<p>GB,
As I pointed out in the OP, there are outlets for puerilism, on both sides. Lowery and Carter could have continured writing their puerile op-eds, conducting their puerile press conferences, etc. The problem was, they continued this behavior at a public memorial service.</p>
<p>For a woman who stood for civil rights…what did someone say</p>
<p>it would be like giving a eulogy for Babe RUth and not discussing baseball</p>
<p>Ignore her life and all she stood for I guess</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.bates.edu/x49908.xml[/url]”>http://www.bates.edu/x49908.xml</a></p>
<p>eulogy at Martin Luther King Jrs Service</p>
<p>So, what was said at this Mrs. Kings funeral was similar to what was said at her husbands</p>
<p>get over trying to protect your President from the truth, he needs to get out more as someone said</p>
<p>ID,</p>
<p>Appointing someone to the supreme court is not about quotas. O’Connor was appointed by a republican. You never know but from what I read the female nominations he would have made, Brown, etc., would not have been met warmly.</p>
<p>Eagle:</p>
<p>IMO, in the 21st century, in a country where women make up more than half the college graduates, in a country that gets on its high horse about women’s representation in Iraq, in a country that has had only 2 women Justices in its 225 year history, the Court must have more than one woman. Whether you call that a quota or just a simple truth, I don’t know. I just know that taking a step backwards on this issue is just not right. I believe that Bush deserves to be attacked on this one.</p>
<p>I have no doubt that there are brilliant, capable women that Bush could have nominated – women who would have been warmly applauded by both sides of the aisle. Bush wasn’t painted into a corner by the Dems. He was painted into a corner because his own party would only accept a woman nominee if she was to the right of Attila the Hun.</p>
<p>I believe Janice Rogers Brown was on the possible nominees list, but the dems had a fit over her because she is a black conservative.</p>
<p>FYI, I heard on a nationally syndicated radio show this am, that an e-mail message had been sent to the host of the show by a member of the King family.The host of the show was able to confirm the identity and authenticity of the email message (though not publicize it for privace reasons, I suppose) In essence, it was expressing dismay at the fact that some chose their mother’s funeral service to make political statements. </p>
<p>No, it was NOT the family’s choice or their preference to have that occur. And they did invite President Bush to attend. Along with Carter, and the Clintons (who, by the way, were invited to and did ride in AF1 with Mr and Mrs Bush…would that we could have heard the conversations in the limo during that ride!!!)</p>
<p>Not because she was a BLACK conservative, because she was jsut plain awful, black or white, male or female, alien or fish, she was a bad choice, and they put her name out so anyone by comparisson would seem better, isn’t that the strategy?</p>
<p>Did you read the eulogy at MLK Jrs service…not much different</p>
<p>And as for the King family, how do we know the talk show verified anything, and told the truth, that I would like proof of</p>
<p>What talk show was it, that I am sure you can share</p>
<p>cgm</p>
<p>What is it about “BLACK” conservatives that you hate so much? Are they unloyal to certain whites who know more about what is best for them? The Dems are done. If you start to chip away at the 90%/10%domination that the Dems have with blacks then the Dems are history… The Dems have taken advantage of the black community and it’s atarting to end. I understand why you’re mad. Swann, Blackwell, Steele…It’s over.</p>
<p>I don’t know, but a six-hour funeral involving 4 presidents (and maybe a 5th 
) sounds a bit like national theater to me, and intended and designed to be BOTH a memorable occasion celebrating a woman’s life, and a continuing example of her engagement in the national debate about issues affecting us. </p>
<p>I don’t know what Coretta Scott King might have thought of the various incendiary remarks, but I find it hard to believe that her children did not approve them–or their general tenor–in advance. And–maybe I’m way off base–I think it is also even possible that she had some say in who would come to speak at her funeral.</p>
<p>I am just sad that she has passed on, and that one more light from a remarkable era has been extinguished.</p>
<p>Someone else mentioned she was black and that is why I didn’t like her, which is not even close to why I didn’t like her, follow the posts why don’t you</p>
<p>I could care less if Brown were African American, or Purple, or Green, I didn’t like her polictics and her beliefs, and please do not put words in my mouth and twist my words</p>
<p>Yeah, the love at the Funeral for the Bush adminsitration was overwhelming</p>
<p>And if anyone bothered to read what was said at her husbands funeral, this service was right in keeping with that</p>
<p>So a funeral is …national theater for Hillary. I’m impressed with the great skill that she and her husband have to enter themselves into the national debate no matter what the debate is. Coretta Scott King is a…what…an enabler for Bill and Hillary. But of course she is.</p>
<p>And of course it’s sad. Jimmy C. will be remembered for what?</p>
<p>cgm</p>
<p>“Alien” or “Fish” would get you kicked out of most institutions who have a diversity code. You’re getting a pass here for reasons that are only known to some others here.</p>
<p>I suspect it’s possible that Jimmy Carter will be remembered for winning the Nobel Peace Prize.</p>
<p>Browninfall #69: you’re doing a heckuva job, Brownie. It suits my purposes for you to just keep believing your own propaganda, right up to the very least second.</p>
<p>Speaking of heckuva job, at least the would-be 24-year-old twerp-ayahatollah and former Bush campaign worker assigned to the NASA communications department who insisted on the word “theory” being put in after every usage of “Big Bang” got his comeuppance. </p>
<p>Driver, from your post, you probably think Ann Coulter is a moderate conservative. But you’re observing Democrats with an extreme parallax view if you think I’m far Left or anything close to it. I’m right of center in my own party and for more than two decades was the kind of centrist who could at least talk to the other side and find common ground. But Bush’s idea of “bi-partisanship” is to “smile and surrender.” My patience and goodwill vanished in the 2002 elections with the ads morphing Max Cleland into Osama bin Laden. The idiotic war in Iraq, the class warfare, the irresponsible budgets, the total surrender to the ayahtollahs of the anti-abortion/anti-contraception/anti-sex education movement who want to impose their theocratic views on every intimate moment involving relationships, sex, birth, and death, and now the lese majeste with regards to the Constitution and the law, all just deepen the resolve. </p>
<p>Karl Rove had this theory that he could win elections by turning out the nutwing base and so far he’s done it. But pendulums swing and paybacks are a rhymes-with-witch. You’ve managed to unite Democrats to a degree that I never thought possible and the Independents are now breaking our way. Enjoy your sense of entitlement while it lasts.</p>
<p>If Republicans are outraged and offended at the opposition, I say good. I hope they’re outraged and offended every single day. The opposition isn’t going away and is going to be in Republican faces every single day. And the so-called leaders of the Repubican party like Karl Rove is going to find out that the genie works both ways. </p>
<p>Btw, Brownie, when the court of retribution has its say, I hope we don’t find you wimpering. By your own standards, those who lose elections should just shut up. If there’s any justice, the highest elected Republican official will be a citycouncilwoman somwhere in Indiana. That won’t happen…I think Sen. Crapo in Idaho is safe forever.</p>
<p>You obviously spent a fair amount of time composing your piece. Good for you. I know some folks who have had some difficulty dealing with issues that are delicate. I really do wish you the best of luck dealing with your differences of opinion.</p>
<p>Gloating is an experience that I haven’t had a lot of experience with as I was a Goldwater Republican and there weren’t a lot of good years. The years are good now. We’re not gloating… but damn(forgive me)… things really are good now. Alioto (that’s Ted’s nickname), Roberts, Bolton being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s OK right now.</p>
<p>Yeah, things are really good. Thousands of people dead and displaced in New Orleans thanks to your folks’ incompetence, thousands of our dear kids dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, seniors not able to get their life-saving medications, millions without health insurance. But that stuff doesn’t matter to you. Things are really good because compassion and equal opportunity no longer really exist in America, and you and your pals are the beneficiaries.</p>
<p>"GB,
“As I pointed out in the OP, there are outlets for puerilism, on both sides. Lowery and Carter could have continured writing their puerile op-eds, conducting their puerile press conferences, etc. The problem was, they continued this behavior at a public memorial service.”</p>
<p>Driver, Limbaugh’s live commentary on the funeral was puerilism in rather rarified form. </p>
<p>But was it was hardly puerile for Carter or Lowery to direct some mild criticism at administration policies at the funeral of an activist who opposed those policies. I doubt that there was an actual mourner there who took the slightest bit of offense at them. The Republicans achieved some electoral success by distorting events surrounding the Wellstone funeral, but no one’s buying the faux outrage this time around.</p>
<p>Perhaps I could toss a few gas-soaked logs onto these embers,…if we could consider us one mind thinking in parts here I would like to see this thought I had while in the bath developed with as much honesty as can be offered by people who are not quite anonymous due to the defined and defended territories of their posts but anyway,…In what sense can the Dems be considered ‘the women’ and the Republicans ‘the men’? I am thinking psycholgically, not genitaliologically,…I realize this is incendiary and I will be pleased if this gets taken up seriously but I do sense a difference regarding the general comfort had with men stuff versus women stuff, angry mothers, distant fathers, traditions, the internal barometer,…I leave it to you(and by the way I’m a registered idiot)</p>
<p>Interesting point. The notion of Democrats/Republicans as the Mommy Party/Daddy Party was first posited by Jude Wanniski. I think what we see here on CC most often is the post-menopausal hot flash Mommy Party having a particularly bad day.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/08-17-00.html[/url]”>http://www.polyconomics.com/searchbase/08-17-00.html</a></p>