Moynihan Myths

3.29.03 | Mia T

[Mia T]

Moynihan Myths

 

Moynihan Myth 1:
"Scholastic" Means "Smart"

Mia T
March 26, 2003

Flip-flopping aside, Daniel Patrick Moynihan's scholastic and excessively subtle reasoning justifying his vote not to impeach and remove bill clinton reveals more about the hog-and-bow-tied senator and his party than about the Constitution of the United States.

It had long been rumored that Sen. Moynihan was the Democratic Party's mind. A complete absence of the construct failed for decades to disabuse us of this notion.

This apparent incongruity only widened in the '90s. Under the tutelage of the clintons, "Democratic Party mind " quickly devolved from simple oxymoronic construct to standing joke.

Myth invariably trumps the plain facts. How can the Democratic Party's mind be both Moynihan and absent? No one ever sought to reconcile this seeming contradiction.

For the answer, one has to look no further than the reasoning behind Sen. Moynihan's impeachment vote. Not only did Moynihan fail to discern bill clinton's high crimes, he failed to consider the risk of not impeaching and removing a president that he, himself had long ago branded dysfunctional and corrupt.

That is to say, Moynihan was apparently so intent on saving the Constitution that he --ooops! -- forgot about saving the country.

How can the Democratic Party's mind be both Moynihan and absent? How can it not?

Moynihan Myth 2:
Moynihan Defined Deviancy Down,
i.e., Moynihan Endorsed Missus clinton

Mia T
March 26, 2003

Biography lends to death a new terror.

Oscar Wilde

 

''There is a sort of absence of character that has been the quality of this administration.''

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.)
commenting on clinton administration in a New Yorker interview.
"Mr Moynihan, 71, plans to retire in 2000"

Yesterday, Daniel Patrick Moynihan died. Today, the clintons are arrogating his soul. Hardly surprising. In 1999, the clintons were not at all shy about seizing his still-warm senate seat.

One has merely to recall the Thomas Jefferson double-helix hoax to understand that posthumous misappropriation is, for the obvious reason, the clintons' preferred method of legacy inflation….

Standard-Issue clintonism
If the misappropriation of Jefferson's alleles hinged on a broken line of descent, the misappropriation of Moynihan's endorsement depends on a broken line of dissent. Like Sally Hemmings' progeny, Moynihan's later acquiescence is of dubious lineage.

When clinton told Moynihan she wanted his seat, his initial public reaction -- one must read between the lines -- provided Moynihan a hedge against any later forced conversion.

The details of running for Senate in New York are "more complex than you might think," ["you arrogant, ignorant carpetbagging three-bagger"] Moynihan said after his meeting with Hillary Clinton. He did not give her any advice, he said, ["I don't endorse her…"], but added that early polls showing her beating all potential rivals -- including New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) -- mask the large and diverse political riddle that is New York.["Perhaps you should reconsider. New Yorkers really do detest arrogant, ignorant carpetbagging b*tches."]

First Lady, Moynihan Discuss Senate Race
By David Von Drehle and John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 20, 1999; Page A10

Mrs. clinton's version of the event:

And it was Senator Moynihan who welcomed me to his farm in Pindars Corners on a picture perfect July day in 1999 and offered his support, sending me on my way with a gesture of profound kindness.

March 26, 2003
Statement of Senator Clinton in Tribute
to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

That Moynihan, the man who proffered one of the more incisive operant definitions of clintonism, "defining deviancy down," would sponsor hillary clinton for anything short of the hoosegow is absurd on its face.

"Defining deviancy down"

Daniel Patrick Moynihan. American Scholar (Winter 1993)

   

"Well, how would you imagine that we would have got ourselves in the situation we're in now? We have a crisis of the regime. You cannot have this kind of conduct as normal and acceptable and easily dismissed unless there is a great effort to do so. And if, in addition to what we know, there are things we don't know, that will make it worse."

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.)
commenting on Lewinsky et al.
ABC's "This Week," Sept. 6, 1998

 

"I should think not. If it's so, it represents a disorder."

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.)
when asked if Clinton could survive if the Lewinsky allegation was true
New York Post, Jan. 26, 1998

 

[I will] have none of the "it-isn't-so-much-the-sex-its-the lying" [argument].

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.),
ibid.

 

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., also opposed censure, saying Congress should carry out its constitutional duty and decide whether Clinton should be held accountable for impeachable offenses in connection with his affair with Monica Lewinsky or other matters.

Censure unlikely, Lott says, as Congress awaits Starr report
By Jim Abrams
Associated Press

 

"[T]he critical subject for the politics of the years ahead," [is] "redefining the character issue for the post-Monica era.… There's a sort of absence of character which has been the quality of this administration."

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Corporate Character: The Humanities and the Businessperson

 

In the Senate, only Moynihan has called for Clinton's impeachment. …For now, White House and party strategists appear unworried by the criticism they have heard from various Democratic senators and members of Congress. Rather than view the criticism as part of a mounting wave of disillusionment within the party, these strategists are weighing the authors of the criticism one by one: Moynihan and Kerrey, they say, have never liked Clinton, so their remarks are personal.

"Everyone will be punished"
BY JONATHAN BRODER
Salon

"We have so many things coming on in the world that we have to be ready for and be able to deal with. This [the President's dilemma] is a distraction which is doubly dangerous because of the world's situation." [Moynihan then ticked off the dangers, which included the building of nukes by North Korea and biological weapons by Iraq.]

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D.-N.Y.)
commenting on Lewinsky et al.
ABC's "This Week," Sept. 6, 1998

COLOR COMMENTARY, Sept. 17, 1998:

A few weeks ago, we were reminded of the continual danger lurking in Iraq when U.N. Weapons inspector Scott Ritter resigned claiming that the Clinton administration had interfered with at least six inspections since 1997 in an attempt to avoid conflict with Saddam Hussein. It is difficult for a weakened President to deal decisively with a foreign military threat. Hussein has repeatedly proved to the world that he has no respect for democratic processes and will cooperate only in the face of force. He has continually tried to take advantage of weakness. The United States' current state of weakness has made the world more susceptible to Iraq's potentially destructive actions.

Just a few weeks ago, the world received a violent reminder of the ever-present threat of terrorism as U.S. embassies in Afghanistan and Kenya were bombed. Immediately following his testimony before the Independent Counsel, the President ordered counter-attacks against bases of the organization responsible for the embassy bombings. The timing and justifiability of the attacks was immediately questioned by some members of Congress, the news media, and many Americans. People thought it was possible that Clinton ordered the bombings to divert media attention from the Lewinsky affair.…the terrorists who committed these bombings and terrorists contemplating future acts were sitting at home watching the United States unsuccessfully trying to project an image of unity and competence. The United States only opens itself, and the world, up to more acts of terrorism when it seems not to know how to deal effectively with terrorist situations even when it knows who the perpetrators are.

MOYNIHAN FLIPPED, February 12, 1999

Thus the Framers clearly intended that a President should be removed only for offenses `against the United States.' It may also be concluded that the addition of the words `high Crimes and Misdemeanors' was intended to extend the impeachment power of Congress so as to reach `great and dangerous offences,' in Mason's phrase.

The question now before the Senate is whether the acts that form the basis for the Articles of Impeachment against President Clinton rise to the level of `high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' Which is to say, `great and dangerous offences' against the United States.

Over the course of 1998, as we proceeded through various revelations, thence to Impeachment and so on to this trial at the outset of 1999, I found myself asking whether the assorted charges, even if proven, would rise to the standard of `great and dangerous offences' against the United States.

More than one commentator observed that we were dealing with `low crimes.' Matters that can be tried in criminal courts after the President's term expires. ...

Senators, do not take the imprudent risk that removing William Jefferson Clinton for low crimes will not in the end jeopardize the Constitution itself. Censure him by all means. He will be gone in less than two years. But do not let his misdeeds put in jeopardy the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend.

Statement by Senator Daniel Moynihan for not supporting impeachment of clinton
Congressional Record for Friday, February 12, 1999

 

the logic of pathologic self-interest

by Mia T

 

There was a third chance to get rid of the clintons. In '98, when there was still time to stop bin Laden...

The failure to remove the clintons in '98 was a monumental error and is directly traceable to the logic of pathologic self-interest.

Recall in particular:

• THE LIEBERMAN PARADIGM: (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president)

 

• THE SHAYS SYNDROME: (clinton is a rapist; therefore clinton is a fit president)

 

THE LIEBERMAN PARADIGM

Senator Joseph Lieberman's bifurcated Monicagate speech in 1998 on the floor of the Senate was almost universally misperceived as an act of honesty and courage.

In reality, it was neither.

Reduced to its essence, Lieberman's argument was this:

clinton is an unfit president;

therefore, clinton must remain president.

I have called this argument "The Lieberman Paradigm."

Lieberman's argument that sorry day was rightly headed toward clinton's certain ouster when it suddenly made a swift, hairpin 180, as if clinton hacks took over the wheel. . .which they probably did.

What was Joe promised? A place on the 2000 ticket?

To be fair, it was not the Lieberman speech but rather a New York Times apologia that institutionalized this shameless scheme to protect a thoroughly corrupt and repugnant--and--as everyone except The New York Times now acknowledges-- dangerous -- Democrat regime.

The Lieberman Paradigm made its debut in The Times' utterly loony 1996 endorsement of clinton. The Times actually argued--NOTE: this is NOT satire--that although bill clinton was a "corrupt," "dysfunctional personality [with} delusions" -- The Times' own words -- we need not--we must not--remove bill clinton; we need only remove.the character lobe of bill clinton's brain.*

 

THE SHAYS SYNDROME

Not an aberration, the Shays Syndrome was quickly adopted by the entire Senate as its impeachment show trial deus ex machina of choice.

Shays, you may recall, examined the evidence in the Ford Building, concluded that clinton did, indeed, rape Broaddrick -- "VICIOUSLY!" AND "TWICE!" he declared at the time-- and was planning to vote to impeach; he changed his mind, however, after a tete a tete with the rapist.

Any cognitive dissonance Shays may have experienced rendering that verdict was no doubt assuaged by the political plum clinton had given Mrs. (Betsi) Shays...

Each of the 50 senators, on the other hand, cured the cognitive dissonance problem pre-emptively by making certain not to examine the damning Ford Building evidence in the first place.

Well, with the help of the 100 corrupt and cowardly cullions, clinton walked. The senators' justification for their acquittal votes requires the suspension of rational thought (and, in the curious case of Arlen Specter, national jurisdiction).

--Mia T, Musings: Senatorial Courtesy Perverted

THE OTHER NIXON

by Mia T

Hypocrisy abounds in this Age of clinton, a Postmodern Oz rife with constitutional deconstruction and semantic subversion, a virtual surreality polymarked by presidential alleles peccantly misplaced or, in the case of Jefferson, posthumously misappropriated.

Shameless pharisees in stark relief crowd the Capitol frieze:

Baucus, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Bryan, Byrd, Cohen, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Gore, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Moynihan, Reid, Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer.

These are the 28 sitting Democratic senators, the current Vice President and Secretary of Defense -- clinton defenders all -- who, in 1989, voted to oust U.S. District Judge Walter Nixon for making "false or misleading statements to a grand jury."

In 1989 each and every one of these men insisted that perjury was an impeachable offense. (What a difference a decade and a decadent Democrat make.)

Senator Herb Kohl (November 7, 1989):

"But Judge Nixon took an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth. As a grand jury witness, it was not for him to decide what would be material. That was for the grand jury to decide. Of all people, Federal Judge Walter Nixon certainly knew this.

"So I am going to vote 'guilty' on articles one and two. Judge Nixon lied to the grand jury. He misled the grand jury. These acts are indisputably criminal and warrant impeachment."

 

Senator Tom Daschle (November 3, 1989):

"This morning we impeached a judge from Mississippi for failing to tell the truth. Those decisions are always very difficult and certainly, in this case, it came after a great deal of concern and thoughtful analysis of the facts."  

 

Congressman Charles Schumer (May 10, 1989):  

"Perjury, of course, is a very difficult, difficult thing to decide; but as we looked and examined all of the records and in fact found many things that were not in the record it became very clear to us that this impeachment was meritorious."

 

Senator Carl Levin (November 3, 1989):

"The record amply supports the finding in the criminal trial that Judge Nixon's statements to the grand jury were false and misleading and constituted perjury. Those are the statements cited in articles I and II, and it is on those articles that I vote to convict Judge Nixon and remove him from office."

 

* * * * *

"The hypocrite's crime is that he bears false witness against himself," observed the philosopher Hannah Arendt. "What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core."

If hypocrisy is the vice of vices, then perjury is the crime of crimes, for perjury provides the necessary cover for all other crimes.

David Lowenthal, professor emeritus of political science at Boston College makes the novel and compelling argument that perjury is "bribery consummate, using false words instead of money or other things of value to pervert the course of justice" and, thus, perjury is a constitutionally enumerated high crime.

The Democrats' defense of clinton's perjury -- and their own hypocrisy -- is three-pronged. 

ONE:

clinton's perjuries were "just about sex" and therefore "do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense."

This argument is spurious. The courts make no distinction between perjuries. Perjury is perjury. Perjury attacks the very essence of democracy. Perjury is bribery consummate.

Moreover, (the clinton spinners notwithstanding), clinton's perjury was not "just about sex." clinton's perjury was about clinton denying a citizen justice by lying in a civil rights-sexual harassment case about his sexual history with subordinates.

TWO:

Presidents and judges are held to different standards under the Constitution.

Because the Constitution stipulates that federal judges, who are appointed for life, "shall hold their offices during good behavior,'' and because there is no similar language concerning the popularly elected, term-limited president, it must have been perfectly agreeable to the Framers, so the (implicit) argument goes, to have a perjurious, justice-obstructing reprobate as president.

clinton's defenders ignore Federalist No. 57, and Hillary Rodham's constitutional treatise on impeachable acts -- written in 1974 when she wanted to impeach a president; both mention "bad conduct" as grounds for impeachment.

"Impeachment," wrote Rodham, "did not have to be for criminal offenses -- but only for a 'course of conduct' that suggested an abuse of power or a disregard for the office of the President of the United States...A person's 'course of conduct' while not particularly criminal could be of such a nature that it destroys trust, discourages allegiance, and demands action by the Congress...The office of the President is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States."

Hamilton (or Madison) discussed the importance of wisdom and virtue in Federalist 57. "The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust."

(Contrast this with clinton, who recklessly, reflexively and feloniously subordinates the common good to his personal appetites.)

Because the Framers did not anticipate the demagogic efficiency of the electronic bully pulpit, they ruled out the possibility of an MTV mis-leader (and impeachment-thwarter!) like clinton. In Federalist No. 64, John Jay said: "There is reason to presume" the president would fall only to those "who have become the most distinguished by their abilities and virtue." He imagined that the electorate would not "be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle."

(If the clinton debacle teaches us anything, it is this: If we are to retain our democracy in this age of the electronic demagogue, we must recalibrate the constitutional balance of power.)

THREE:

The president can be prosecuted for his alleged felonies after he leaves office. (Nota bene ROBERT RAY.)

This clinton-created censure contrivance -- borne out of what I have come to call the "Lieberman Paradigm" (clinton is an unfit president; therefore clinton must remain president) -- is nothing less than a postmodern deconstruction in which the Oval Office would serve for two years as a holding cell for the perjurer-obstructor.

Such indecorous, dual-purpose architectonics not only threatens the delicate constitutional framework -- it disturbs the cultural aesthetic. The senators must, therefore, roundly reject this elliptic scheme.

In this postmodern Age of clinton, we may, from time to time, selectively stomach corruption. But we must never abide ugliness. Never.

 

History Lesson

by Mia T

 

Someone--was it Maupassant?--

once called history "that excitable and lying old lady."

The same can be said of historians.

 

Surely it can be said of Doris Kearns Goodwin,

the archetypical pharisaical historian,

not-so-latently clintonoid,

Lieberman-Paradigmatic

(i.e., clinton is an unfit president;

therefore clinton must remain president),

intellectually dishonest,

(habitually doing what the Arthur Schlesingers of this world do:

making history into the proof of their theories).

 

The Forbids 400's argument is shamelessly spurious.

They get all unhinged over the impeachment of clinton,

claiming that it will

"leave the presidency permanently disfigured and diminished,

at the mercy as never before of the caprices of any Congress."

 

Yet they dismiss the real and present--and future!!--danger

to the presidency and the country

of not impeaching and removing

this admittedly unfit, (Goodwin)

"documentably dysfunctional," (The New York Times)

presidency-diminishing, (Goodwin)

power-abusing,

psychopathic thug.

 

Doris Kearns Goodwin and those 400 other

hog-and-bow-tied-save-clinton,

retrograde-obsessing historiographers

are a supercilious, power-hungry,

egomaniacal lot in their own right.

 

For them, clinton validates

what Ogden Nash merely hypothesized:

Any buffoon can make history,

but only a great man can write it.

Copyright Mia T 2003

 

[F.J. Mitchell]

" Conservatives don't do Wellstone Funerals."

THe Wellstone funeral was a case of cannablism-liberals feasting upon their own as is their way, for political gain. Laying the truth of the Moynihan mystic out there beside the pompous praise that will surely be heaped upon him by the phonies from both sides of the political spectrum, is hardly kicking his corpse or pissing on his grave.

Let's leave Reagan out of this little discussion. The left has never given him credit for his accomplishments while he is living, and they will surely in any way they can, strive to deny him his honorable place in history after he passes.

No Conservative will whine if the anti-Reagan leftinaughts protest at his memorial, just as long as they stick to the truth.

[YaYa123]

Hi Diddle, We all got opinions, and just for the record, I don't think Mia is dancing on Moynihan's grave, far from it. I think she's establishing a record, and more importantly for newcomers, connecting the historical dots.

I love it when Mia uses her many skills to jog my addled brain and remind me of how we got to where we are. I remember Lieberman taking kudos, even got to run for VP because of his Smoke and Mirrors Holy Joe speech on the senate floor.

And I remember Hillary in her black pants suit up at Moynihan's farm. For this alone, Moynihan should be excoriated...he's the only person on the planet who could have prevented Hillary from becoming senator.

I say, "Thanks Mia" for setting the record straight at this very moment. Why wait to let the record become blurred. Right now is when people are hearing "Moynihan" in the news, now is when the truth needs to come out. But hey...if Mia had sung a song of celebration at the old man's death, or led us in rowdy cheers, a la Wellstone, I'd be with you. But our grand graphic artist Mia would never do such a thing.

And frankly, I needed a respite from the war!

[hosepipe]

IF-->> Monihan were smart he would'nt be a democrat...
He was a (unrepentant)democrat therefore... Duuh!..

There are three words >NOT< found in the American Constitution; Democracy, Democrat, Democratic By design, it's not an ommision. The founding fathers knew these words and deemed not to include them. If you don't know why, then you are politically naieve and subject to the lies of dumbocrats, as they try ever harder to make the U.S. a democracy, and its working

It's not easy to take the democrat out of the party BUT it is damned near impossible to take the democrat out of the democrat. All you end up with is a RINO{Republican in NAME only}

Actually anybody that thinks democrat is a benign word presupposes.....gross ignorance...

[Mia T]

Moynihan was probably proud to master something as confounding as a VCR, but, was he also proud of his dual role in resurrecting the clintons, I wonder...

[uncbob]

Great job MIAT
I am tired of all the cannonizing of the blowhard that is being printed
Guy was a hypocrit who voted for every left wing socail program that came down the pike
Great statesman my butt
He also wanted to tax ammunition out of existenece
Half the time on TV he was incoherent

Ha and Byrd made a good pair BOTH overrated blowhards who the press idolized

[F.J. Mitchell]

You make a point that some of us had not thought of, the abuse of Elian by Clinton's Ghestapo Chief, may have had more to do with defeating Gore, than we can imagine.

Elian Gonzales should be made an honorary citizen of the USA, and rescued from the Peoples slave state of Cuba immediately.

[Mia T]

bump

[nwrep]

Mia T, I am with you. Thank you for your post.

[Scenic Sounds]

The impeachment "trial" brings up such painful memories.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Either way, as a liberal democrat will always do -he put his loyalty to the party far above what is right and good for the country.

[kylaka]

There were by some counts as many as 50,000 Cuban Americans who admit Bush got their vote, not Gore, because of the position the Clinton administration took on Elian, even though Gore took no official position for or against.

It was a 537 vote win... or a 49,463 vote loss for Bush.

[RobFromGa]

good job Mia.

This man, like Clinton (both), was amazingly talented. And brilliant.

Talent and Brilliance in the hands of scoundrels are lethal weapons. I prefer my scoundrels to be normal average Americans-- they do less damage.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I have to agree with Diddle E. Squat on this one. I think conservatives are ABOVE democrats when it comes to doing the right thing. Personally, I don't think bashing a man who has just died is right. It doesn't matter that I disagreed with his political ideologies or not. It is just "unseemlingly".. gives me a creepy feeling.

I didn't agree with how the Dems handled the funeral of the late Sen. Wellstone. I spoke out vehemently about how inappropriate that was. This is too. I'm sorry,.. but thats how I feel.

I appreciate all your work Mia, your work is normally just awesome.. but since this is so public a display against a man who just lost his life.. I have to publicly disagree with it.

FRegards, Vets

[Arthur McGowan]

Everything you say applies also to his steadfast support of abortion. He knew precisely what he was doing. In fact, he's the only politician I know of who actually discussed his own cynicism about abortion with a reporter. Most pro-abortion Catholic politicians simply attempt to float above their cynicism as though it were a non-issue.

Or, they attempt, like Mario Cuomo, to pretend that their cynicism is actually a sign of a much deeper understanding of the Catholic Faith than that Polish Peasant in Rome has to struggle through life with.

I read an interview with him a good 20 years ago, in which Moynihan made a play on words about it. The old expression for what is now called a "practicing Catholic" was "practical Catholic." That's what the membership requirement for the Knights of Columbus was, for instance. Moynihan made a little joke about those words--"as a 'practical Catholic'" who wants to remain in the Senate, I have to support abortion. I think your guess that his drinking was at least in part a refuge from his conscience is dead on.

[Mia T]

"De mortuis nil nisi bonum."

Close...but not quite what I was looking for. ;)

The body was still warm when hillary began her eulogizing revisionism. I was certain the Romans had something to say about this, but couldn't find anything...

[F.J. Mitchell]

If only other Americans appreciated the USA as do a large majority of those Cuban Americans. If our founding Fathers could visit the country today, they would probably feel comfortable among the Cuban American Community, more than anywhere else.

God bless them all.

[bmwcyle]

I would agree with you but we are at war with enemies foreign and domestic. I say this set the record strait with truth. Truth is fair in war and the liberals have been at war with us since the election.

[WFTR]

If we are going to survive as a nation, we have to understand the truth about where we are and how we arrived here. Senator Moyhihan is a hypocrite who devoted a public career to understanding the damage that his party was doing but continuing to support that damage anyway. At a time when everyone is paying attention, we should be armed with the facts to explain why we don't rush to eulogize him. I wouldn't support protesting his funeral. I wouldn't support holding a public rally to vent all of this information at this time. However, Free Republic is a place where we talk about the truth, and Mia is just presenting a little more truth that we need to remember.

WFTR
Bill

[Cold Heat]

I must say that I agree with you. The timing is not appropriate no matter how true the words may be. The Senator has done some impressive things in his life. (Clinton aside)

Criticism like this should be leveled at a live person, not during the mourning and burial process.

This lacks tact.

[gcruse]

Moynihan had a lot of good qualities. You are coming off as snotty and small.