the limits of good taste

[corplinx]

I'm not sure if you guys caught this other day but the president laid a wreath at the tomb of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in honor of the coming holiday.

Outside, a protest swelled with people from various activist groups (including the Sierra club which mystified me).

Usually one doesn't get protested while laying flowers on someone's tomb, but for someone reason all these groups were coordinated by someone to attack that day.

Why? Plain and simple. Race politics. They couldn't let a republican president honor Dr. King in with dignity and grace. They have to show up and make a scene so that it will be "controversy erupted" on the evening news. By the time the news filters down to Joe Twelve-Pack, all he hears is Bush, Dr. King, and large protest. They are trying to keep the fire of racial politics going.

I am really disgusted by these groups for such an obvious ploy. And for the most part it worked on the news I saw. The most disgusting thing perhaps is the underlying assumption that minority voters are so easily decieved by these dirty tricks.

Let me say one thing, yes I would be offended if this crap got pulled on Clinton. If all the right-wing activist groups sent people to protest during Clinton presiding over Nixon's funeral it would be equally disgusting and tasteless. Is there no line anymore the democrat and republican parties won't cross to try to win? Usually these sorts of things were left to small cabals of dirty tricksters and were on smaller scale.

 

[clk]

The protests had nothing to do with race. People were protesting because King was a pacifist, while Bush is the opposite. King was against war, while Bush likes to use war as a first option.

 

[corplinx]

The protests had nothing to do with race. People were protesting because King was a pacifist, while Bush is the opposite. King was against war, while Bush likes to use war as a first option.

Yes, thats why the Sierra club showed up. If you believe that, then I have a homeopathic IQ raiser you might be interested in.

This was all about making Bush look bad on race.

 

[TruthSeeker]

What do you think King would have thought of Bush in general and on race and peace?

 

[Ladyhawk]

What do you think King would have thought of Bush in general and on race and peace?

Now there is the question!!! MLK was about encouraging dialogue and understanding between the races.... he was against segregation. I believe he would have disagreed with Bush on the war, but I believe he would have commended GW on his selection of Powell and Rice. (Clinton did not appoint any African Americans to positions of power, far as I can recollect). If MLK's spirit were able to speak, I think he would have silenced the protestors. That's the kind of man he was. And, let's not forget, Coretta Scott King stood by as GW laid the wreath down.

Was it just a photo-op for GW? No doubt in my mind that it was. The Prez don't visit Alabama much, does he? I think Dr. King would have had several disagreements with GW. But, I don't think he would have applauded any of our Presidents of late, Democratic or Republican, for their glowing victories in tearing down the walls of racism.....

Just my 3 cents. (Hey, I had an extra penny on me...)

 

[corplinx]

(Clinton did not appoint any African Americans to positions of power, far as I can recollect).

Ron Brown was about as high up the chain as it went. Some people accused clinton of appointing tokens in Elders/Brown/Espy but it was a case of something much simpler, cronyism.

They were all southern connections of his.

 

[corplinx]

What do you think King would have thought of Bush in general and on race and peace?

Do we remember Martin Luther King for being a big anti-war pacifist or for being a nonviolent leader of the civil rights movement?

Methinks people are falling for the spin the protestors used.

 

[DavidJames]

"Methinks people are falling for the spin the protestors used"

Methinks you are performing you usual Bush apologist rumba

 

[clk]

Race politics. They couldn't let a republican president honor Dr. King in with dignity and grace. They have to show up and make a scene so that it will be "controversy erupted" on the evening news. By the time the news filters down to Joe Twelve-Pack, all he hears is Bush, Dr. King, and large protest. They are trying to keep the fire of racial politics going.

Why do you conservatives like to come up with wacky conspiracy theories regarding things such as this? You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh too much. I haven't read all that much about the protests, but when I saw it on TV, I noticed that the protestors had anti war signs. If I were a follower of Dr. King, I would be pissed about Bush, too, since he does not use war as a last resort. That would make any pacifist angry. corplinx, did you notice that there are protestors everywhere that Bush goes? Why do you think that is? What are the hidden motives of these other protestors? Please enlighten us.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I don't imagine that Reverend King would have approved of anyone disturbing a memorial gesture. King probably had a lot more in common with Bush than any of the protestors.

Dr. King would not have approved of the violence in the war in Iraq, but he would have approved of removing Saddam from power. He would also not approve of Hamas violence or any other terrorists.

At least that's what John Edwards told me

 

[corplinx]

Methinks you are performing you usual Bush apologist rumba

Yep you got me. Meet me halfway and agree that you are an apologist for the distasteful protest.

 

[corplinx]

Why do you conservatives like to come up with wacky conspiracy theories regarding things such as this? You've been listening to Rush Limbaugh too much.

Well, I can't say I've heard the "sultan of vicodin" lately. It must be nice to make a pseudo-strawman portraying someone as a dittohead instead of taking on their arguements.

I admit my post was mostly speculation but it holds up just as well as to any other reason the protestors were there.

 

[clk]

it holds up just as well as to any other reason the protestors were there.

Really? What do you think is more likely: the protesters, who have been protesting the war from the beginning, are actually there because they want to start a controversy over race which will somehow cause "Joe Twelve-Pack" to have a bad impression of Bush, or that the war protesters are just protesting Bush's policies towards Iraq, and they find his tribute to MLK disgusting, since Bush is a war monger?

 

[Zero]

I'm going to ignore your interpretation of this specific issue, since it doesn't seem well thought out.

Let me say one thing, yes I would be offended if this crap got pulled on Clinton. If all the right-wing activist groups sent people to protest during Clinton presiding over Nixon's funeral it would be equally disgusting and tasteless. Is there no line anymore the democrat and republican parties won't cross to try to win? Usually these sorts of things were left to small cabals of dirty tricksters and were on smaller scale.

Well, if you think about it, the guys who pulled local dirty tricks have followed their candidates to the national level. Honestly, no matter who wins a single election, I think we are all losing when politics becomes about the act of politics itself.

 

[DavidJames]

"Meet me halfway and agree that you are an apologist for the distasteful protest"

lol, nayh nayh, you are to Show me where I've said anything suggesting such an accusation. Hell, I'll settle for showing me where I've made any comment at all about the protest.

 

[corplinx]

lol, nayh nayh, you are to

Should I respond with "neener neener" and a rolleyes also? I was just making the point that calling someone an apologist is easy.

 

[shuize]

I agree with corplinx: Bad taste. If one feels the need to protest, do it before he visits the memorial. Or protest after he visits the memorial. But it looks pretty crappy to be protesting while the President of the United States is honoring a slain civil rights leader.

Of course, had Bush never visited the site, I think the very same protestors would bitch that he doesn't even care enough about civil rights to honor Dr. King properly.

 

[Cleon]

Corplinx, you're way off on this one.

Being in Atlanta, and being a fairly active Lefty in Atlanta, I was privy to a lot of the organizing that went on (such as it was--it was kinda pulled together in a few days).

It's not a matter of "spin." The fact is, King stressed nonviolence, and that's why the protestors were out there. I can't speak for the Sierra Club--neither of the local SC activists were part of the organizing as far as I know. (The Sierra Club has almost zero active presence in Atlanta; I think they just hired an organizer here recently.)

Race didn't play into it at all. The local civil rights leaders, who were very opposed to the Iraq war, were participating for the same anti-war reasons as the rest of the protestors, but the main organizers of the protest was the Georgia Peace and Justice Coalition, an anti-war group. There's no spin here, there really isn't. I know these people personally, and hell, for that matter I probably still have some of the planning emails in my inbox.

Another reason people were ticked--every year they have a memorial service at Ebenezer Baptist Church (literally, right next door). It's led by the MLK March Committee--mostly people who knew and worked with King personally, like Rev. James Orange, Coretta Scott King, and Rev. Joe Lowery. The SS came in trying to tell them they had to be out of the church by 2:00. Normally the service goes until 3:30-4:00. These people did not appreciate Bush, coming in uninvited, forcing them out of the church. Eventually a compromise was reached between the MLK Committee and the SS, but some feathers were seriously ruffled and they wound up having to lock down the church. Of course, many of those whose feathers were ruffled were the same civil rights activists who were anti-war to begin with.

As to those who say, "if Bush hadn't visited the site, people would still complain"--well, Bush didn't visit it last year, or the year before that, and people didn't raise a ruckus. When he did visit town a year or so ago for something completely unrelated, he didn't go near the MLK memorial and there were still a $h!tload of protestors. The reality is, the civil rights community isn't that fond of Bush, and had he never shown up they wouldn't have cared.

(Edited typo.)

 

[clk]

Hey corplinx, you never told us the hidden agendas of all the other protestors around the world. Do all of them have hidden agendas, or just the black ones?

shuize, you may very well be right. But this debate isn't about whether the protest was tasteful or not. This debate is about the reason for the protests.

 

[Tricky]

As to those who say, "if Bush hadn't visited the site, people would still complain"--well, Bush didn't visit it last year, or the year before that, and people didn't raise a ruckus.

Of course not. It wasn't an election year. Duh.