Posted on 02/13/2006 4:11:10 PM PST by SJackson
The liberalism of hate is a mental disorder.
I didn't hear anybody complaining about Shirley Franklin's remarks at all. But the two people singled out--Rev. Lowery and Jimmy Carter--were deliberately baiting President Bush. They were trying to be rude.
Uh, no. It's called appropriateness. Class. Dignity.
Little things like that. Things the Democrats obviously don't even have a passing relationship with.
MSM still in damage control mode.
Insulting someone, or someone's politics, while at a funeral for someone else is out of line.
Leftists refuse to accept this cultural norm for a variety of reasons, however:
1. they're all cads,
2. they don't remember the social graces that they rejected in their drug-induced college years,
3. they know only to criticize their opposition,
4. they exist only for today...remembering someone's past (especially the deceased at a funeral) is beyond their capacity,
etc.
(Rhetorical, of course).
Who is this reporter and what rock did he slither out from under?
Um... no.
proof positive that demonrats never chlorinate the gene pool.
"Bush and his presidency suffer from having been placed in the bubble to which his neoconservative handlers have consigned him."
Karl Rove is a neocon? He made the citizens of Minnesota revile the Wellstone "Memorial" and show it by turning against Mondale?
The only two people there who understood what funerals are supposed to be about were George W. Bush and his father.
Apparently in Madison if you find it distasteful and inappropriate to turn a funeral into a political rally you're an "acolyte" of Bush. If that's a liberal euphemism for "decent human being" then I plead guilty.
The people who need a "dose of reality" are the dims who were disgraceful and disrespectful to a sitting President.
Shame on them .. and I believe the Kings would join in that sentiment.
It's a shame that libs can't tell the difference between a funeral and a political rally. I just hope that they keep committing political suicide. Rational people are appalled by their actions so 2006 should be another Republican victory.
Exactly. Somehow we managed to have President Reagan's funeral without partisan political comments. A president's funeral. Surely it was possible to have Coretta Scott King's funeral without partisan comments.
Imagine if the president was like the Rats. He could have easily said to the King children:
"On behalf of a nation, we apologize that a Democratic president, John F. Kenney's administration, wiretapped your father and mother.
The Republicans tried to pass the Civil Rights Act faster, but it was blocked repeatedly by Democrats.
And I'm sure it warmed your mother's heart to see so many white folks open their wallets and homes and hearts to help black people after Katrina hit New Orleans."
Now, I ask you, how is that more partisan than what the Democrats said?
As usual, they don't get it. It was rudeness to GWB, but downright disrespect to C. S. King. Like suicide bombers, liberals see nothing but their distorted agenda.
And your bringing up Reagan's funeral is appropos. There was no partisan attacking going on there........just honoring the great man who was before them.
The more leftists like this buffoon of a writer make excuses for this behavior, the worse they look............and that's getting pretty hard to do.
Yes, but they were even more disrespectful of Mrs. King.
Every time we think they couldn't get lower...
It's a shame this twit has no clue about propriety and appropriate behavior. No one was trying to protect the President from hearing criticism, they were trying to maintain the sanctity and decorum appropriate for a funeral.
Jaw-droppingly arrogant and ignorant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.