<p>thanks for the missing link, driver. Interesting that it is easy to cross-attribute tendencies to dem or reps because of the yinyang interdependence. On that, more bait,…consider the Bush Family matriarchal (with good boys, good ole boys) and the Ken Clan Patriarchal
with those lovable bad boys. The father very absent or very present leads to the same yearning and resentment while the respected albeit sexless mother also holds a stammering influence, keeping those boys in line and spankin clean. Oh, what to do? How to live? i mean, you’d expect the evil repubs to demean women and the equalizing dems to demote the man but you have to look in the direction they’re not looking to see what they’re looking for,…</p>
<p>The mom/dad thing seems too baggy to be of much use. For one thing, conservatives have long criticized liberal social policty on the grounds that its attitude toward the disadvantaged is paternalistic.</p>
<p>“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>TD, did you not use very similar words during the … last campaigns. Is my memory failing or didn’t you say that the Democrats were more united and energized than ever for their fight against the diminutive Darth Vader. </p>
<p>I still think think that your party needs to find a platform and discover the way to articulate what you stand for as opposed to what you are against. Last time around, the only platform I could see was the one Gary Coleman stepped on in California. </p>
<p>As far as counting on independents, the despicable spectacle at the funeral won’t endear you to the masses. While it is easy to please an ultra-partisan crowd with a flame-thrower and dubious statements, the bar is set a lot harder outside the “inner-circle” that still enjoys “Panem and Circenses.” </p>
<p>I’d venture to say that you lost a more than you gained. I know that it did reinforce my basic contempt for the “leadership” of your party. </p>
<p>As far as “Enjoy your sense of entitlement while it lasts” I now start to regret that the majority even consider your side as worthy of a dialogue.</p>
<p>TheDad is simply manifesting the post-menopausal hot flash aspect of the current Mommy Party…I think rorosen’s bathtime revelation was very perceptive. Xiggi, rather than castigate TD, it would speak better of you if you were to help him through this difficult time that we old ladies must all go through. In that spirit, I have assembled this short list of articles published this morning that address the shrewishness brought on by hot flashes, and steps to work around it, and get on with a meaningful life.</p>
<p>This first one is from Jonah Goldberg, whose new gig as token conservative columnist at the LATimes has caused him to tighten his writing up a bit…TD may even be reading the tree copy of his morning LAT as I write this…sitting there on his deck overlooking the Pacific, sipping latte, (pinky firmly extended) his Johnny Depp-style mustache dripping with warm, low-fat milk foam…
<a href=“Audi's Gorewellian Super Bowl ad”>Audi's Gorewellian Super Bowl ad;
<p>Then there’s this helpful piece on the unattractiveness of this constant anger–or naked, drooling rage, as I like to call it. I note that Professor Lakoff is at UCB–an easy bike ride away for TD, and a trip I urge him to take. “Angry people are not nice people. They are people to stay away from. They explode now and then,” he says. Exactly so.</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060209-121825-3412r.htm[/url]”>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060209-121825-3412r.htm</a></p>
<p>Finally, back to the subject of the OP, Tom Bevan really nails it with this one, and provides links to how the “moderates” and “independents” felt about the Coretta funeral/political rally.
<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/02/nothing_is_above_politics_anymore.html[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/02/nothing_is_above_politics_anymore.html</a></p>
<p>I suppose it was inevitable that a discussion of Carter’s comments–a legitmate topic for debate–would descend into windy generalizations about menopausal mommies, angry lefties, and ignorant conservatives. Reminds me of something my mommy and daddy used to tell me: Nothing is less classy, decent, and dignified than claiming that one has a monopoly on these things.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course there is Spoonyj</p>
<p> how about doing it all over her dead body?</p>
<p>love the discussions–hate the moral posturing</p>
<p>Spoony,
In case you want to buy a sense of humor, there’s one available on Ebay right now.
<a href=“http://cgi.ebay.com/DEVELOP-YOUR-SENSE-OF-HUMOUR-HYPNOSIS-CD_W0QQitemZ4830591499QQcategoryZ2254QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem[/url]”>http://cgi.ebay.com/DEVELOP-YOUR-SENSE-OF-HUMOUR-HYPNOSIS-CD_W0QQitemZ4830591499QQcategoryZ2254QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem</a>
</p>
<p>Spoony,</p>
<p>I see your point, but re-stating the boiler-plate stated at every other political engagement, as was done at the funeral, is hardly a discussion, under these circumstances, is a vulgar rant.</p>
<p>Do these men have no other opportunities to speak? </p>
<p>I was genuinely touched by the King family for what the patriarch meant to the country. His wife, many years later, passes away and the country has another opportunity to come together over the legacy of this man and his family. </p>
<p>Many were wrong on Rev. King the first time around and came to understand the significance of this great man and the subtlety of his spiritual and earthly hopes, and in turn his wife and family, only later–some much later, my generation for instance. </p>
<p>Thank god they did, no matter who was more right or more wrong. Others came to love the Man and his family only tangentially, supposing him a mythical great man who represented the spirit of America and American redemption. Coupled with his political struggles we are taught to honor Rev. King this way in school perhaps the old folks on the parents café are out of touch with this subtle fact. </p>
<p>Conservative and liberal students alike, who did not live thru the eruptions of the sixties, respect and revere Rev King, and by extension and through a glass darkly, Corretta. </p>
<p>I may be speaking out of turn here, and I may be wrong on the facts, but I would like to think that at Lincolns funeral, his partisans did not use the occasion to further divide an already divided country. Maybe they did. That would have been a shame. </p>
<p>Americans were scolded by political partisans on the wrong occasion. Polls and punsters from the right and center seem to reinforce this opinion. It is not always of the foremost importance to be right; sometimes it is the better part of virtue to be good and kind.</p>
<p>Well put, FS, and you allude to the aspect of the service that most offended me…the cruelty. It was just plain unkind. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course, both Carter and Lowery were also aware that the target of their attack, George W. Bush, was sitting right behind them. Had he not been present on the occasion, their Bush-bashing would have only been an affront to good taste. But because Bush had come there to honor the memory of Coretta Scott King, and not to engage in a debate with his political opponents, the attacks on him crossed the boundaries of mere bad taste, and became low blows. They were deliberately attacking a man who they knew could not, under the circumstances, defend himself against their assault. Their aim was quite obvious – to embarrass and humiliate Bush in the full knowledge that there was not a thing Bush could decently do about it.</p>
<p>The President, for example, could not do what most people, including myself, would have done. He could not jump up and simply walk out – that would have created a scandal. Therefore, he had no choice but to sit there and take it. He was hopelessly trapped, and was entirely at the mercy of his assailants – and they knew it. He had to behave like the President, even when a former President, Mr. Carter, was behaving like a cad.<a href=“Link%20within%20a%20link%20from%20#84,%20above”>/quote</a>.</p>
<p>fountainsiren and driver- if there is anything finer than sensible witty women I haven’t found it.
I am sure that when those who dislike republicans visualize republicans they see men(with the women as duped tokens) and they do not like these men for reasons other than the ones they offer which usually have to do with the distribution of money, goods, power but may be as simple as cigar aversion. Identity is not an easy mystery but there must be a formula that predicts political orientation if you throw in the proper influences. And since I like to generalize (because with all the facts thrown around here you’d think facts were conclusions) and have a Freudian disposition, it is curious how clearly people resist what they most fear being. For instance, liberals always accuse the right of snobbery and
exclusiveness,…tell us, how does a woman manage to proceed through life without bitterness? And furthermore, could you analyze the whole anger thing as an automatic disqualification for credibility? I realize the wounded tend to be imbalanced and therefore irrational but even though i dislike petty smallminded offended posturing, is there anything wrong with a little heartfelt passion in defense of the good( if it doesn’t lead to moustached men marching)and plenty?</p>
<p>
Are you referring to TheDad, or one of those historically evil mustached men?</p>
<p>Re: cigar aversion. I have a bit of that myelf, these days, which is funny, because my grandfather smoked cigars, and a properly-smoked cigar produces a delightful aroma. Too many of these guys currently indulging in the boutique cigar fad smoke too many, too fast, and as a result, their expensive stogies smell like a burning trash pile, and their clothes smell as if they had spent the night sleeping in an overflowing ashtray. My grandfather smoked only el cheapos, from the drug store…White Owls, or Phillies. But he smoked them slow and cool, and as a result, they smelled wonderful.</p>
<p>My dad’s tastes run out into the medieval–smokes a pipe…his shop always has the sweet, earthy, bark-embered smell of a-long-time-ago…mom smokes the occasional cigar with dad, a modern gal…I prefer tea, chocolate and warm fluffy blankets.</p>
<p>my grandpa smoked too but they were expensive and saturated the cadillac. He would slip the paper ring with its encircling spanish words onto my finger. I suspect the advantage to cigarsmoke is to be found in fart camouflage but that might be my peculiar imagination. I don’t care much for the bigshottery that attends today’s cigar smokers who I suspect use the foul smoke to mask something else internal. Will you reveal the secret to a pleasant disposition? (((take your time, I’m off to lessons)))</p>
<p>wow-two great gals descended from smoke,…the beginnings of a Theory!!!</p>
<p>FS,</p>
<p>I guess I wasn’t clear; at no point did I register my thoughts about Carter’s comments. But here’s the kicker: We agree! He was out-of-line in my book. </p>
<p>Kicker, lines, book? A salad of metaphors prepared just for you…</p>
<p>Ah yes, the metaphor alert is desperately needed. AAAHOOOOWGA! AAAHOOOOWGA! </p>
<p>My message to Carter, Lowry, and Hil (not to mention Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Kerry, Teddy, etc., etc. too many to even think about) is GO FOR IT!! Make it clear to everyone, even the vast majority of Americans who don’t follow politics, just what your vision for the country is. Please.</p>
<p>Here’s what Carter actually said:</p>
<p>“This commemorative ceremony this morning and this afternoon is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over … We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, those who were most devastated by Katrina, to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans.”</p>
<p>And this:</p>
<p>"Noting that the Kings’ work was ‘not appreciated even at the highest level of the government,’ Carter said: ‘It was difficult for them personally - with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretapping, other surveillance, and as you know, harassment from the FBI.’ </p>
<p>Sorry, but I have a tough time seeing this as inappropriate. I suspect the only reason Limbaugh was even covering the funeral (given the completely inappropriate tone of his remarks, like saying Clinton had been a “greeter at a sperm bank”) was out of hope that he could once again make a mountain out of a molehill, like he did with the Wellstone funeral.</p>
<p>And here’s what Lowery said:</p>
<p>“She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar …We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we knew, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor.”</p>
<p>If Bush’s sensibilities are so tender that he can’t take the expression of sentiments like these at the funeral of a peace activitist, he shouldn’t go to such funerals. I give him a little a little more credit than that, personally, and find the expressions of outrage on his behalf disingenuous. “I’m shocked, shocked, to discover that someone would use the occasion of a funeral to score political points.” Isn’t that why George W. himself was there? It would have been unseemly to send the usual surrogate, his Vice President; people might recall that he once voted against the Martin Luther King holiday.</p>
<p>But Greybeard, this President doesn’t like to hear anything that disagrees with what he has been told about the world</p>
<p>This was one of the few places Bush has gone that his people could not orchestrate and it irritates the sensitivaties of those that think this man can do no wrong and for anyone to point out that this country is not all behind him and in fact the MAJORITY of Americans disapprove of his presidency. </p>
<p>And at MLKJrs funeral, it was plenty political…she was a political woman</p>
<p>She was fighting a battle until her death, and the people who spoke were her friends, unlike Bush, who fights tooth and nail everything she stood for, why he had the seat right behind the speakers I don’t understand, talk about political…</p>
<p>The President had to take it!!! My goodness, that is just awful that the President had to hear criticism about the job he is doing…</p>
<p>Low blows, he delivers them all the time attacking democrats…</p>
<p>The country IS divided, it can’t be further divided because speakers point out the divisions, that is so lame, for lack of a better word</p>
<p>Of course this country is divided, much further divided than it has been for a long time, but hey, lets not remind people and expect everyone else to “just take it”- Bush has created this division</p>