No Occasion is Sacred
How typical that Jimmy Carter would use the occasion of Coretta Scott King's funeral to bash President Bush. And how amazing that the crowd of supposed "mourners" would allow the occasion to be debased into Wellstone Memorial II.
As for Carter, it's interesting that the least successful president in modern American history is the first to try to trash his compatriots. Here's the only question that really matters: Whom would you rather have in charge in the post 9/11 era -- Jimmy Carter, or George W. Bush?
Game. Set. Match.
As for Carter, it's interesting that the least successful president in modern American history is the first to try to trash his compatriots. Here's the only question that really matters: Whom would you rather have in charge in the post 9/11 era -- Jimmy Carter, or George W. Bush?
Game. Set. Match.
posted by LadybugUSA at 2:36 PM
16 Comments:
Simply pathetic. The hypocrisy and blindness on the left is unfathomable.
Is there no such thing as class or refined behavior any longer -- doesn't political correctness encompass reigning in bad behavior in such situations. I hate to sound like the Dean of my long ago all girls alma mater but Hell!!!! Now I appreciate her stern approach to civilized behavior.
Because he once confessed sinning ("I've lusted in my heart.") to a men's magazine, Mr. Carter seems to think he has attained some mystical status as a holy seer. But his approach to his 'work' sounds more like a "holier than thou" attitude akin to one of the seven deadly sins: envy, anger or pride.
Quoting the inimitable Digby,
"That dessicated waste of space Kate O'Beirne is on Hardball right now screeching for the laudenenum because 'liberals don't know how to act at funerals!' Oh lawdy, lawdy, lawdy Miss Mellie, I do decleah these Democrats are so ungenteel! Why, they were talkin' politics and singin' and dancin' and actin' all Negro and everything!"
Thanks for being the arbiter of decorum, Carol. It would mean so much more if your party had a single sitting African-American Senator or Congressman, or if the leader or your party had an approval rating above 2% with African-Americans.
Just for the record, here are the two comments by Jimmy Carter that has given Carol a case of the vapours...
"It was difficult for them personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated, and they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance," Mr. Carter, a Democrat, said of the Kings.
The former president also said that if anyone believed that the civil rights struggle was over, "we only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi who are most devastated by Katrina to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans." [Cite]
Mr. Twister, WHY? do you think Carter mentioned those wiretaps of the Kings? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with recent news could it? No. Democrats are just fat, angry and stupid.
Those wiretaps (totally domestic) were done during a time when Democrats had all the power in Congress and the Executive branch...if I'm not mistaken.
Twisted says:"It would mean so much more if your party had a single sitting African-American Senator or Congressman, or if the leader or your party had an approval rating above 2% with African-Americans."
A couple things come to mind, first off, the Republicans are not driven by race like the Democrats. There are more and more minorities joining the Republican Party everyday. Proof that they can think for themselves. The demise of the Republican Party has been greatly exaggerated over the past 12 years! And after several more million African-Americans and Hispanics join, the Democrats will really be wringing their hands and shouting "racism!" What else can they do? There is no truth left in them. Let's just wait and see, shall we?
Mr. Twister,
Do you condone the behavior of Jimmy Carter at Mrs. King's funeral?
Rzafft starts the crapfest with, "I am not aware of the late Mrs. King having taken highly partisan positions. It seems not just out of place but wrong to hijack a memorial service for her for partisan ends."
OK, howzabout...
On war (Viet Nam in this case):
"Those persons who do not agree with my husband now do not understand the meaning of his whole life. You cannot believe in peace at home and not believe in international peace. He could not be a true follower of the nonviolent philosophy and condone war. You think of him as a politician, but he feels that as a minister he has a prophetic role and must speak out against the evils of society. He sees war as an evil and therefore he must condemn war."
On Bush's Iraq Debacle: "A war with Iraq will increase anti-American sentiment, create more terrorists, and drain as much as 200 billion taxpayer dollars, which should be invested in human development here in America."
Coretta Scott King was opposed to war in general and the Iraq debacle in particular. Why should her closest deny that?
For Pete who apparently suffers from the inability to comprehend simple written English.
Sure there are no African-American members of the House or the Senate, but that doesn't mean anything. Heck, some of the Republicans best friends are black.
Rzafft, don't take what I said above and be too hard on yourself. On this blog you would be hard pressed to find many posters who are actually aware of any of Coretta Scott King's postions on any issues.
Heck, there have even been ididts who have posted here claiming if Martin Luther King Jr. was alive today, he would be a Republican. What a load of hooey.
Copioneer writes, "A couple things come to mind, first off, the Republicans are not driven by race like the Democrats."
You may want to inform your party of this. They have poor old Ken Mehlman apologizing to African-Americans for racism vis-a-vis the Republican party's "Southern Strategy." For four decades the Republican party has gained power by appealing to the "Solid South" that Martin Luther King Jr. fought against.
Continuing with the crapfest, Copioneer continues, "There are more and more minorities joining the Republican Party everyday."
Voting statistics from the 1950's through the present show this to not be the case. On the other hand, maybe it's the huge influx of minority voters into the Republican party that has the President up to a 2% approval rating with African-Americans.
"Proof that they can think for themselves."
Leaving the 98% of African-Americans that disagree with you as what--dupes, pawns? With enlightenend attitudes like this, it is surprising there is any racial tension left in our country.
In his State of the Union Address, President Bush quoted from a letter by Staff Sergeant Dan Clay, USMC, who was killed in Iraq. If you go here, you can find a copy of the eulogy from his Sergeant Clay's memorial service.
In the eulogy we find, "Dan believed very strongly in the cause that landed him again in Iraq and was 100% convinced that if we did not engage the enemy in the mountains of Afghanistan and on the streets of Fallujah, we would be bloodied again here in America."
Ohmigosh, political commentary at a funeral. This is a direct repeat of Republican talking points. Where's the outrage?
Why doesn't Carol in a tremulous voice quaver, "Is NO Occasion Sacred?"
Where can I find R Platt chastising the speaker for a "phony air of righteousness", and for being a "vile and unmannered fool?"
Copioneer, is this a "simply pathetic" statement based on "blindness and hypocrisy?"
I'm sure Bacbone will toss in some of his patented character assassination.
Lastly I am left with Rzafft's poignant post, "Still, I suppose the political vultures could resist descending on the body before it is buried to fight over pieces of Dan Clay's legacy.
Why should we expect those with no respect for the living to have any respect for the dead?"
Lastly, for Greg who asks me, "Do you condone the behavior of Jimmy Carter at Mrs. King's funeral?"
Three points and then a conclusion:
1) Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter were personal friends of Coretta Scott King, which is why he was asked to speak.
2) The discovery that the FBI conducted a long-running and extensive campaign of secret electronic surveillance to infiltrate the Southern Leadership Conference, and to learn the most intimate details of Dr. King's life, helped to convince Congress to enact FISA, which Jimmy Carter signed into law.
3) Hurricane Katrina was widely recognized as a reminder of the problems of racial inequality that still exist in our country--a topic which was, of course, near and dear to the Kings.
In light of the three facts above, it is extremely difficult for me to conclude that what Jimmy Carter said was not reasonable in the context of a memorial service for Coretta Scott King.
I do not, however, claim the right to judge whether or not a eulogy delivered by a personal friend is appropriate or not. I leave that presumption to Mrs. King's closest confidants and arbiters of decorum such as Carol Platt Liebau and Kate O'Beirne.
Mr. Twister,
Being a personal friend of Mrs. King explains why Jimmy Carter was invited to speak. That does not shed any light as to whether or not what he said was appropriate. By the way, why were the Bushes and Clintons invited to speak?
0 for 1
Martin Luther King was "wire tapped" by Democratic administrations in peace time. And you think that makes it appropriate for Carter to assault a Republican president for intercepting enemy communications during war time?!?!?
0 for 2 (There should be additional penalty points for that laugher!)
Katrina is widely recognized as a reminder of racial inequality?!?!? Actually, it has been widely HYPED as a racial issue - most recently by the failed former president Jimmy Carter at Mrs. King's funeral.
Despite initially flawed reporting and typical race-baiting by the Democratic Party, the actual evidence from the Katrina disaster proves that federal assistance arrived according to standard time lines and provided an unprecidented volume of aid. Federal assistance arrived during Katrina faster than it did during Hugo, Andrew, Iniki, Francine, and Jeanne! Even with that, they were actually hindered by the local Democratic elected officials. It was Democrats who were responsible for evacuating New Orleanians(?). They failed to do so. Do you remember the pictures of rows and rows of buses that were under water? All of them were available to help with the evacuation efforts. None of them were used. Who's fault is that?
It is obvious to everyone who honestly looks at the facts that it was the Democratic leaders who failed miserably during the Katrina disaster.
It has also been widely hyped that blacks were doing most of the dying as result of Katrina.
Again, the facts tell a different story. Fewer than half the victims of Katrina were black. In fact, whites accounted for the highest death rate of all races as result of this disaster.
Yet the looney left still considers Katrina to be an example of Republican racism.
Ridiculous!
0 for 3!
Mr. Twister, you have justified Jimmy Carter's outrageous attack on a sitting Republican president during war time at Mrs. Kings' funeral with the following:
1: Carter was King's friend
2: Democrats illegally wire tapped Martin Luther King Jr.
3: Democrats failed miserably during Hurricane Katrina.
Geez, is that all you have? Perhaps I've been giving you too much credit. I thought you were better than this.
Greg, who has apparently appointed himself Tsar of Funeral Decorum, writes, "Mr. Twister, you have justified Jimmy Carter's outrageous attack on a sitting Republican president during war time at Mrs. Kings' funeral..."
I am at a complete loss to understand why you feel President Carter's statements were an "outrageous attack on a sitting Republican President." You just finished writing an entire post demonstrating that Jimmy Carter was actually attacking his fellow Democrats. Either you forgot what the rest of you post was about, or you posted arguments that you believe are bogus.
So which is it, Greg--schizophrenia or mendacity?
Post a Comment
<< Home