presidents: the opposition party in the Senate accepts that you will appoint someone of your political leanings. Work with them ahead of time to identify a nominee they can live with.</p>
<p>OK, but you are still welcome at mine, and there is all kinds of speechifying at Quaker memorial services, always about the celebrant. I think your comments go a long way toward explaining the vitriol that marred Coretta’s memorial. Too bad.</p>
Of course we do and we dont even have to be right, just thinking we are will suffice–as it seems to for you, or at least, perhaps, feeling you are right.</p>
<p>Mygirl,</p>
<p>You not only seem to assume the right to pontificate on who is right and wrong in their comments at the funeral of a celebrity, but, even more, universally, here and elsewhere and I will defend your right, etc. etc. </p>
<p>I found the remarks, on this occasion, to be completely out of place. This was not only the passing of a woman, but of an American icon; the wife of one of the most beloved Americans of our time. Such an occasion should not be used to divide us from each other, but to remind us of our selves and our dreams. Few occasions more clearly offer this opportunity.</p>
<p>As with the testosterone driven Wellstone rally–I mean funeral–too many of our politicians act out when the nations eyes are turned on they are romantically in love with their artifice. </p>
<p>Mention Kings struggles, her commitments, her life and her husbands and her childrens, but do not use her death, her memorial, to grandstand, to turn it away from her life and passing to shine the lights on yourself (reminds me of Cindy Sheehans use of her dead son to catapult herself over the chasm; and those who, in turn, use Cindy Sheehan soon to be discarded by her posse and adoring handlers). </p>
<p>Shame–in this crowd–is no different than pride.</p>
<p>Rorosen,</p>
<p>The best use of wit-n-writing this week! Im still laughing. That was way too edgy half-full. Wow!</p>