There once was a time when I felt that I could respect Carter, even as I disagreed with him. His words and actions in the past few years have completely eroded that respect.
It was interesting to note that W gave a truly inspiring speech that reflected the life and accomplishments of the deceased. He could have pointed out how he has promoted more minorities on the basis of merit than any past president, instead he chose to do what a speaker is supposed to do at a funeral.

"What is it about Democrats that they can't show up at a funeral without turning it into a political convention? "

How can one eulogize Coretta without politcs?!!!

What horseshit. The GOP has spent the last thirty years running against black folks. Bush got into office by disenfranchsing thousands of them in Florida.

'Civility'? Dead black folks lying the streets of New Orleans; there's your civility.

Bush has no class. Zero. He's a shameless frat boy sociopath. And he's such a coward that this is the first time in recent memory that he's had to confront a hostile crowd, face to face, rather than have individuals removed by his 'security' goon squad. I remember, fondly, when we used to have a President rather than an emperor with no clothes.

Bunch of suck-ups you are, the lot of you. 'Bush has appointed more minorities than anyone else.' Indeed. And it's a measure of how institutionally RACIST you Repukes are that not a single African-American, elected to national office, is a Republican. Not one. Lots of Uncle Toms, no independent men or women.

But after all, judging by your condemnation of Lowery, that's how you like your black folks.

It is really hard for me to view this website, but I put myself through it so I figure I might as well pay you people with a complement and post a comment.

1) Just because Jimmy Carter is being ironic does not mean that he is being anti-Bush. If you felt he was, maybe you should reevaluate how you feel about wiretapping Americans. The truth is the Kings (and many anti-war activists such as John Lennon but not exclusively the famous) had files about them. If that is viewed as wrong, how can we now justify domestic spying?
2) Jimmy Carter, as far as I know, did not imply race was a factor in the Katrina disaster in NO. Just because Kanye West did does not mean that is what President Carter meant. 'All of us are not equal' could mean the poor versus the rich. Corelations based on race may or may not be purely coincidental. If they aren't, what does that say about our society? And does that make Mr. Carter wrong for pointing it out when celebrating the lives of the Kings?
3) Lowery is a Reverend. Granted his choice of words might have seemed a little indifferent to the memory of the Kings, but which is more disgraceful to their memory: continuing to spread the message of equality and justice or sacrificing it at the atlar of political correctness? If I stood for civil rights like the Kings did, and my funeral were in the national spotlight, I would fully expect people to continue spreading what I believed in as a tribute to what I stood for.

I will not believe any of the criticism of the behavior at Coretta Scott King's funeral unless I hear complaints from a child of the King's and/or someone saying that they asked those that spoke not to mention the things they did anyway.

~NovaNardis/TheBlueEagle/Tom

The Kings were non-violent protestors for social change, anti-war activists, political activists. Lowery wasn't picked randomly to speak at the memorial - he worked with the Kings (founding the Southern Christian Leadership Conference). What *content* from the memorial was not in keeping with their legacy? Given their role as activists / protestors (Marches on Washington / etc.), would their legacy not include calls to action? How is a call to action not appropriate at a memorial and would it not be more inappropriate to not have a call to action (given that the very same rationale behind their protest to the Vietnam war applies to the Iraq war)? I'll quote MLK directly:

Many quote Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream that one day his children would "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.""

Unfortunately, many have forgotten (or have not taken the time to learn) that this ALONE was not MLK's dream. It's a small excerpt of the speech that doesn't accurately portray the entire message. It doesn't honor Coretta Scott King's memory (or MLK's) to mischaracterize such an important message.

From that march on Washington speech (the "I have a dream speech"), MLK didn't just say that he wished that all men would not be judged by the color of their skin - he spoke against discrimination and unequal opportunity:

"One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned... But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation."

Towards the end of the speech, (in the "I have a dream portion") he also says:

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of the creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"

and toward the end...

"I have a dream that one day "every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low; the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together."

Four years later, in his "Beyond Vietnam" speech, MLK spoke about both non-violence (in terms of his opposition to the Vietnam war) and it's affect on social programs (especially on young black men who were being drafted for the war). He spoke about multiple reasons he was against the war, but tied the spending to the war to reductions in social programs that were targeted to help the poor (he noted that the poor were disproportionally affected by the war: "It was sending their sons and their brothers and their husbands to fight and to die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population. We are taking the black young men who had been crippled by our society and sending them eight thousand miles away to guarantee liberties in Southeast Asia which they had not found in southwest Georgia or East Harlem... I could not be silent in the face of such cruel manipulation of the poor.").

MLK gave another reason for protesting the Vietnam war - he would argue for non-violence when campaigning for civil rights / social change... "But they asked, and rightly so, "What about Vietnam?" They asked if our own nation wasn't using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted...For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent."

When Lowery and MLK formed the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957, their motto was: "To save the soul of America".

MLK said that he felt that to ignore the war was to risk the soul of America.

MLK said that "I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered. A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies... A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth...The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just...A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just.""

MLK spoke about a call to a fellowship of man, our loving one's neighbor (and this was in the time of the Vietnam war): "This call for worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind...This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love on another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love...If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that his spirit will become the order of the day."

Issues about discrimination, opportunities for the poor or people of color, war and non-violent approaches to social change, etc. - these are the legacies of MLK AND Coretta Scott King. To mischaracterize them is unfortunate.

Oh, and "another corpse"? Shame on you.

Actus,

No, shame on the left - because, to them, Mrs. King was just a prop...a throwaway item which could temporarily be used to bash Bush, bash Republicans, bash America...

For crying out loud, look at your fellow lefty poster CF - going on and on about alleged "Toms"...how about disgusting, race-baiting step-n-fetchit's for the left like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton?

Mrs. King was never just a prop. Even after MLK's death and not counting the King Center or the MLK holiday she meet with religious figures such as Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama and Bishop Desmond Tutu. She was invited by President Bill Clinton to witness the historic handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat at the signing of the Middle East Peace Accords. She stood with Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg when he became South Africa's first democratically elected president. In 1974, as co-chair of the Full Employment Action Council, she formed a broad coalition of more than 100 religious, labor, business, civil and women's rights organizations dedicated to a national policy of full employment and equal economic opportunity. In 1983, she brought together more than 800 human rights organizations to form the umbrella group, Coalition of Conscience; in 1985 Coretta King and three of her children were arrested at the South African embassy in Washington for protesting against apartheid; in 1987, she helped lead a national Mobilization Against Fear and Intimidation in Forsyth County; in 1988 she served as head of the U.S. delegation of Women for a Meaningful Summit in Athens, Greece; and in 1990, she was co-convener of the Soviet-American Women's Summit in Washington.

Before MLK's death she helped raise funds for the SCLC, she helped with anti-war protests while MLK had other activities (example: the Madison Square Garden anti-war rally). She spoke out about the Vietnam war before MLK did (prior to his "Beyond Vietnam" speech).

Given the number of things EITHER MLK or Coretta King did in their lives how can either of them be "just a prop"? Learn as much as you can about both of them, remember them. It's a day of memorial. It's appropriate to remember their legacy and their message of a fellowship of man.

And also remember that they too preached both civil disobidence, political activism, and love for your fellow man. All of that is not mutually exclusive.

Mrs. King was never just a prop. Even after MLK's death and not counting the King Center or the MLK holiday she meet with religious figures such as Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama and Bishop Desmond Tutu. She was invited by President Bill Clinton to witness the historic handshake between Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat at the signing of the Middle East Peace Accords. She stood with Nelson Mandela in Johannesburg when he became South Africa's first democratically elected president. In 1974, as co-chair of the Full Employment Action Council, she formed a broad coalition of more than 100 religious, labor, business, civil and women's rights organizations dedicated to a national policy of full employment and equal economic opportunity. In 1983, she brought together more than 800 human rights organizations to form the umbrella group, Coalition of Conscience; in 1985 Coretta King and three of her children were arrested at the South African embassy in Washington for protesting against apartheid; in 1987, she helped lead a national Mobilization Against Fear and Intimidation in Forsyth County; in 1988 she served as head of the U.S. delegation of Women for a Meaningful Summit in Athens, Greece; and in 1990, she was co-convener of the Soviet-American Women's Summit in Washington.

Before MLK's death she helped raise funds for the SCLC, she helped with anti-war protests while MLK had other activities (example: the Madison Square Garden anti-war rally). She spoke out about the Vietnam war before MLK did (prior to his "Beyond Vietnam" speech).

Given the number of things EITHER MLK or Coretta King did in their lives how can either of them be "just a prop"? Learn as much as you can about both of them, remember them. It's a day of memorial. It's appropriate to remember their legacy and their message of a fellowship of man.

And also remember that they too preached both civil disobidence, political activism, and love for your fellow man. All of that is not mutually exclusive.

I am so sick of the constant, sophomoric attacks on President Bush regardless of what he does. He went to Mrs. Kings funeral and delivered a great, heartfelt speech about her strength and dignity. Instead of taking the high road and doing the same, these clowns had to turn a FUNERAL honoring a great woman into a political rally. I honestly expected better behavior given the event and occasion, but I guess that's asking too much. Disgusting, shameful behavior.

No comment, just a quick question. The largest number of presidents in the same place at the same time is five: Ronald Reagan library opening, what’s the next?

Mrs. King was just a prop

At least nobody dragged her corpose around the country for a week as they did with that other prop corpse, Ronald Reagan.

So... points for the King family!

Oh, and unlike the Democratic Party, it was the Right that REALLY valued Dr. King? As revisionism goes, that's some pretty wishful thinking.

Al Sharpton is Stephen Fetchit?!? Have some more of that GOP crack, Mark Noonan. What political post has Sharpton been appointed to, where he speaks as the mouthpiece for white officialdom? He's a free agent. More than anyone can say for Condi or Colin, or that lawn jockey on the Supreme Court, Clarence (Uncles) Thomas.

Excuse me. Let's can the faux outrage. MLK on 4/18/59 addressed how he wanted to be eulogized at his funeral:

"I'd like somebody to mention that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day, that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day, that I did try, in my life, to clothe those who were naked. I want you to say, on that day, that I did try, in my life, to visit those who were in prison. I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity.

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice; say that I was a drum major for peace; I was a drum major for righteousness."

Sounds like exactly what Rev. Lowery and Pres. Carter said about his partner in that lifelong cause doesn't it?

Mrs. King was just a prop which could be used to bash Bush, bash America? When will people understand that liberals do not hate America? Simply disagreeing with Bush does not equal hatred of America. If I hated America I would move to France.

Now that that's out of the way, how can you even say the left 'used' Mrs. King to bash Bush? The legacy of the Kings will last much longer than the presidency of George Bush or even the people he put on the Court. The Kings were bigger than the left or the right, and their memories continue to be. If their message conflicts with the left, it is not because the left was expoliting their memory, it was because they disagreeed with the right.

And lets not make race even an issue. By says Black Republicans are Uncle Toms, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are ridiculous, it just promotes the problem. Politics should be color-blind. And don't take that as a commentary on affirmative action. America was built on individuality, so therefore every individual (including Al Sharpton) should be free to express their opinions as they see fit (within the constraints of the law). So that diffuses the problem with crazies on the left and crazies on the right, as long as they tell the truth. (Can't let O'Reilly of the hook don't ya know.)

"No, shame on the left - because, to them, Mrs. King was just a prop...a throwaway item which could temporarily be used to bash Bush, bash Republicans, bash America."

I'll tell you who is using Coretta as a prop. Those who say we should come together on this day. Those who ignore that she stood for pacifism. What she stood against: poverty. She fought for social and economic justice.

But people want to ignore that. Becasue they want Coretta to be a prop they can use, even though they know she was right and they were wrong. Not everyone is going to get their turn to turn Coretta into some generic piece of history. Her fight continues, and the question is which side are you on?

Actually,

it's Bush that was trying to use Coretta's funeral as a prop to try and erase the memory of his lack of leadership in regard to Katrina.

Don't be so naive as to think that Bush really wanted to be at that funeral.

And you know what else cracks me up about you people? The way you can only see 'politics' as something Liberals do.

When Bush lied to all of us about Saddam's WMD's, that's called politics, baby.

Pure politics.

Get off of your high horses.

Coretta Scott King's life was a life of conviction, and the only way to have one's convictions help others is through political power.

If Dubya can't stand before his actions, it is his cross to bear.

"bash Bush, bash Republicans, bash America..."

Leaving aside the pathetic equivalence you draw between America and Bush/Republicans, it's hardly bashing to use your own record against you. Hell, Dick Cheney himself voted AGAINST civil rights legislation--but to point that out, of course, is "bashing" to poor widdle Mark. The Kings stood for a great many things Bush and Republicans are squarely against, assisting the poor being one of them. The Republicans of MLK's day tried to tar him as a communist and an adulterer--and now want to claim that, hey, they loved MLK the whole time! Craven and pathetic. I understand you're all quite butt-hurt at having your terrible legacy, both of the past and the one presently being made, waved in front of your face, but your pitiful attempts at revisionist history just betray the rottenness at your core.

Mahni,

At her funeral, Mrs. King was just a prop...a wax figure around which partisan Democrats did their disgusting little dance. If you can't see it, then I pity you.

Sees,

Huh? It was Democrats who wire-tapped King and tried to expose his adulterous affairs as a means of destroying him personally. We Repubulicans voted in much higher numbers for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats ever did.

Our GOP record on race stands the test of time - we warned that welfare would lead to dependency and the destruction of the poor, black family, and it has. We warned that racial quotas would only benefit upper class blacks while leaving poor blacks further behind, and it has. We warned that relentless assaults on traditional morality would have the harshest affect on the poorest Americans, a disproportionate number being black, and it has.

Right now, while you Democrats work with your race-baiters like Jackson and Sharpton, we Republicans are working ourselves to death to elected two black Republican governors and a black Republican Senator. Three fabulous candidates and we hope for a triple play with them...Swann, Steele and Blackwell. Once we get that done, we'll rhetorically shove your race-baiting about alleged GOP racism right down your left throat.

"We Repubulicans voted in much higher numbers for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats ever did."

How did this become about racism? Every time a Republican mentions that little tid-bit about the Civil Rights Act it disturbs be a bit, because while factually right it is pretty misleading. The issues have changed since then; the Democrats had a stranglehold on the South with the 'Dixiecrats.' And the last Dixiecrat as far as I am concerned was Zell Miller, and we see what a great Democrat he tunred out to be. So, the Dixiecrats voted against Civil Rights legislation. But the opposition was headed by people like Strom Thurmond. And whatever his party affiliation at the time, be it Democrat Republican or State's Rights Democrat, you can't pass him off on what the Democrats stand for now.

Ah, Mark. So simple....

1. I'm not a Democrat. Political parties suck, and I don't need them to tell me how to think. Funny that you simply must think that I am a Democrat, though.

2. The wiretapping was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Doesn't matter who's doing it. That is called being consistent with your principles. I invite you to look into it sometime, but I know full well you'll never grasp it, much less practice it.

3. Perhaps you can explain to me how the Southern Strategy wasn't racist? Actually, no you can't, because it was, and it was a major plank of the GOP. A plank, by the way, the party only got around to apoligizing for last year. And even then, it was hardly a heartfelt apology (more like the evasive "I'm sorry if people got hurt" non-apology) and only came about because the GOP's need of race as a wedge issue has been replaced by homophobia. Talk about a smoking gun.

4. Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmand: great Republicans, model Republicans to most, and some of the biggest racists you'll ever run across. Helms attacked MLK personally, calling him a communist and an extremist. Nice to see that that tactic hasn't gone out of style for the GOP. Thurmond was against Blacks before he was in favor of (having sex with) them. And that's not even getting into Trent Lott.

5. Which party voted for civil rights in higher numbers? Here's a hint: not Republicans.

6. Bob Jones University. Look it up, then look up which party likes to kick off campaigns there. Then see if you can put two and two together and figure out why that's a bad idea if you don't want to be seen as racist by Blacks.

7. 1964: George Bush Sr. runs for Texas Senate, making the fact that his Democratic opponent voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act a major plank of his campaign. Yes, to quality Republicans like Bush Sr., promoting civil rights was bad.

8. Which party blocked initial attempts to make MLK Day a national holiday? Why, that would be the GOP! They were against it before they were for it! Racists AND flip-floppers!

9. There's this gem from the man who is god to you, Ronald Regan: "When asked point-blank whether he thought King was a communist sympathizer, Reagan responded with a smug answer that told black America all it needed to know about the guy proclaiming 'morning in America': 'We’ll know in about 35 years, won’t we?' He was referring to sealed FBI wiretaps that purportedly contain explosive information about King’s personal habits."

10. Matt Margolis claims--with a straight face--that since Blacks can vote and the Civil Rights era is over, everything's hunky-dory for Blacks. There are no appreciable racial problems in America. And you wonder why over 90 percent of Blacks don't vote Republican. It's because you have a long and storied history of being outright antagonistic to Blacks--a history that isn't going away anytime soon, despite your laughable attempts to explain it away.

Again, not surprising that you've got your panties in a wad over having your shameful history held up before you (also funny that in all this furor, nobody can explain why Lowery was wrong when he pointed out "billions for war, but for the poor, no more." And then again, you wonder why Blacks don't vote Republican), and not surprising that you personally are spinning like a top trying to rewrite history to fit your utterly unsubstantiated claim that since the 18th century the left is always incorrect and the right is always correct. But it sure is funny, so I encourage you to keep trying to make your truthiness prevail in the face of actual facts.

Secret History featuring yet another media appearance for Bessie and Ted.