Cement on cement ? I like it.

The other alternative would be for future Republican administrations to treat Black folks as people truly deserving of more than platitudes and a few mumbles about enterprise zones. Perhaps then, they’d be more welcome at the funerals of civil rights leaders.

Not that the Democrats are doing much better. You are quite right that they expect most Black voters to keep voting Democrat. It’s also possible that as they continue to alienate Black voters in their own passive-agressive way that more Black voters will simply decide to stay home from the polls…

My point is that anyone who took exception to that would be a partisan fuckwit.

Those thirty seconds were a calculated, and successful, attempt to embarass the President. It was a shrewd political move, in one sense - it helped to cement the divide between the Republican leadership and most black Americans, and put future Republican administrations in a very real bind - either blow off the funerals of important black leaders and take the hit for being standoffish and indifferent to black concerns, or attend and be a punching bag for partisan attacks.

As I’ve said, I don’t find the attacks themselves particularly out of line - and if my allies do, well, that’s their business. Last time I checked, I don’t have to issue fatwas against fellow conservatives every time I disagree with them. I do think that the attacks were politically inopportune in the bigger picture - they cemented a Democratic interest group more firmly into the coalition, but it wasn’t a group that was likely to go anywhere, and in the process they yet again looked like jackals on national TV.

To cynically twist those few moments for partisan purposes, as Republicans have done, is both indecent and hateful. This is a day when you should be ashamed of your allies, Robert.

Check.

I wish I could use that excuse more often.

Still, say Gore had won in 2000 and been re-elected in 2004, and had gone to war in Afghanistan and Iran after 9/11 just as GWB did with the same unsatisfactory resolution. Imagine Bush 41 died and Gore was a guest of honour as the incumbent President. If one of the eulogisers mentioned Gulf War I admiringly while President Gore squirmed, would Republicans view any Democrat outcry as a reasonable response to the partisan hijacking of a funeral, or would they be outraged at an attempt to stifle the deceased’s achievements in the name of “dignity”?

If it had been President Gore at Reagan’s funeral, does any Bushite really, truly, hand on heart believe that Bush 41 would not have made some telling contrasts between Reagan’s presiding over the period wherein the Iron Curtain was dismantled, and his own Gulf War liberating Kuwait, versus Gore’s handling of 9/11, whatever Gore’s response might have been, even (nay, especially) if identical to the current quagmire?

‘Cos I don’t.

And as far as the latter goes, why else would there be a shitstorm except that the critics would expect that the passing and celeberation of the life of someone of Mrs. King’s stature would be honored by the very highest levels of our government; not of our political parties. Why else would they want him there?

One reason why I try to get various elected officials in front of the Scouts. For one thing, I think it’s important for the elected officials to answer questions about their obligations to a bunch of young people in a non-photo-op situation. Maybe it’ll make them think. I also want the Scouts to realize that these are ordinary people with a non-ordinary job, not some kind of ruling-class types that aren’t to be approached or questioned by ordinary folks like us. The other folks that the BSA suggests are people that the kids interact with on a daily basis (in my neighborhood, a group of 15 or more parents is bound to include at least one lawyer and one doctor).

I have to be careful here. Apparently this ceremony lasted for hours. I don’t want to overreact to a couple of 30-second media clips of commentary. I don’t imagine this kind of thing dominated the funeral.

39.5, eh? Is the “big 4-0″ imminent?

I’m also well aware that practice often doesn’t follow theory when it come to what interests an elected official represents. But nonetheless, the relationship of an elected official (whether they are properly fulfilling their obligations or not) to the government and the relationship of an appointed official to the government differ in nature. The appointed official, especially in the Executive branch, should be loyal to the executive and should help further their policies. Provided that they have not been asked to do something immoral or illegal, they should do so or quit. That’s different than what an elected official should be doing.

I thought the political commentary at Mrs. Coretta King’s funeral were in bad taste and distracted from celebrating her life and contributions.

Even though you had no idea what her life and contributions were?

That is in bad taste.

Whites are hardly the only folks who’ve noticed this. I’ve been to more than one Black-owned paper or blog like The Black Commentator and heard the Congressional Black Caucus excorciated for its members who voted for that asinine bankruptcy “reform” bill.

I don’t even know why I should see potential heroism in the actions of a cabinet appointee who resigns when he or she doesn’t want to push the President’s agenda anymore. First of all, because that’s often not the reason for the step-down and secondly, it’s not as if a former cabinet official is a pariah in the world of politics. The gravy train and the prestige just keep rolling along for them, though their badge may have a different title on it post-cabinet…