Replies

This is one of those times where I'm a bit out of step with the opinion of most posters here - sometimes, I think, we can get too partisan, and forget that a President has responsibilities that transcend day to day politics and political disagreements, and that these responsibilities sometimes need to be honored even if this makes a President and his supporters uncomfortable.

ML King was a Civil Rights Leader and and “anti-war” leader”, and toward the end of his life he had make it clear that he considered the latter as or more important than the former.

This was uncomfortable to many who – then as now - wish to embrace the former while ignoring or downplaying the latter, but his anti-war beliefs were an integral part of King’s life and King’s message, and it’s not surprising that one of his associates from that era would cite both parts of Kings message in a eulogy – in fact, it would have dishonest to Kings memory and his principles to soft-pedal this fact aspect of his life and work because prominent members of the audience might not have agreed with them.

The way I see it the President attended this event not in his role as representative of his party or philosophy, but rather as a sort of “official” representative of an American Public that’s deeply divided and conflicted about many of these same issues, he knew he was choosing to attend an event honoring individuals who espoused values and polices with which he in part disagrees; and he knew that those disagreements would likely be voiced.

In such a situation IMO a President's role is to honor by their presence that part with which they agree, and to react with the class and restraint befitting their role as President of all the people when the part with which they disagree is valorized. Which is exactly what this President did.

But this was an event honoring ML and Coretta Scott King, and as they attempted to honor King’s memory the speakers chosen by the Family owed no responsibility to tailor their comments to insure the comfort of anyone present – even the President of the United States – just as the eulogists at the Funeral of a Ronald Regan would have no responsibility to downplay his opinions and polices for the comfort of Democrats present.

Politically, the President of the US, regardless who he was, had to attend.

Ethically, those giving eulogies should have made this an event to honor Mrs. King. and Mr. King. They deviated from that path for political purposes. Period.

I cannot imagine MLKing being a man who would tolerate the subjugation of a nation to the whim of a tyrant. In order to politicize the Iraq war, one has to ignore his crimes against innocent humans. Would King do that? No.

He had dreams that transcended politics. He used positives to make his point, not political attacks. His so-called followers do not have his spirit, his aims, his hopes, or his good nature.

...just as the eulogists at the Funeral of a Ronald Regan [sic] would have no responsibility to downplay his opinions and polices for the comfort of Democrats present.

And yet, one searches their memory in vain to recall any partisan political vitriol being spewed at Reagan's funeral.

Oh, that's right there was some vitriol. From Ron Reagan, Jr. who decided to seize the opportunity of a public gathering to celebrate the life of his father and take a cheap shot at President Bush's religious observance.

Look, those who want to claim some "middle ground" on this incident should save themselves the effort and embarrasment. The left acted like an ass at Wellstone's memorial and they did it again at Mrs. King's and there's no two ways about that. Regardless of speculation about where Martin would have stood on Iraq or Bush's domestic policies.

That this needs to be pointed out is another road sign on the highway to hell that our politics is clearly on.