LUSHIN' DIRGE

As Bill Maher would say, "New Rule":

You can't say anything not vetted advance by Karl Rove at someone's funeral. So sayeth the Uruk-Hais, Orcs, and various and sundry assorted trolls, freepers and other Middle/Medieval Earth specimens of Fox News, newsmax.com, littlegreenfootballs.com, nationalreview and the like, all of whom have savaged several speakers, including the Reverand of Ebenezer Baptist Church, and former President Jimmy Carter, for making comments at Coretta Scott King's funeral basically stating that "millions for war, and nothing for the poor," "secret wiretapping," and the regression experienced by this country in race relations in the past five years, are bad things

Admittedly, these folks knew they were on camera and were being watched by millions, and thus found the prospect of getting these remarks across very seductive, not leastly because, sitting right behind them was none other than President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush. The camera, as these remarks were made, even recorded Laura's sudden snap out of the spell of Stepfordom into a spate of snarldom as she realized her husband was being insulted.

The speakers genuinely believed in what they were saying, and genuinely believed that Coretta Scott King believed in what they were saying. Had the speakers praised George Bush, we would be hearing no snarling from anyone.

Even more interestingly, anyone even remotely familiar with the speakers in question knows that those speakers have frequently spoken out against George Bush - in public, in print, and in various media. Since Republicans think such individuals cannot control their "Bush hatred" regardless of what setting such hatred presents itself in, the Republicans' faux-surprise at the comments is laughable. Moreover, given the prior remarks made by these speakers, the speakers would almost certainly have made the remarks in question regardless of whether Bush was present. If he were not present, one could not accuse the Bush-haters of "purposely trying to provoke him, knowing that he can't respond" (of course he can, both at the funeral and at a later date - he is incapable of doing so either effectively or tactfully).

This latter observation leads me to what seems clearly to be what the Bush worshippers are most "outraged" by: the fact that the President had to sit and listen to remarks that were critical of him (this assumes that the President was listening to these remarks, and that he understood them sufficiently so as to make the proper physiological response. I do not take either assumption for granted)

For those who are saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all" (an inapplicable saw in this case, given that the criticisms represented an expression of a substantive point of view that itself was a legitimate commentary on the policies of an individual - not an ad hominem attack), another phrase should be considered for inclusion in their repertoire: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Bush was not invited by the King family to attend the funeral. He only decided to go (and to bring Poppy along) after he learned that Presidents Clinton and Carter had been invited. He knew that his presence would be perceived as an insult, and even he has enough of a primitive awareness so as to understand that he would probably not have survived the day without being the benefactor of a few choice criticisms. Yet he chose to go anyway. Why? To honor Coretta Scott King? No. To demonstrate his commitment to civil rights? One cannot demonstrate one's commitment to what one does not perceive as non-existing. To mingle with the King family and the former Presidents? Umm.. no. He went because he (or Karl Rove) believed that it would be a good photo-op. Such a cynical and disingenuous motive is a slap in the face to which "one cannot respond to" either (could any speaker really have gotten up and said, "You're only here because you think it will look good in the papers?") So, the speakers' comments, given his presence, somehow found a way to respond to the slap without saying the unmentionable. Perfectly appropriate, if you ask me. If Bush did not want to get angered, he should have stayed home. If he, staying home, did not want to be the target of the negative comments, he should have made the decision to "stay home" six years ago. And no speculation as to what Coretta Scott King meant by a celebration of her life, or what she intended to be said about her funeral, by people who despised her, can or should change these unremarkable conclusions.