Considering that one of the political speeches was delivered by her daughter I presume they had a fair idea of the content. Anyway if this is so classless why isn't Correta Scott King's family complaining? The only people complaining seem to be supporter of GW Bush. You would think this was an event honoring Bush and not Corretta Scott King.
Forget disrespect for Corretta Scott King what about the disrespect that FranchiseBlade continues to to show to me? Talk about dishonoring someone by repeatedly mispelling and reducing my name to ridiculous diminutives!
It may not be the right thing to do but if its OK with the family then its OK with me. As a strategy to win elections this was a bad thing to do but if the family chooses to mourn this then that's their perogative and no one here has the right to criticize them for it.
Not true. Both MLK and CSK were about civil rights and peace. CSK further continued to be an activist for a wide range of causes. You can look them up. Also, fyi, Lowery's comments on war and weapons, etc. were just symbolic (and mostly rhyming) restatements of CSK's own words. Is it inappropriate, wrong, and ignorant to talk about the views and beliefs of the deceased activist? Remember that Lowery was a family friend and was one of the initial leaders of the SCLC with MLK.
The conservatives "objections" of the funeral is a front. Their real objection is the King's message of peace and equality etc. It is so very obvious and just plain sad.
In this post I will sum up the notable/non-notable content of this thread for the Cliff's Notes types. Pixies lyrics = A+ That cartoon = Not really funny. Probably not supposed to be. But it should have tried. Jimmy Carter = publically dropped lyrical bombs on da prez. Coretta Scott King = still dead.
"Twist King's legacy"? She was an activist, socialist, anti-war, pro-gay marriage and pro-choice. A lot of people are under the assumption that King was a meek old woman who did some good things decades ago and then spent the rest of her life knitting and watching daytime TV. It is absolutely absurd to say that her legacy was "twisted" at the funeral when the funeral was used to celebrate and promote everything her life was about.
Trapped Like a Rat By William Rivers Pitt Thursday 09 February 2006 The funeral for civil rights leader Coretta Scott King on Tuesday was quite a sight to see. The depth of sadness in the room could not be overcome by the happiness that came with the celebration of her life and accomplishments. It was the measure of Mrs. King's impact upon our society that four presidents - Carter, Bush, Clinton and Bush - sat before her flower-draped casket and spoke of her life. And then, of course, the foolishness began. The nattering nabobs of network nonsense blithered into their cable news studios to deplore all the political statements that were served up before the appreciative crowd in that church. It was the Wellstone funeral all over again. Let's be clear. The life of Coretta Scott King was one that involved politics from every angle. Any lifelong struggle against poverty, racism and war is going to be a life immersed in politics. That is simply the way it is; because so many politicians and political ideologies center around statements and legislation that directly add to the burdens of the poor and minorities, any person choosing to fight poverty and racism is going to wind up dealing in politics. Gandhi was elected to no office in his entire lifetime, but every action he took involved politics. The same can be said for Martin Luther King Jr., who won no elections but changed politics in America forever. Coretta Scott King held no office, but her work affected the politics of this country in every way. Ask Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan, who received a warm telephone call from Mrs. King while standing vigil outside George W. Bush's ranch in Crawford last August. If this was not a political act, then political acts do not exist. Politics belonged in that church on Tuesday. Period. A good deal of the humbug arising from the political statements at the funeral are based upon the fact that George W. Bush changed his schedule to appear at the event. Because he did this, the thinking goes, he should be above the pointed criticism he absorbed up on that stage. Smart money says he came to the funeral only to avoid the criticism he would have received had he not shown up with those three other presidents. Smart money likewise says he came to try and shore up his poll numbers with African Americans; his support among this constituency stands in the low single digits, well within the margin of error in any poll, suggesting his actual support among this group is zero. This is, however, an issue for another day. The central tenet of the civil rights movement has, is and will always be one simple truth: one must speak truth to power in order to affect change. This was the maxim by which Coretta Scott King lived her life, and the maxim by which her husband lived and ultimately died by. Had her funeral not involved speaking truth to power, the ceremony would have been incomplete. George W. Bush heard on Tuesday some hard truths that his fanatical insulation has to date spared him from. It may have been the healthiest moment this republic has absorbed in years. President Jimmy Carter, who has come to be one of the harshest critics of Mr. Bush, hurled fire across the stage over the deplorable administration response to Hurricane Katrina. "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," said Carter. "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." Carter also took a moment to drop a brick over the recent revelations that the NSA has been spying on Americans, without court approval or warrants, at the behest of Mr. Bush. "It was difficult for them personally," said Carter, "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." By far, the harshest criticism came from Rev. Joseph Lowery, a King protégé, who spoke of Mrs. King's staunch opposition to the occupation of Iraq. "She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar," said Lowery. "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." Would Coretta Scott King have approved of this? One can be certain that the woman who said "If American women would increase their voting turnout by ten percent, I think we would see an end to all of the budget cuts in programs benefiting women and children" would have certainly approved. This was a day for speaking truth to power, but it was more than that. Mr. Bush and his people have worked incredibly hard to keep this president from hearing anything that rubs against what he believes to be true. He speaks before hand-picked crowds of adoring supporters, never once seeing the face of someone who thinks he is running the nation into the ground. Millions upon millions of protesters have followed his every move, and yet it is almost certain he has never laid eyes upon a single one of them. On Tuesday, by his own design. George W. Bush was trapped like a rat on that stage. He was forced to listen to eloquent denunciations of his politics and his policies, perhaps for the first time since he took office. The effect upon him was clear; during the speeches delivered by Rev. Lowery and president Carter, Bush looked as if he was sucking on a particularly bitter lemon. When one speaks truth to power, especially arrogant power, that is usually the effect. Coretta Scott King would have approved. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020906Z.shtml
How long exactly has it been since anyone involved in politics was "civil?" Was it "civil" for the Swiftboat Liars to smear Kerry to put a draft dodger into office? Was it "civil" for Rove to smear McCain in 2000, implying that he was mentally unstable as a result of his captivity in Vietnam (again, in order to put a draft dodger into the WH)? If the deceased Bush had spent his life fighting against the Clintons as much as CSK had spent her life fighting against the injustices mentioned at her funeral, then it would be absolutely appropriate. CSK and MLK stood for things that were in polar opposition to what Bush and his cabal stand for. It was about time that Bush was forced to hear that some people, including the deceased in this case, disagree with his policies. The difference is that the Bush family has not spent their entire life fighting against the Clintons misdeeds as CSK and MLK fought against the misdeeds that Bush is now engaged in. One of the comments was about secret wiretaps, something that CSK and MLK LIVED THROUGH PERSONALLY! Another of the comments was about war, something that both of the Kings fought against throughout their lives. Mentioning the beliefs of the deceased, particularly in light of current events, is a HUGE difference from railing against a political candidate for personal reasons. This didn't appear to be a case of political expediency, it seemed to be a case of remembering CSK for what she fought for throughout her life. The fact that Bush has stood in opposition to many of those things she fought for should not take away from us remembering what she believed. Yeah, and whenever Bush and his cronies see other people use those forums, they deride and debase the speaker, no matter who they are, as partisan, liberal, or worse. It doesn't seem to matter WHAT the forum is, the Bushies don't seem to think that ANY criticism of this president is warranted. Exactly. Just like the minister (who knew CSK for decades) and Carter did. They remembered the issues she fought for. They brought up the misdeeds of people currently in power because these misdeeds are EXACTLY what CSK stood against throughout her life. It kind of depends. If the ex-husband was a convicted child molester and the former wife spent her life fighting against sex crimes as a result of her former husband's misdeeds, then it would be absolutely appropriate for the family to talk about the life she lived and the issues she fought for, no matter who was at the funeral. What makes it right to expect people not to talk about issues that were so important to the deceased just because someone attending the funeral is the embodiment of those issues?
neither rove nor the swift boaters put Bush in the WH- the american people did. your beef is with them.
That cartoon is part of the twisting of the legacy. Apparently CSK's family and friends didn't feel that Carter nor the rev. were twisting her legacy. The only people who have argued that are people who weren't there, and/or didn't know her.
Both of them told bold faced lies meant to slander someone, so it isn't unreasonable to have a beef with them. Blaming people who were fooled by dishonesty rather than those that were dishonest seems like a lowly pursuit.
Without either Rove or the Swift Boaters, the American people would have never put Bush in the White House in 2004. But, although I didn't vote for him, in hindsight I'm glad he won. Why? It means he owns the War in Iraq. The war, and it's domestic consequences, belongs to GWB and GWB alone. His entire legacy will be judged on this one item, the damage his recklessness and lack of foresight has done to this country, and the damage the war will continue to do for as long as we are there, which will be long after GWB is out of office. That is why history will remember him as one of the worst Presidents this country has ever had. Have a wonderful day.
Funerals aren't the place to talk about somebody's life work oh wait http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/sermons/680204.000_Drum_Major_Instinct.html
You're too kind. It's worse than that. The only people who have argued it have been blatant opponents of the causes MLK and CSK spent their lives fighting for. The only reason they have ever said kind things about the Kings is that it would be political suicide not to. thegary had it right. Bush had a lot of damn nerve even showing up at the funeral of a woman whose fight he has opposed every chance he got. He did so only because it would have been worse for him politically not to. The fact that he had the nerve to show his face there is no reason not to honor her lifelong battles for justice, equality and peace. And as for that last comic strip, basso might as well have said Coretta Scott King had "issues." Rolling one's eyes at the causes she fought, in the context of her death, is just gross.
The Bush supporters seem really worried, petulant and whiney because an American cultural icon stands for, and supports ideas that are opposed to the actions and ideas put forward by the Bush administration. So much so that they try to shame mourning friends and family of the departed cultural icon for carrying out a funeral that was appreciated by the mourners. It looks weaker and more pathetic than I have seen the Bush supporters before.
You mean he posted that comic strip just to troll instead of trying to come up with a legit argument? I don't believe you