I've been semi-delirious of late (no, it is not a Super Bowl hangover), so I apologize for some of my gaffes here. Yesterday I posted the wrong link to a female Muslim's op-ed regarding the "Danish Cartoons," sending readers instead to a very male Muslim's essay. And I have made some rather daffy spelling errors, like "reek havoc" instead of the less olfactory "wreak havoc;" or positing "school bus" as one word. Oh, well. I remain just a few millennia away from perfection. (Here's a good religious question: If there is a God, and if there is a heaven, will any of us be perfect in the afterlife, even if we believe, as some of us do as Christians, that our sins are forgiven through Christ's sacrifice and resurrection?)
***
At the very competent and informative blog, The Grape's Vine, blogger "Kannafoot" opined about the Coretta Scott King funeral held on Tuesday. I am not really interested in that event, though I will point the reader to James Taranto's interesting comments, which, I believe, take most of the political bite out of that funeral celebration. What I am interested in is something emblematic in a comment posted by one of Kannafoot's readers. The comment comes on the heels of Kannafoot's expressions of disappointment that several speakers, notably Rev. Joseph Lowery, chose to use the funeral celebration of Mrs. King as an excuse for political grandstanding. I quote that comment in full:
"And there's a difference between that and pimping off her name in the State of the Union address, I suppose. The Bush example is vastly more heinous than your charge as Bush used that same address to push for more wiretapping and it is an acknowledged fact that the FBI bugged Coretta King's bedroom. Bush knows no shame whatsoever and remains the most vile President in this country's history."
Now, I would point the reader directly to the President's State of the Union Address. This is what President Bush said in his first paragraph the other night:
"Thank you all. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, members of the Supreme Court and diplomatic corps, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens: Today our nation lost a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream. Tonight we are comforted by the hope of a glad reunion with the husband who was taken so long ago, and we are grateful for the good life of Coretta Scott King."
In light of President Bush's appropriate and apolitical introduction to his speech, I offered my own comment at The Grape's Vine:
"[The commenter's] remarks are unfortunate, for they represent the sort of unreasoned bomb-throwing that is killing dialogue in the West. Mr. Bush's speech was written well before Ms. King's death, and yet it behooved him, as a citizen and as president, to mention her passing. Had he not, no doubt [the commenter] would have found further proof for his claim that Mr. Bush is vile. How kind.
Moreover, Bush did not use her life and death as some sort of justification for his policies; for calling for social and economic change. Mr. Bush merely mentioned, with gentlemanly gratitude, that a wonderful woman had died. There was as much exploitation in that gesture as there is in this sentence."
I do agree with many commentators who found former President Jimmy Carter's remarks offensive, delivered as they were at the same funeral while George W. Bush sat politely (with class) listening from his seat on the podium:
"It was difficult for them [MLK and Coretta] then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps."
Odd that this sort of comment is not deemed vile. Talk about "pimping" off a deceased woman's name as the Grape's Vine commenter accused President Bush of doing! Yikes!
My point in all this has nothing to do with either presidents Bush or Carter's comments, or Mr. Lowery's comments, around Mrs. King. What I want to make clear is that their is a viciousness that embraces obtuseness in many of President Bush's critics. For the critics of Mr. Bush who think he "pimped" Mrs. King's name in his State of the Union speech have got to be intentionally obtuse; they have chosen to be dumb, for there is no way in hell (sorry) that any intelligent and honest reader can divine any pimping in President Bush's remarks. Yet, it takes no skill, really, to divine that Mr. Carter and Mr. Lowery were indeed tossing political barbs at the sitting President of the United States. This is not a matter of values; this is a matter of intellectual honesty, about choosing to use one's brain in an honest manner. It is scary that humans can willingly lie to themselves. But humans do lie to themselves; nay, all humans lie to themselves at some point. And that is what's truly vile.
As for Mr. Carter's remarks regarding wiretapping, let us remember that it was the Democrats who eavesdropped on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. President Carter might have wanted to be a little more circumspect before he reminded the country of the many Democrats who feared Dr. King and his message.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
"And there's a difference between that and pimping off her name in the State of the Union address, I suppose. The Bush example is vastly more heinous than your charge as Bush used that same address to push for more wiretapping and it is an acknowledged fact that the FBI bugged Coretta King's bedroom. Bush knows no shame whatsoever and remains the most vile President in this country's history."
Now, I would point the reader directly to the President's State of the Union Address. This is what President Bush said in his first paragraph the other night:
"Thank you all. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, members of the Supreme Court and diplomatic corps, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens: Today our nation lost a beloved, graceful, courageous woman who called America to its founding ideals and carried on a noble dream. Tonight we are comforted by the hope of a glad reunion with the husband who was taken so long ago, and we are grateful for the good life of Coretta Scott King."
In light of President Bush's appropriate and apolitical introduction to his speech, I offered my own comment at The Grape's Vine:
"[The commenter's] remarks are unfortunate, for they represent the sort of unreasoned bomb-throwing that is killing dialogue in the West. Mr. Bush's speech was written well before Ms. King's death, and yet it behooved him, as a citizen and as president, to mention her passing. Had he not, no doubt [the commenter] would have found further proof for his claim that Mr. Bush is vile. How kind.
Moreover, Bush did not use her life and death as some sort of justification for his policies; for calling for social and economic change. Mr. Bush merely mentioned, with gentlemanly gratitude, that a wonderful woman had died. There was as much exploitation in that gesture as there is in this sentence."
I do agree with many commentators who found former President Jimmy Carter's remarks offensive, delivered as they were at the same funeral while George W. Bush sat politely (with class) listening from his seat on the podium:
"It was difficult for them [MLK and Coretta] then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps."
Odd that this sort of comment is not deemed vile. Talk about "pimping" off a deceased woman's name as the Grape's Vine commenter accused President Bush of doing! Yikes!
My point in all this has nothing to do with either presidents Bush or Carter's comments, or Mr. Lowery's comments, around Mrs. King. What I want to make clear is that their is a viciousness that embraces obtuseness in many of President Bush's critics. For the critics of Mr. Bush who think he "pimped" Mrs. King's name in his State of the Union speech have got to be intentionally obtuse; they have chosen to be dumb, for there is no way in hell (sorry) that any intelligent and honest reader can divine any pimping in President Bush's remarks. Yet, it takes no skill, really, to divine that Mr. Carter and Mr. Lowery were indeed tossing political barbs at the sitting President of the United States. This is not a matter of values; this is a matter of intellectual honesty, about choosing to use one's brain in an honest manner. It is scary that humans can willingly lie to themselves. But humans do lie to themselves; nay, all humans lie to themselves at some point. And that is what's truly vile.
As for Mr. Carter's remarks regarding wiretapping, let us remember that it was the Democrats who eavesdropped on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. President Carter might have wanted to be a little more circumspect before he reminded the country of the many Democrats who feared Dr. King and his message.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
2 comments:
Bill--
I'm up way too early with sinus congestion, so there's no telling what's going to come out, but here goes...
I'm always fascinated to watch what happens on those occasions when former presidents gather together. I seem to recall that at Ronald Reagan's funeral, there were smiles and good will exchanged among the former PsOTUS with the exception of one--the Southern Baptist from Plains, GA. I recall Carter's stony expression as he glared at both Bushes and one could plainly see the contempt on his face. I remember wondering at the time what he felt like as he listened to the paeans offered up to Reagan, perhaps wondering if his own funeral would someday bring the same fervant expressions of gratitude and remembrance.
In contrast, I find former President Clinton to be for the most part a class act post-presidency. I'm not a Clinton apologist and I was dismayed like many at some of his antics and lack of integrity as President. However, as his comments at the King funeral prove, he is much more capable of "a word fitly spoken" than the other Baptist ex-president who no doubt had no sex whatsoever of any kind with anybody in the Oval Office.
Call me crazy, but I would take Clinton over Carter any day if forced to choose. As for the sorry state of public discourse in the West, I also recall way too much vitriol among many conservatives, especially conservative Christians, during the Clinton administration. It is one thing to oppose with vigor ones' political opponent, but quite another to heap mounds of bile and abuse upon the head of the President of the United States.
Mike,
In 1998/99, I believe, six firefighters were killed in a Worcester, MA fire that had been set accidently set by homeless people living in an abandoned factory. It was, prior to 9/11, one of the worst firefighting disasters in American history. President Clinton attended the funeral and delivered a speech. I sat in my car listening to it, live. It was Clinton's finest hour: the speech was beautiful and beautifully delivered, and I wept.
He is usually a completely stand-up former President. I often quipped during his presidency that he sounded (when I listened, which was rare) more pastoral than presidential, and that he really should have held the office of American Pastor. His form is second-to-none. It was (is?) his substance that often raised my suspicions. But when I listen closely to him I notice he often has the cadence of a good southern preacher, with lots of restrained pathos and empathy. He is a comforter, no doubt.
By comparison, George W. Bush comes off as prickly, though sincere; a bit rough around the edges. However, his speeches are also beautifully elegant and well-written; he just doesn't have the cadence, or the tone, down "just so."
Mr. Carter, well, was he ever really a President? (Your remark about the Oval Office is hysterical.)
I can't comment on the vitriol in the Clinton days that dripped from conservative tongues: I paid little attention to the political world until the 2000 election fiasco and, of course, 9/11. In fact, until those two events I was positively deaf to politics (I voted for Mother Teresa in 1988 and 1992). But I have heard many folks say that Clinton was abused as badly as Mr. Bush. It doesn't FEEL that way to me, but I defer to others who've more knowledge than I.
I am glad that what you wrote was not something that came out of your sinus congestion. That just wouldn't be right ...
Gnade
Post a Comment