Apparently funeral of Coretta Scott King became just another avenue for Bush bashing – just as the Wellstone memorial service degenerated into the crudest of political spectacles.
Glenn Reynolds notes:
Why does this keep happening? Part of it, I think, is that the Democratic Party is in a state where it finds it hard to get national TV coverage except when someone dies. I think that their behavior reflects another forlorn hope for regeneration. I guess looking at policies is out of the question, though.
On this issue, I don’t care what the excuse, rationale, or reasoning was. A funeral is never a place to score political points. It is certainly an utter violation of common decency to not only polticize a funeral, but criticize a person sitting in the audience.
The Democrats are learning from the worst of the Republican Party during the Clinton Administration. One would think given that they were on the other side that they would do better. Then again the sad state of American politics makes me think that the idea of being able to put partisanship aside for one gorram moment is just too much to ask of some people these days.
Coretta Scott King was the wife of one of the greatest leaders of the previous century, a man who transformed American society for the better. She herself was a great and dignified woman. She deserved a better send-off than that.
UPDATE: Glenn Reynolds add a link here (thanks!) and the following observation:
MORE: Jay Reding writes: “Can we have some dignity, please?”
Apparently not. And this post by Eric Muller only serves to underline the very point it attempts to refute. The problem with today’s Democrats is that they try to invest the naked hunger for power with the dignity of the civil rights movement, a dignity that they no longer possess because it was based on a self-discipline that they no longer possess.
I think that’s about as dead-on as one can get. The Democratic Party has become increasingly vitriolic, to the point where partisan extremism is as easy to them as breathing. It’s become pathological for some, and that kind of extremism doesn’t work in a democratic society. If you can’t treat the opposition with the barest minimum of respect, you can’t come to the compromises necessary for democracy to function.
The reason why the Democrats keep losing elections is that things like this, using the opportunity of a funeral to criticize a man sitting in the audience alienates anyone who doesn’t share their ravenous sense of partisanship. There are plenty of people who may not like parts or even a significant amount of the President’s agenda, but are so turned off by the level of vitriol and extremism on the other side that they can’t support the Democrats either. As the level of partisanship grows, the level of disgust grows right along with it.
Coretta Scott King deserved better than that. Our country deserves better than this.
“Coretta Scott King was the wife of one of the greatest leaders of this century…”
Just a clarification – she was the wife of one the greatest leaders of the previous century.
I wonder what it must have been like to be Coretta Scott King. She couldn’t be a normal person. She couldn’t remarry if she wanted to.
She had some sort of social obligation to be a prop for the rest of her life, exploited by race hucksters, and constantly reminded of her husband’s infidelity.
At bare minimum, she deserved a funeral where she was her own person, instead of just the wife of Martin Luther King.
Hmmm.
I’m unaware of Republicans misusing a funeral to bash Democrats. Since you’re assuming an equivalent scenario could you please provide a reference to substantiate your assertion?
We know that Democrats have used two funerals as an opportunity to bash Republicans. When has the reverse ever happened?
And please, no references from before 1866. Thanks.
kcom: Good catch.
i think the partisanship has become vitriolic on both sides, jay. that’s why bushes initiatives like social security reform tanked. it’s not good for the country.
unforutnately, the president’s agenda is in significant ways in conflict with very core of MLK and Coretta’s lives. the fact that people would openly criticize bush at her funeral is simply evidence of that.
does anyone know if coretta even wanted bush to attend the funeral? i don’t know, but i think that’s a valid question if we are talking about her wishes.
The King funeral reminded me of the scene in Zorba the Greek when the town’s people strip the old lady’s house once she was dead. It seems to me that the Democrats USED the occasion. And that they therefore showed utter disrespect for Mrs King and her family and the message of Dr. King.
Mr. Reding: I think a good follow-up column by you would be an analogy to a gangster rap funeral where the “other side” shows up and this type of thing happens. Gun fire would start immediately in the church. Bets regards, Steve.
Yackity smackity. This phoney outrage is typical conservative double-talk. Here is a 1963 quote from Dr. King’s eulogy for the four girls murdered in Birmingham, AL.
>They [the girls who died] have something to say to every minister of the gospel who has remained silent behind the safe security of stained-glass windows. They have something to say to every politician who has fed his constituents with the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism. They have something to say to a federal government that has compromised with the undemocratic practices of southern Dixiecrats and the blatant hypocrisy of right-wing northern Republicans. They have something to say to every Negro who has passively accepted the evil system of segregation and who has stood on the sidelines in a mighty struggle for justice. They say to each of us, black and white alike, that we must substitute courage for caution. They say to us that we must be concerned not merely about who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced the murderers. Their death says to us that we must work passionately and unrelentingly for the realization of the American dream.
John said : “At bare minimum, she deserved a funeral where she was her own person, instead of just the wife of Martin Luther King.”
I thought President Clinton made sure that it was clear. Let’s got to the transcript:
I don’t want us to forget that there’s a woman in there… (APPLAUSE)… not a symbol — not a symbol — a real woman who lived and breathed and got angry and got hurt and had dreams and disappointments. And I don’t want us to forget that. You know, I’m sitting 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 at my mother’s funeral. Said 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. (APPLAUSE)And I have to say, when she was over 75, I thought she still fit the bill pretty good with all those categories.(APPLAUSE)But I think that’s important. This is a woman, as well as a symbol, as well as the embodiment of her husband’s legacy and the developer of her own. The second point I want to make is the most important day in her life for everyone of us here at this moment in this church except when she embraced her faith, the next most important day was April 5, 1968, 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 raising my kids. I wish you all well.” (APPLAUSE)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 hard-working garbage workers that her husband… (APPLAUSE)Now, that’s the most important thing for us. Because what really matters if you believe all this stuff we’ve been saying is what are we going to do with the rest of our lives?
= = = =
I’m not sure why my comment was bolded it was neither my intent or desire for that to happen. My apologies.
Flash
Centrisity.com
What?? Coretta Scott King died in a racially motivated church bombing in 1963 Birmingham?? Jeepers, no matter how hard I try I just can’t keep up.
Flash: Looks like I had Markdown active, which means that anytime you put two equal signs below a line of text, it gets turned into a heading… I went ahead and removed the formatting. Sorry about that one.
I missed that part of Clinton’s speech, which is too bad, because it’s a great piece of rhetoric. Say what you want about Bill Clinton, but there’s no doubt that he could be a hell of a speaker at times.
Commenters above have made clarifying points. Dr. King and Coretta spent their life in political action. To pretend that a service honoring their life, in which a couple of passing mentions of political issues are spoken, is somehow disrespectful, is absurd. Bush’s presence itself was political (duh). The Rev. expressed sentiments that Coretta felt, and that the congregation felt. It was wholly appropriate.
What isnt appropriate are for right-wing bloggers who have no connection to Coretta King or to the movements that she spent her life in, to lecture her congregation on how to behave when they memorialize her life. Who the hell are you to tell people how to behave in funerals? If it is your funeral, or one of your families, then sure, we should respect your opinions as to the proper decorum.
And lets not ignore the obvious point here, since the issue of political opportunism is under discussion. Your comments are clearly a case of using this incident to help make your own political points.
That’s right, Tano. You right-wing bloggers should just shut up; this is our funeral. Anything you say is inappropriate. Anything we say or do is beyond reproach.
It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.
Well, there were plenty of avenues for people to observe and draw their own conclusions. Was this another wellspring of Wellstonery or just down home goodness? I don’t think there is much doubt that if Mrs. King had a Bush face2face like Cindy Sheehan did that she would have similar declarations for Dub. Whether she would want same at her funeral we shall never know but Bush was in a double-bind here. He had to know he was in for some such foolery as we saw yet even if he wanted to bow out there was no chance he could. The anti’s would have been even more stinging in their assaults on his morality, mentality and physicality for a “boycott”. If he had taken the opportunity, after all the bilious attacks, to denounce race-based preferences as counter to MLKs message, would we hear that this was just and appropriate? What’s that? No? B-b-b-b-but…
I actually think Clinton’s speech saved the Dems bacon (again) from going to a Wellstone moment. That was a great move on his part, moving back to the person that we were honoring and not to make some cheap political points. You figure Rev. Lowery is going to have a go he always does, but the Jimmy Carter speech with the wiretap analogy with Dr. King and Coretta being listened to by RFK was a typical cheap Jimmy Carter moment.
On the other hand, what does that say about the current state of the Democratic Party when Bill Clinton sets the standard for classful behavior?
unforutnately, the president’s agenda is in significant ways in conflict with very core of MLK and Coretta’s lives.
Like what?
To pretend that a service honoring their life, in which a couple of passing mentions of political issues are spoken, is somehow disrespectful, is absurd.
Passing mentions? Sheesh, talk about downplaying.
Bush’s presence itself was political (duh).
Wow, you can read minds now? It wasn’t any more political than that of Clinton.
The Rev. expressed sentiments that Coretta felt, and that the congregation felt. It was wholly appropriate.
More mindreading.
What isnt appropriate are for right-wing bloggers who have no connection to Coretta King or to the movements that she spent her life in, to lecture her congregation on how to behave when they memorialize her life. Who the hell are you to tell people how to behave in funerals?
We respect the dead, particularly someone such as Mrs. King. So tell me, was Jimmah Peanut part of her congregation too.
“On the other hand, what does that say about the current state of the Democratic Party when Bill Clinton sets the standard for classful behavior?”
That the guy missed his Hollywood calling?
“We respect the dead”
yeah, Jordan, and what does that mean? Do you get drunk at the wake, or is that not your type of respect? Do you moan and wail and tear your hair out, or is that not your style? Are you the quiet solemn type? Please lay out the rules for all us lesser beings – we are looking to you, and to your sub-culture (whatever it is), to teach us how to behave.
The congregation honored and memorialized, and showed respect for Coretta the way THEY felt appropriate. Your sense of dignity is not any objective standard. It is right for you, not necessarily anyone else.
Showing respect for someone does not necessarily equate to acting the way Jordan thinks appropriate.
Showing respect for someone does not necessarily equate to acting the way Jordan thinks appropriate.
You’re right. I’m sure there isn’t any generally accepted decorum for solemn occasions such as funerals.
“Please lay out the rules for all us lesser beings – we are looking to you, and to your sub-culture (whatever it is), to teach us how to behave.”
Is this some kind of breakthrough? The first step towards recovery is admitting you have a problem.
Coretta King’s funeral was a side show. What else would one expect from the leaders of a movement bent on restoring welfare benefits through extortion of the American taxpayers, this time through current slave reparation lawsuits? And, they are getting away with it! Is this what Mrs. King would have wanted? Let’s hope not.
The criminal mindset that supports the above type activity, to me, is generated by like individuals that would cover up the good deeds of decent folks as they have always done. When I was growing up in the deep south, it was a common practice for people like me to give up their seat in the white section of a crowded bus to elderly folks, “no matter the color,” long before Rosa Parks, or Mr. or Mrs. King came along. However, this is not what these individuals will admit, and it is not what you will see or hear about, because it will die with folks like me instead of being taught as historical fact, unless we get rid of activist judges, and get more people with commonsense in our educational systems as well. Would Mrs. King want this to happen? Sadly, we will most likely never know.
The above example is a method of operation which attempts to hide the truth through censoring the goodwill of the majority of Americans for the benefit of a minority. This same type of censorship fueled by one-sided reporting is also commonplace with hate crimes. Take the dragging-death of the black man in Texas: This event will be broadcast by them and the media, like the Holocaust, for generations to come on a frequent basis, not just because it is horrific, but because its fits their profile. However, the white man who was pulled from his semi-truck in Los Angeles while stopped at a red light, and had his face “crushed” by a black man, remains hushed. The same media exposure can be said for all the innocent white victims maimed and killed in drive by shootings in the rioting across America during the 1960s and 1970s, which were “black led.” These people became victims of violence simply because they walked down the street, or was standing on the street corner in the middle of their town! Where are all these murdering militants today? Why have these victims gone to their graves without constant media coverage like those in the events aforementioned?! Is this an example of good journalism? Consider the rapes, murders, and other horrific crimes perpetrated by blacks against white citizens of all ages that get little, if any, exposure at all; such is their method of operation, and such is justice to those of us in America who are not black. Consider the fact that these same people do not believe that blacks can be racist, that it is a trait of other people, but not them! Is this what Mr. and Mrs. King, and Rosa Parks stood for? Is this the legacy to the individual who took something that had been a common phrase since ancient times like, I have a Dream, and made it famous? If it is not what the civil rights movement represents, then why does this same movement reap such poison fruit each and every day in our country? This, plus the criticism our President and First Lady received for the benefit of America’s enemies, and those whose aims are self-serving, at a time “normal people” would dedicate to mourning the passing of another human being.
Thank God for the internet, but regrettably so for the sad circus at Mrs. King’s funeral. This which brings to mind another example of an old plain truth: Give a man enough rope and he’ll hang himself. Well, the true face of the leaders behind the civil rights movement may not ever be in our post offices, but it is burned in the minds eye of decent people all around the world…along with the ugly movement they represent which is saturated with greed and extortion. It is not what decent people want in America. I think Mr. and Mrs. King, and Rosa Parks would regret what the civil rights movement has done to people of all colors.