<p>Those with access to AOL’s polls on this issue can learn a bit more how the nation-at-large feel. Inasmuch as the AOL polls tend to be quite negative of the Bush family, the verdict on this one is pretty clear and not very supportive of the misguided expression of blind partisanship.</p>
<p>I am not a Bush supporter- I disagree with him on most issues. Although I do not feel he is evil-just wrong. I am concerned with his administrations ability to run things effectively. That said-</p>
<p>I felt it was inappropriate- the funeral was not the place to criticize him or his policies or effectiveness</p>
<p>ID,</p>
<p>My point is that Roberts and Alito were vetted by the Democrats in the past and had both received the ABA seal of approval . . . not that this administration requires that to nominate someone. Breyer and Ginsberg were approved by a broad majority of the Senate by many who do not agree with their positions. Note Alito’s responses were almost exactly the same as Ginsberg’s on the Abortion/right to privacy issue.</p>
<p>I just find it very inconsistent of the democrats. Again, note that I am a registered independent that disagrees with many of the current administration’s policies.</p>
<p>I thought that the Roberts and Alito nominations sailed through the Senate without much of a fight. Roberts was confirmed 78-22. That was a walk in the park.</p>
<p>Bush screwed up the second nomination by offering a less-than-qualified candidate and then feeding her to the wolves when his own party objected to her litmus-test credentials.</p>
<p>The Democrats made some minor noise about Alito, but it was hardly a pitched battle. Most of the noise was positioning for the upcoming election cycles.</p>
<p>Overall, I just didn’t see any great hubbub over either nomination – certainly not on the order of magnitute of the Bork or Thomas nominations. The undercurrent of the objections against Alito had to do with Bush turning to a white male with some anti-affirmative action elements in his political and judicial backgrounds. The Democrats are going to beat the Republicans over the head with these kinds of “good-old boy” issues in the coming elections. They were just doing some minor site-preparation work.</p>
<p>We have an adversarial political system. It’s unreasonable to expect a non-partisan politics in Washington. The two parties represent different special interest groups.</p>
<p>Some people say it better than I would.
</p>
<p>Bush’s attendance at the funeral was a cynical political act. His reference to Coretta Scott King in the SOTU was a cynical political act. His GOP cronies have done their damnedest to dilute black voting power in every way possible, from the drawing of legislative district lines to undermanned polling places with insufficient supplies, to the raising of obstacles [such as in Georgia] to voter registration that disproportionately disenfranchise black voters. The surviving Dixiecrats and all their political children are now the mainstay of GOP power.</p>
<p>Did Bush feel uncomfortable in the tradition of truth-to-power? I hope so. I hope he felt as if he’d been smacked in the face with an 8" board.</p>
<p>The Right sanctimoniously makes use of the dead as props for Bush’s Iraq policy. Bush was plenty happy to invoke Coretta Scott King’s name in invocation of some bland Hallmark-card version of “equality” for his political gain; he can take the pain as well.</p>
<p>Now that was incendiary (both TheDad and Susan G.). Unfortunately, it says far more about the raving loons of the far Left than it does about either President Bush or the memory of Coretta Scott King. TD purports–as did dmd77, M3G, et al.–to know what was in the heart of Chimpy-Hitler. It was a “cynical ploy,” probably engineered by Karl Rove, with nods to Leo Strauss. The demonization of a political opponent has become so complete, apparently, that an act of genuine humanity such as attending a funeral and delivering a heartfelt eulogy is cause for pie-throwing. As Ann Coulter said recently, intellectuals of the Right are at least presenting ideas…their counterparts on the Left throw food.</p>
<p>“Bush’s attendance at the funeral was a cynical political act.”</p>
<p>His attendance was cynical? What would you have called his absence? An abomination? An insult? </p>
<p>One telling sign is that, next to your entire cohort of well-dressed hypocrites, the “welcomed” guest who seemed to maintain a sense of decorum was former President Clinton. </p>
<p>Believing that such display of gutter-like bravado scores points with the average citizen is quite mistaken. I am not sure what is more pathetic: the attacks of the spineless and the slimy or the fact that some “individuals” find the actions defensible or laudable. It is in days like today that I am happy for having a polarized society, because I sure do not like much about your so-called “Progressive” side.</p>
<p>ID,</p>
<p>True enough that both Roberts and Alito got in. However, look at the actual votes. The Breyer and Ginsberg votes included most republicans. The Roberts and Alito votes were split along party lines with minimal cross over.</p>
<p>Coretta and Dr. King spent their entire adult lives speaking out against injustice, speaking out against inequality, speaking out against war, speaking out for the common man. Rev. Lowry was a close friend and partner of Coretta King and is a respected member of their black community. I cannot help but think he knows more about what she may have wanted said or not said at her funeral than those on the right who seem to think he should have kept his political thoughts to himself because of Mr. Bush’s presence. The enthusiastic applause and ovations from the audience hint that his community felt the comments the right finds so upsetting were not just appropriate, but appreciated.<br>
Those who think politics have no place in a memorial service for Corretta Scott King are forgetting that her entire life was dedicated to political causes. This is who she was.
If you consider the point of view of someone like Coretta King, this country is in crisis. To not speak out against what you consider immoral and unjust, and to put polite decorum above truth and passion would be
unfitting and somewhat cowardly. Being polite and making people comfortable was not what either King was about.
I don’t think the right really understands what this corageous woman stands for in the eyes of those who admire her so much. They really just don’t get it.</p>
<p>
True, but you’re overstating the case. Actually, showing that they were in fact normal, moral fellow-citizens who were being abused was central to the King-led civil rights movement. That’s one of the reasons everyone was dressed up in their Sunday best when they marched into the fire hoses. ASAP, your sanctimony is duly noted. But don’t presume to speak for every fellow citizen who felt they had an interest in this latest funeral, and don’t dare to suggest that either of the Kings would have behaved with such singular crassness. That is a true insult to their legacy.</p>
<p>Roberts was confirmed 78-22. That’s not a party line vote.</p>
<p>Alito received very few votes from Democrats because he wasn’t a very attractive nomination to Democrats, in part because of his politics and in part because he was a white male replacing one of only two women to ever serve on the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>He was a qualified candidate, but a ham-fisted appointment, politically. If a President wants bi-partisan votes, he (or she) needs to make bi-partisan nominations.</p>
<p>Thanks, ID, but the real question remains: what percentage of Judiciary Committee members went on to get PhDs?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You see, those in the church applauding last Tuesday didn’t feel the “crassness” you seem to feel. They felt something else. I can’t say what they felt - but I can assume if they were applauding, they approved.
I’m not speaking for everyone. I’m trying to expain why everyone might not see it as you do.</p>
<p>
You can fill a modern “mega-church” with whomever you want for a celebrity funeral, and get a corresponding result on the “clap-o-meter,” if that’s how you choose to rate spiritual things. It would be interesting to see how many of the thousands in attendance were regular members, and how many were, um, political figures committing “cynical political acts.” Not that it would change the un-Christianlike mean-ness that went on. Pretty slick web-page there at the “New Birth Missionary Baptist Church,” where MLK “used to preach.” <a href=“http://www.newbirth.org/[/url]”>http://www.newbirth.org/</a> Pastor Eddie, and “First Lady Vanessa” Long. I can’t imagine the abuse that would be heaped on this church here at CC if they were white evangelicals.</p>
<p>My assumption–and I have been unable to verify this–is that Bush asked if he could come speak at the funeral of Mrs. King. That’s why I want to know if he was invited to speak or not, and by whom he was invited. (In the case of Reagan (mentioned above), the funeral was planned by Reagan, Mrs. Reagan, and a committee in 1989. There were long articles about it.)</p>
<p>You’ll notice, if you read carefully, that I also considered the speeches by Clinton and GHWB (Bush 1) to be gratuitous. To my knowledge–and I’d be delighted to be proven wrong–neither of them had any real relationship with Mrs. King either. I have no problem with the attendance of former presidents; I do have a problem with political speeches–on either side–by former presidents. Note that I co not consider Carter’s references to historical and important events of the past to be political <em>in this context</em>. Carter, as governor of Georgia, did much to further the causes MLK and Mrs. King stood for.</p>
<p>Rev. Lowery is the main person coming under attack by the right.
Before people assume that he was just someone pulled from a hat to represent Coretta King, they should read this man’s impressive biography.
He has more credibilty in the black community than all of the politicians in the room put together.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.thehistorymakers.com/biography/biography.asp?bioindex=455&category=civicMakers[/url]”>http://www.thehistorymakers.com/biography/biography.asp?bioindex=455&category=civicMakers</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Beats me. The Swarthmore alum is the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But, he went on to Harvard Law School and was a law professor before going into politics.</p>
<p>It was as appropriate as bringing up the fact that Mrs. King charged for interviews and that the King family has engaged in much unseemly money-grubbing.</p>
<p>I respect George W. for going to Mrs. King’s funeral. If he was offended by any of the mild criticism directed his way, he really needs to get out more.</p>
<p>You want disrespect? Here’s an excerpt from Rush Limbaugh’s puerile commentary on Bill Clinton’s speech at the funeral:</p>
<p>Limbaugh: I’m looking at something I haven’t seen in I don’t know how long. Bill and Hillary are at the pulpit side by side, and she is looking so lovingly and respectfully at him that I don’t believe it. The last time I saw them side by side was in that picture when they were on the beach dancing to no music two weeks before the Monica Lewinsky story broke … Let’s bring up the president – I’m going to regret this; I know I’m going to regret this – the first black president at the Coretta Scott King funeral. </p>
<p>Clinton: President Bush 41 complained that he was at a disadvantage because he was an Episcopalian. Then he came up here and zings old Laura like he did. I thought, “That ain’t bad for one of the ‘frozen chosen.’” </p>
<p>Limbaugh: Frozen chosen? </p>
<p>Clinton: We – </p>
<p>Limbaugh: Maybe it’s a sperm bank. That’s a sperm bank term! </p>
<p>Clinton: – doing good together and – </p>
<p>Limbaugh: Frozen chosen? </p>
<p>Clinton: Let me say – </p>
<p>Limbaugh: Clinton used to be a greeter in a sperm bank, I know that. </p>
<p>Clinton: – I don’t want us to forget that there’s a woman in there, not a symbol. Not a symbol, a real woman who lived and breathed and got angry and got hurt, and had dreams and disappointments – </p>
<p>Limbaugh: I hate to say this, folks, but that’s what he said about the mummy. </p>
<p>Clinton: – and I don’t want us to forget that. You know what? </p>
<p>Limbaugh: He said that about the mummy! </p>
<p>Clinton: You know what I was here thinking? “I wish I knew what her kids were thinking about now. I wonder if they were thinking about what I was thinking about my mother’s funeral.” </p>
<p>Limbaugh: It’s about him. </p>
<p>Clinton: All this grand stuff. I wonder if they’re thinking about when she used to read books to them, or when she told them Bible stories, or what she said to them when their daddy got killed. We’re here to honor a person. Fifty-four years ago her about-to-be husband said that he was looking for a woman with character, intelligence, personality and beauty, and she sure fit the bill, and I (cheers) I have to say, when she was over 75, I thought she still fit the bill pretty good, in all those categories. </p>
<p>Limbaugh: He said that about the mummy, the 500-year-old mummy – </p>
<p>Clinton: I think that’s important. </p>
<p>Limbaugh: – as visions of AstroTurf danced through his head. </p>
<p>Clinton: The day after her husband was killed she had to decide, “What am I going to do with the rest of my life?” We would have all forgiven her, even honored her, if she said, “I have stumbled on enough stony roads. I have been beaten by enough bitter rods. I have endured enough dangers, toils and snares. I’m going home and raise my kids. I wish you all well.” None of us, nobody could have condemned that decision, but instead, she went to Memphis, the scene of the worst nightmare of her life, and led that march for those poor, hardworking garbage workers. </p>
<p>Limbaugh: They’re called “sanitation workers” now.</p>
<p>Limbaugh- a man of grace and class, egad, and people still listen to him, god bless ya Greybeard for being able to listen, I can’t</p>
<p>THis was NOT Bush’s funeral</p>
<p>Bush isn’t used to no being able to control his audience or being in a place were nobody really likes him as our President, a place where no one was planted to agree with him, not a place where everyhint had to be preapproved</p>
<p>I am glad the people said what they said, to do any less, to wuss around, would have done a disservice to her life</p>
<p>Bush went becuase he had no choice, at the last minute he changed his plans to attend, making excuses for sticking to his original plans</p>
<p>Guess hearing the truth about poverty, money for war, discrimination is too sensitive for his priveledged ears to take</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>back in 2005 (all of a year ago)</p>
<p>y Roland S. Martin, Chicago Defender
January 27, 2005</p>
<p>President George W. Bush met with the Congressional Black Caucus Wednesday for the first time as a group in nearly four years, but what CBC members said stood out the most was the president’s declaration that he was “unfamiliar” with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most significant pieces of legislation passed in the history of the United States.</p>
<p>At the conclusion of yesterday’s 40-minute meeting, Bush - who attended along with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - was asked by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-2nd) whether he would support the re-authorization of a portion of the Voting Rights Act that must be approved every 25 years (It will come up for consideration next year).</p>
<p>From left to right, Rep. Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, D-Mich., Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., Rep. Charles B. Rangle, D-NY., and Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., speak to the media outside the West Wing of the White House following their meeting with President Bush, Wednesday in Washington. AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais</p>
<p>“I don’t know anything about the 1965 Voting Rights Act,” Jackson recalled the president saying in an interview with the Chicago Defender.</p>
<p>He said that a hurried Bush went on to say that “when the legislation comes before me, I’ll take a look at it, but I don’t know about it to comment any more than that, but we will look at it when it comes to us.”</p>
<p>My D learned about the Voting rights act in 4th grade and our President hasn’t heard of it?/</p>
<p>He does now, cause someone told him</p>
<p>And this is the man who was so serious at the funeral, what a crock</p>