Hope Bush was a little uncomfortable!!!

[JayB]

I think it would be more akin to a soldier's relative using the funeral-pulpit at the burial service to berate the people in the audience who were opposed to the war, but came to show their respects.

 

Of course when a national figure passes away it makes sense to reflect on their life, their causes, etc - but IMO using the occaision of the funeral to berate people in the audience is poor form. Plenty of time for that once the service has concluded. My opinion - that's all.

[minx]

Using the funeral-pulpit as a political platform - classy indeed.

 

i thought it was pretty tacky myself. even if i agree with some of what he said, it's not the time or the place.

[mattp]

I bet it wasn't viewed as tacky by most who have been involved in the civil rights movement. More likely, I bet many felt it was a unique opportunity to be seen talking to the president who has pretty much snubbed even the most moderate civil rights groups.

 

However, on the other hand I'll cede Jay's point that it was for sure a good gesture on the part of GWB to show up and show some respect. I don't go so far as to say it was "lose-lose," however: I think he played it pretty well.

[foraker]

I'm so glad I don't watch TV.

[Jim]

I wonder if Bush knew who CSK was.

[chucK]

If someone with whom I've bitterly battled shows up at my funeral to try to gain (or keep from losing) a couple of political points, I surely hope that my survivors would take the asshole to task for it.

 

The funeral is for the survivors, not the deceased. The people who are close to CSK are still fighting a battle with Bush and the right-wing racist subgroup that he panders to. I say, use CSK's funeral to help those survivors, by making their hypocritic enemies look bad at the service.

[JayB]

If someone with whom I've bitterly battled shows up at my funeral to try to gain (or keep from losing) a couple of political points, I surely hope that my survivors would take the asshole to task for it.

 

The funeral is for the survivors, not the deceased. The people who are close to CSK are still fighting a battle with Bush and the right-wing racist subgroup that he panders to. I say, use CSK's funeral to help those survivors, by making their hypocritic enemies look bad at the service.

 

Can't say that I'm surprised by this sentiment, nor the blanket condemnation of anyone that objects to racial preferences as racist. While there are indeed people who base their objections ot racial preferences upon racist feelings, I don't think that one can syllogize that argument so that it applies to everyone who disagrees with them. Seems like an odd explanation for the passage of things like I-200 in a place like Washington, and would probably seem equally odd to this guy, and others like him:

 

Link.

[mattp]

WTF are you saying, JayB? That all poor little Mr. Bush has done has been to resist calls for racial preferences? What world do you live in?

[chucK]

Where did I blanket all people against racial preferences as racist? I said nothing about racial preferences.

 

This and your chicken-fat responses make me believe that you don't even read my posts. You've just got some idea of what you think I'd write and respond to that.

[JayB]

So elaborate on "Bush and the right-wing racist subgroup that he panders to" theme.

 

Matt - maybe you can elaborate on the racist dimensions of Bush's policy thus far?

[cj001f]

So elaborate on "Bush and the right-wing racist subgroup that he panders to" theme.

 

Matt - maybe you can elaborate on the racist dimensions of Bush's policy thus far?

 

Vintage inversion

 

JayB - in case you haven't paid attention, Bushco opposes civil rights legislation of the kind favored by traditional black lobbying groups. This makes them political opponents!

[JayB]

Of course. It's the connection between these actions and the claims of racism that I'm not quite getting.

[Alpinfox]

JayB,

I appreciate your point about the tackiness, but you can't expect the oppressed to keep quiet when their oppressor comes to the funeral of one of their heros.

 

And yes, G.W.B. DOES represent the white, patriarchal, corporate, status quo, power structure that they have been fighting against for most of their lives.

 

I agree it was a lose-lose situation for Bush... that's because he's a fucking loser. Unfortunately, I agree that he also played it pretty well and got off pretty easy from what I saw.

[chucK]

Well, there's the caving on his immigration reform (i.e. the "fence" part), there's the constant snubbing of the NAACP, there was that Bob Jones University thing way back when he was on the ropes versus McCain. I guess the whole Katrina inaction thing makes him look more racist himself than just pandering to them (or you could always cop to the "inept" defense).

 

Back to the topic of this thread though: you take Bush who by all accounts is in the upper echelons of the political community in terms of use of hate politics (big issue in 2004, same-sex marriage ), and you whine because Jimmy Carter makes an anvilicious statement about MLK being wiretapped by the FBI.

 

Once again, for effect,

[Alpinfox]

... anvilicious ...

 

"No entry found for anvilicious. Did you mean unmalicious?"

[chucK]

No, anvilicious, as in "anvil", as in deliciously unsubtle.

 

 

Mmmmm....umalicious

[TerminatorX]

Coretta Scott King's life was a legacy of fighting for the truth, the truth that most people don't want to see or hear. Of course she was a political person.

 

She was a voice for those who had no voice, "the least of these." She fought for the poor, the oppressed, and the rights of all of us.

 

Nothing was more fitting than the service that she received and everything that was said.

[JayB]

So....where does the racist part come in here? It's clear that you don't like the guy or his policies, but that's something rather different than proving that they are grounded in racist convictions.

 

BTW-Neologism or O.E.D. on the "Anvilicious"?

[mattp]

I think we could assemble a pretty convincing list of how Bush policies and statements have been racist.

 

He has vetoed, resisted, slashed just about every possible social program that serves low income people who just happen to be mostly non-white.

 

He vetoed a Hate Crimes law in Texas, then lied about it in the 2000 debates.

 

He embraced Bob Jones III during the 2000 campaign, and his operatives accused John McCain of father a "Black Baby" to turn the tide in South Carolina.

 

His campaign used racist tactics in Florida to help steal his first election when his brother added extra black voters to the list of felons disqualifed to vote, and his friends in Ohio made sure black voting districts in Ohio were under-served during his second election.

 

He lied about policies to help deserving minorities attend quality colleges and grad schools, saying these amounted to racial quotas.

 

While making frequent statements about how not every muslim is bad, he makes stupid statements like his initial announcement of a "crusade" and his pals have invested a tremendous amount energy into scaring all of us about how all "those people" want to do is to kill us.

 

etc.

etc.

etc.

 

But your question about his racist policies, I fear, was just a dodge. We were talking about whether it was appropriate to make remarks about him at the CSK funeral. Part of the playbook for civil rights activists has always been to stand up and speak truth to power and, in this respect, I think making some comments about George Bush (and very mild comments in my opinion), was in fact more of a demonstration of respect for CSK than disrespect.

 

[edited to remove double cut and paste]

[chucK]

You don't even read the posts. Where did I imply Bush had racist convictions? My examples point to efforts made to garner the racist vote.

[JayB]

So back to my original query - one's stance on things like afirmative action, immigration policy, etc are clear indicators of hatred for particular races, and voting one for them renders one part of the "racist vote?" Bush is deliberately calculating his policies to appeal to people for whom the primary determinant of their voting behavior is racism? Interesting viewpoint.

[chucK]

Even though I attempt to clarify, even though I do you the courtesy of following you down a tangential path in answering and clarifying, you continue to mischaracterize the majority of what I write. Either you're doing this deliberately or you're really thick. Either way, I'm done with this for today.

[JayB]

Well Matt, I'd have to disagree with your assertion that adding extra penalties to crimes with racial dimensions automatically renders one racist, as there are quite a few folks out there with politics that are fairly close to your own, that nonetheless oppose them on the grounds that it's not the governments job to determine which beliefs are more vile than others, or which beliefs its acceptable for anyone to hold. They harbor an intense dislike for racism, but don't think that it can or should be outlawed.

 

The interesting thing about the Florida debacle is that a large measure of the confusion about who was a felon and who was not came about because the adminstrators declined to allow race as a category to help match names with criminal records - probably in order to avoid any claims that the process was designed to exclude anyone of a particular color. When it became clear just how innacurate they were, several counties gave up trying to figure out who could vote and who couldn't, and consequently felons of every color who should not have been able to vote didn't have to worry about anyone standing in their way.

 

The rest of the points you raised about social policy et all don't seem like especially good candidates for proving racism either. By this logic, Clinton could be called racist for his efforts on behalf of welfare reform, etec.

[sexual_chocolate]

I wonder if Bush knew who CSK was.

 

Oh come on, don't be a fool. He was briefed by his press secretary the very morning of the funeral.

[JayB]

Even though I attempt to clarify, even though I do you the courtesy of following you down a tangential path in answering and clarifying, you continue to mischaracterize the majority of what I write. Either you're doing this deliberately or you're really thick. Either way, I'm done with this for today.

 

Or...you are attempting to evade the clear implications of what you are writing, or are just aren't terribly good at using words in a manner that expresses what you are actually thinking. Thanks for trying though.