Thursday, February 09, 2006

Anybody here seen my old friend Martin...

From the almost always civilized Professor Bainbridge:
In the first place, Bush likely didn't go to the funeral "simply ... to pay his respects." Bush undoubtedly had a political motive for attending. Second, so he got harangued? It's small cheese compared to the political purposes to which some funerals have been put:

From some commentors to the Prof:
As with Wellstone, I'm not quite sure why anyone would be outraged that left-wing comments were made at a funeral for a left-wing activist. (With Dr. and Mrs. King it's a little different because the right consistently tries to deny that they were left-wing, but of course they were, and good for them.) This is one of those cute little fake-outrage moments where conservatives, who routinely accuse liberals of treason and perversion, turn around and accuse liberals of incivility.
WOW! One comment about domestic spying, noting there were no WMDS and observing there is still racisim in the South. Maybe 5 minutes (including applause and SOs) of a 6 hour funeral.

How does this even compare, politically, to the week long deification of Reagan as the savior of the Western world and conservative politics?
It seems the manufactured uproar is over "disrespect" shown to the President at the funeral of someone who spoke truth to power. How could the King family be upset by eulogists speaking truth to power?

President Bush and the current Republican Party insult King's memory on a daily basis at home and abroad.
If those closest to someone want to make political statements about someone who made a lifetime of political statements, who is a windbag like Jonah Goldberg to complain? He wasn't invited to speak at the funeral. He didn't know the deceased. It's the pundits who are being despicable here. Now they can tell us whats appropriate or not at our own funerals?

Sensible people do indeed inhabit the Prof's world.

But then we have these folks:
I think Perry's right. Some conservatives are upset because President Bush would have been criticized by the left over the funeral no matter what. He didn't go to try to get political points but to avoid losing them by "snubbing" Dr. King's family.

I agree it's a minor matter, but my disappointment with President Carter and Rev. Lowerey's remarks is that I think the funeral of Dr. King's widow could have been a time of reaching out to each other to affirm the things we have in common and the progress our society has made on racial issues since Dr. King's death. Instead, we got trite political rhetoric, which we have all heard before, on subjects having little to do with race.
A time of freakin reaching out? What kind of kool-aid are you drinking? Reach out now and your likely to have your wrist watch stolen by Abramoff, and your wrist actually slit by DeLay.

Bush doesn't give one rat's ass whether anyone would perceive him as "snubbing" the event. Since he has failed to address the NAACP with no visible anguish, one might conclude that he doesn't care about opinions held by our melanin enhanced brothers and sisters. He clearly went to acquire some 'political capital', and as the event was free of White House scripting and managing, he got a dose of what real folks think. And I'm sure it pissed him off. He, who has no air of self-inquiry, or any awareness of life beyond his tortured world view, would never, ever, stop to think: "Why are these people upset? Is there something to all this?"

As long as dupes like this commentor believe that the Radical Right has a franchise on nobility and civility, they'll never acknowledge the truth. Must be nice to live in Rush's world. So little thinking, so little imagination, so little empathy.


Update: Yeah, I spelled perceive wrong. I'm really sorry. Whatever.