Day By Day By Amp

Amanda has a obnoxious (but funny!) habit of inviting her readers to “repair” episodes of Chris Muir’s right-wing comic strip Day By Day by writing new dialog for Muir’s art. Here’s my attempt at repairing a recent strip by Muir about Coretta King’s funeral (you can see Muir’s original at the top of Amanda’s post).

Oh, and if this is too small and hard-to-read, you can view a bigger version here.

A couple of other “repair jobs” I thought were funny are here and here.

And in case anyone’s wondering, yes, I’ve had this done to a cartoon of mine by right-wingers; and no, I didn’t mind at all. :-P

This entry posted in Cartooning & comics, Race, racism and related issues. Bookmark the permalink. 

56 Responses to Day By Day By Amp

  1. Pingback: feminist blogs

  2. Pingback: August J. Pollak - xoverboard.com

  3. Pingback: Rad Geek People’s Daily: official state media for a secessionist republic of one

  4. 4
    RonF says:

    After looking at both Chris Muir’s original and your version, I’d have to say I think both have valid points.

  5. 5
    RonF says:

    I thought the political commentary at Mrs. Coretta King’s funeral were in bad taste and distracted from celebrating her life and contributions. And I think that many politically active blacks have had white hands up their backs for entirely too long.

  6. 6
    ahem says:

    I thought the political commentary at Mrs. Coretta King’s funeral were in bad taste and distracted from celebrating her life and contributions—

    to the exact-same political issues.

    You’re not very smart, are you?

  7. 7
    nolo says:

    And I think that many politically active blacks have had white hands up their backs for entirely too long.

    Name one.

  8. 8
    Ampersand says:

    You’re not very smart, are you?

    Ahem, please don’t make personal attacks on other posters. Thank you.

  9. 9
    Kim (basement variety!) says:

    Quite honestly, I think it’s absolutely stupid that both Democrats and Republicans are worried about the commentary at the funeral. MLK was a civil rights leader, as was Coretta. If in rememberance of them we can’t talk about the fight against civil injustice, where can we? The only joke about it, as pointed out so clearly by many of the follow-up comics is the Dem elite trying to act like they have something in common with people who have known and fought against civil injustices in a frontline manner.

  10. 10
    RonF says:

    The great cause that Ms. King devoted her married life to was in supporting her husband and the work he was leading; fighting for those people whose civil rights were denied on the basis of race. It’s my understanding that she continued that work more directly after her husband died. At her funeral, it seems to me that it would have been quite appropriate to celebrate her great accomplishments in these efforts.

    That has little to do with the search for nuclear and chemical weapons in Iraq, the liberation of the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny and the subsequent struggle to set up a representative government there in the face of opposition by out-of-power fascists and religious fanatics, and the failures of local, state, and Federal governments in the run-up to and the aftermath of Katrina in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. But it would seem that taking a swipe at the President was more important to some of the speakers than a) the facts and b) honoring Mrs. King.

  11. 11
    reddecca says:

    I can’t think of anything more insulting to her life than not talking about the things that she was passionate about at her funeral. You can’t celebrate someone’s life work without mentioning what it is.

  12. 12
    RonF says:

    Amp, my philosophy is that anyone who engages in personal attacks on-line, or in person for that matter, has identified themselves as someone who has very little of intelligence to say. Otherwise, they’d say it and not make attacks.

    How often have I heard feminists say that one reason that men support male supremacy is because they need to tear women down to build themselves up? Seems to me that it’s the same principle.

  13. 13
    RonF says:

    Now, if I am mistaken about the direction of Mrs. King’s efforts after her husband was assasinated, I welcome correction.

  14. 14
    RonF says:

    nolo; I realize this isn’t a precise answer to your question, but in general my first pick would be half (at least) of the black alderman of Chicago, many of whom first got their seats by appointment by the Mayor of Chicago (Richard J. Daley) after their predecessors quit/died/got indicted.

  15. 15
    Jake Squid says:

    At her funeral, it seems to me that it would have been quite appropriate to celebrate her great accomplishments in these efforts.

    That has little to do with the search for nuclear and chemical weapons in Iraq…

    You are aware that both MLK & CSK were also anti-war activists, right? You are aware that there is great skepticism… no, make that great disbelief, in BushAdminCo’s lies (erm, reasons) to attack Iraq, right? You are aware that they were concerned about the dismayingly large proportion of US soldiers who are poor or minority or both, right? You are aware that they were activists not only for civil rights for minorities in the US, but also activists in the struggle against global poverty, right? I suggest that you read or listen to MLK’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (as well as some others of their many public statements) in order to get a better idea of what their life work was.

  16. 16
    Mr Ripley says:

    I was glad to see your clarification in Comment #11, RonF; but I still think it’s a bit of an insult to have brought that up in connection with what the Reverend Lowery (for forty years a friend and ally of CSK) and others did to celebrate the issues Jake explains were central to the Kings’ lives. You see, there’s a long context of claims that African-Americans would support conservative positions were it not for “outside agitators” exploiting them; and such an argument denies the possibilty that black people could have their own views about what’s good for them and what they’re unhappy with.

    The commentor who made the personal attack is, I think, operating in the context of the huge amount of anger at the Monday-morning quarterbacking of liberal leaders’ funerals, predicted here. It’s true so far as I can tell that when Reagan died, for example, his opponents criticized his legacy but did not suggest that it was wrong for his allies to celebrate it at the funeral.

    As for that legacy, there’s a reasonable case to be made, as Jake indicates, that MLK’s activism on behalf of the poor against governmental neglect and his opposition to the Vietnam War (also called an imperial war by its opponents and a war of liberation by its fans) translates into concern for the issues Rev. Lowery and others addressed, or that CSK’s discontent with government surveillance of her husband informed President Carter’s observations.

  17. 17
    Robert says:

    The real question isn’t whether the comments at the funeral were out of line. (I don’t think they were.) The question is how they will play in the electorate’s perception. There, I think, they will simply strengthen the extant belief that partisan Democrats are politically obsessed with point-scoring to the point of blindness to what most folk view as cultural norms of decent behavior. Most people would have that feeling softened if they knew the King family didn’t disapprove of the comments; most people will never know that the King family didn’t disapprove. They’ll just assume.

    And the “Democrats are tone deaf” meme will pick up that much more steam.

  18. 18
    piny says:

    The real question isn’t whether the comments at the funeral were out of line. (I don’t think they were.) The question is how they will play in the electorate’s perception. There, I think, they will simply strengthen the extant belief that partisan Democrats are politically obsessed with point-scoring to the point of blindness to what most folk view as cultural norms of decent behavior. Most people would have that feeling softened if they knew the King family didn’t disapprove of the comments; most people will never know that the King family didn’t disapprove. They’ll just assume.

    In other words, it’s wrong to use someone’s funeral to score political points because your opponents will use your remarks to score political points.

  19. 19
    hf says:

    I know we like to ignore much of MLK’s life, but most people at least recall the part about non-violence. What do you think that implies about preemptive war, logically speaking? When conservatives talk about pacifists opposing war, who do they mean if not Martin Luther King Jr.? (Seriously, name one other pacifist who exercised significant influence in American politics.) And I don’t think it’ll take you long to find a quote from Coretta Scott King criticising Dubya.

    Bluntly, if George W. Bush had attended the funeral and not heard criticism of his policies, it would have seemed like a slap in the face: ‘Ha, they’re dead, so I don’t have to hear what they’d say to me if we met!’ The applause may have seemed slightly odd, but his presence made it a political question. Silence would have also sent a message.

  20. 20
    Robert says:

    In other words, it’s wrong to use someone’s funeral to score political points because your opponents will use your remarks to score political points.

    Not wrong. Just tactically stupid.

  21. 21
    ahem says:

    Apologies, mein host.

    Coretta King was an anti-Vietnam-war campaigner before her husband. In January 2003, when Bush launched a challenge to affirmative action on MLK Day, Mrs King spoke against military action in Iraq. She continued to speak against the Iraq war until she left public life through illness. All of this is very well documented.

    Amp, my philosophy is that anyone who engages in personal attacks on-line, or in person for that matter, has identified themselves as someone who has very little of intelligence to say.

    Oh, yawn. Let me say it politely: if your education comes through having a set of dumb statements painstakingly corrected on a weblog, you ought to wonder whether you ought to make those statements without checking the veracity of those statements.

    I know we like to ignore much of MLK’s life, but most people at least recall the part about non-violence.

    Actually, it’s easy to forget much of he did after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His anti-war activism is often under-represented; it’s taken on new relevance for obvious reasons. ‘Beyond Vietnam’ ought to be essential reading.

  22. 22
    alsis39.5 says:

    (shrug.) The Democrats have their own problems with race, but OTOH, I can’t see why Demos or King’s family should give a flying leap about the folk Robert describes. Those are the people who would have found something in King’s memorial to take offense at no matter what was said. Perhaps they would have been happy with a memorial that only mentioned civil rights and social justice as relics of the past, but anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows better.

    The yelping and whining from Right-wing idiots has far more to do with their discomfort at the fact that the funeral attendees didn’t want those issues put in the ground along with Mrs. King. The alleged “rudeness” of mentioning WMD lies and the poor relations between the Admin. and most Blacks in the presence of the chief pea-brain involved in it all while he was fidgeting through the funeral is the real bug up their nose. Their bullshit protestations about ettiquette are just a smokescreen. Heaven forbid that Mr. & Mrs. Pea-brain’s dewicate egos take back-seat to a real acknowledgement of the funeral subject’s legacy. Tsk. Jail that Reverend, I say !

    At any rate, it’s easy to laud the shit out of a troublemaker when he or she is safely dead. I didn’t see any prominent Demos or Repubs anxious to cheer Harry Belafonte’s remarks about Bush last month;Just as I don’t see too many Demos or Repubs –even the handful of prominent politicians who are realizing what a fuck-up the Iraq war has been- anxious to meet with Cindy Sheehan.

    Of course, if Democrats want to go take advice from Robert and the rest of their admitted enemies and kiss their boots some more, that’s their own affair. But they’ve been doing that for years and it doesn’t seem to be helping their long-term prospects any.

  23. 23
    Ampersand says:

    Amp, my philosophy is that anyone who engages in personal attacks on-line, or in person for that matter, has identified themselves as someone who has very little of intelligence to say.

    Ironically, relating that philosophy to us in this context is sure to seem, to most readers, to be a personal attack on Ahem; that is, you seem to be suggesting that Ahem has very little of intelligence to say. However, if we then apply your own rule to your own post, it seems that you’re saying that you are someone with very little of intelligence to say.

    I presume that’s not how you intended your remark, but that’s how it reads.

    On the whole, it seems safest not to comment on the intelligence of the other posters, period, unless it’s to praise them for being smart.

  24. 24
    Robert says:

    Ampersand is highly intelligent.

    Among cartoonists.

  25. 25
    nolo says:

    nolo; I realize this isn’t a precise answer to your question, but in general my first pick would be half (at least) of the black alderman of Chicago, many of whom first got their seats by appointment by the Mayor of Chicago (Richard J. Daley) after their predecessors quit/died/got indicted.

    You’re right– it’s not a precise answer. Nor is it particularly supportive of your initial point, since all you’ve done is identify a problem that apparently is peculiar to Chicago, and apparently only involves one white hand (i.e., that of Richard J. Daley, who I suspect has his hands up the backs of all sorts of people, and not just African-Americans).

    Try again.

  26. 26
    nolo says:

    P.S. — I am shocked, shocked!!! to find that political appointees in one of the most notorious patronage systems in the country show characteristics of sock-puppethood. Shocked!! Of course, if we were talking about the Republican Party under Bush, we’d just call it party loyalty ;)

  27. 27
    alsis39.5 says:

    Of course, if we were talking about the Republican Party under Bush, we’d just call it party loyalty.

    Yes. Remember that anyone who suggests the same about Rice or Powell in relation to Bush is only a mean ol’ racist ! :p

  28. 28
    Robert says:

    Yes. Remember that anyone who suggests the same about Rice or Powell in relation to Bush is only a mean ol’ racist ! :p

    Naw. People who suggest that Rice or Powell are loyal to Bush because they’re part of the Republican machine are just making a political observation.

    People who suggest that they’re loyal to Bush because they’re “house niggers” are being racist.

  29. 29
    mel gibson says:

    The real question isn’t whether the comments at the funeral were out of line. (I don’t think they were.) The question is how they will play in the electorate’s perception. There, I think, they will simply strengthen the extant belief that partisan Democrats are politically obsessed with point-scoring to the point of blindness to what most folk view as cultural norms of decent behavior. Most people would have that feeling softened if they knew the King family didn’t disapprove of the comments; most people will never know that the King family didn’t disapprove. They’ll just assume.

    You are half right. The real question is not whether the comments are out of line. That much is true. But the real question is not “how they will play in the electorate’s perception,” but rather, how they will be perceived as playing in the electorates perception.

  30. 30
    Stefanie Murray says:

    I think that this discussion touches on some of the same issues as the one about civility some months ago. That is, ‘civility,’ whether in a forum or at a funeral, tends to be defined by, and reinforcing of, the powerful. Steven Biko put it well: “not only are whites kicking us; they are telling us how to react to being kicked.”

    Coretta Scott King and her husband were political figures. The attendance of the President of the US reinforced the fact that the funeral was a political event. Had nothing been said in defense of the causes that the Kings lived and sacrificed for, that would have been more palatable for certain people– but never delude yourself that that would not also have been a political action.

  31. 31
    Dianne says:

    Amp, you nailed it! Your cartoon was much better than the original and better than all of the others I’ve seen (except maybe Chris Clarke’s…I’d call it a tie there), which is a much higher bar since a lot of them were actually funny. I guess that’s why you get paid the big bucks for being a professional cartoonist.

  32. 32
    RonF says:

    You are aware that both MLK & CSK were also anti-war activists, right?

    Actually, no. Rev. King was shot between my sophomore and junior years in high school. I was brought up in a semi-rural area of Massachusetts. The day I arrived in the Chicago area was the day he was shot, or the day after. The first time I turned on a TV in Chicago, what I saw was a black man I’d never heard of called James Brown standing in a public place in somewhere I’d never heard of called the “West Side of Chicago” asking people that despite the fact that another black man I’d never heard of called Rev. Martin Luther King had been shot, they should not burn down the city. Then the TV station switched to a helicopter shot. It showed that apparently at least some people were not listening to Mr. Brown. That was my introduction to Chicago after living in a small town in Massachusetts. That night, my whole family ran outside in the middle of the night because we thought the house was on fire; turns out it was just a wind shift blowing pollution into the house.

    I really didn’t know that MLK was an anti-war activist. I would imagine given the timing that he was specifically against the Vietnam war. And I have to admit that I haven’t really paid much attention to Mrs. King’s activities at all.

    You are aware that there is great skepticism… no, make that great disbelief, in BushAdminCo’s lies (erm, reasons) to attack Iraq, right?

    I know that President Bush said in a speech that British intelligence showed that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That’s true; it did. I know that no one has found such weapons, but that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I know that the U.N. itself has documented that caravans of semi-trucks went from Baghdad and other locations in Iraq to Syria in the 6 months before the invasion, and that no one knows what was on those trucks. I know that Iraq is the size of California and that entire airplanes have been found buried in the sand out there, so God alone knows what else is out there. Maybe nothing. Maybe not. Saddam is a megalomaniac and thought (thinks?) he was/is the second coming of Saladin. He’s fully capable of just about anything, including having a bunch of workmen bury something somewhere and then slaughtering anyone who knew about it. I know Bush gave other reasons to invade Iraq besides the reputed presence of WMD, so basing oppostion by claiming that was the only rationale for the invasion is not correct.

    But to answer you directly; yes. I know there’s both skepticism and disbelief about his reasons for starting this war. I share some of it. But not all of it. And in any case, we are now bound to finish it.

    I know that the plans for post-invasion occupation of Iraq were poorly thought out. I remember that when the Bush I administration was asked why they didn’t finish the job then and invade Baghdad and take out Saddam, one of the answers was, “We don’t exactly have Thomas Jefferson waiting in the wings to take over”, and that the situation hasn’t improved for this war. I’m aware that getting to the point that we can leave there and leave a democratically-elected government that enjoys the support of the majority of the people and that can hold off it’s armed opponents is still very much up in the air. I figure that it wouldn’t hurt to pray.

    You are aware that they were concerned about the dismayingly large proportion of US soldiers who are poor or minority or both, right?

    I knew it was an issue during the Vietnam war. I didn’t know it was an issue that they had addressed. I know that things have improved these days.

    You are aware that they were activists not only for civil rights for minorities in the US, but also activists in the struggle against global poverty, right? I suggest that you read or listen to MLK’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (as well as some others of their many public statements) in order to get a better idea of what their life work was.

    Sounds like a good idea. Thank you for the suggestion. I did do some reading of his writing on his birthday; “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”. The man could write, and inspire.

  33. 33
    RonF says:

    The President of the United States is the Head of State and represents the country. He is also the country’s Chief Executive, and (save the Vice President) the only politician that every voter in the country has a voice in electing.

    On what basis is the President invited, or present, at an event such as this? Is he there to represent the country? Consider the outcry if he had not attended. Is he there as a politician? I hardly think that anyone is going to figure that the deceased would be signaling approval of the President’s policies by tolerating (or by his heirs tolerating) his prescence. And it’s not like the President is there to make a speech and promote his policies. If he is there representing the country, then he should be treated that way. If he’s there as a politican then he shouldn’t be there at all.

    The question of “Does an elected official’s presence automatically make an event political” actually comes up in my life periodically. One of the requirements that a Scout must fulfill in order to be attain First Class rank is “Visit and discuss with a selected individual approved by your leader (elected official, judge, attorney, civil servant, principal, teacher) your constitutional rights and obligations as a U.S. citizen.” We often fulfill this by inviting our Mayor or State Representative to our meetings to speak and answer questions. Should this, then, be automatically considered as an endorsement of that official’s policies and actions? No. They are invited because as an elected official they should (I wish I didn’t have to add that modifier) have an understanding of a citizen’s Constitutional rights and obligations.

    Not that neither I nor the BSA is naive about this. Our local Council has told us that while inviting the local officials to do this is a good idea, and inviting them to things like Eagle Courts of Honor is also a good idea, we are not to provide them with a photo opportunity or quotes for their campaign literature.

  34. 34
    Jake Squid says:

    I know that no one has found such weapons, but that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Am I remembering incorrectly? Didn’t the WMD search teams sent in by the USA conclude that there weren’t any & hadn’t been any for a decade? That most of what Iraq did possess had been destroyed in the early nineties? I’m pretty sure that’s the conclusion that the USA govt search teams came to. But, as always, I could be wrong.

  35. 35
    RonF says:

    The difference between Rice and Powell (on the one hand) and, say, Chicago City Aldermen on the other is that the former are appointed specifically to assist in carrying out the policy of an elected official, whereas the latter were elected by their constituents to represent their interests.

    Now, if an appointed official finds that they can no longer support the policies of the person who appointed them, they should quit. And then they should feel free to oppose that official by whatever legal means they choose, including giving evidence of any illegal activities they may have become aware of.

    If a Republican elected official (say, a U.S. Senator) finds that the policy of another Republican elected official (say, the POTUS) has flaws and is against the interests of those who elected him, I’d say that the interests of his or her constitutients should supercede any party loyalty. Whether or not that person should then switch parties is a function of just how serious the difference is, and whether or not that policy is also part of that party’s platform.

  36. 36
    Stefanie Murray says:

    RonF, Coretta Scott King spoke in support of the Seattle march against the war in Iraq, spoke out against the Vietnam War before her husband did, and said (in the 40th Anniversary of the March on Washington) that the government has yet to make good on the country’s promises of opportunity and that our spending and priorities need to change from war to peace.

    Are you saying that that the mere *presence* of the President at her funeral is a valid reason to ignore all of that entirely and pretend she did not devote her life to these issues? And are you further saying that that is **not** political?

  37. 37
    Stefanie Murray says:

    sorry… “that that omission is **not** political?”

  38. 38
    alsis39.5 says:

    I’m afraid that line isn’t as firm as you’d like it to be, Ron. That is, the average citizen does indeed elect an official to have his/her interests represented. Yet you know as well as I that all sorts of powerful monied interests find it easy to either get elected officials to ignore the voter’s interests, or to fool themselves into thinking that a lobbyist is simply “the people” in a more expensive haircut and shoes.

    Whites are hardly the only folks who’ve noticed this. I’ve been to more than one Black-owned paper or blog like The Black Commentator and heard the Congressional Black Caucus excorciated for its members who voted for that asinine bankruptcy “reform” bill.

    I don’t even know why I should see potential heroism in the actions of a cabinet appointee who resigns when he or she doesn’t want to push the President’s agenda anymore. First of all, because that’s often not the reason for the step-down and secondly, it’s not as if a former cabinet official is a pariah in the world of politics. The gravy train and the prestige just keep rolling along for them, though their badge may have a different title on it post-cabinet…

  39. 39
    reddecca says:

    So you said this:

    I thought the political commentary at Mrs. Coretta King’s funeral were in bad taste and distracted from celebrating her life and contributions.

    Even though you had no idea what her life and contributions were?

    That is in bad taste.

  40. 40
    RonF says:

    Alsis, where did I say that a cabinet officer that steps down should be treated as a hero?

    39.5, eh? Is the “big 4-0″ imminent?

    I’m also well aware that practice often doesn’t follow theory when it come to what interests an elected official represents. But nonetheless, the relationship of an elected official (whether they are properly fulfilling their obligations or not) to the government and the relationship of an appointed official to the government differ in nature. The appointed official, especially in the Executive branch, should be loyal to the executive and should help further their policies. Provided that they have not been asked to do something immoral or illegal, they should do so or quit. That’s different than what an elected official should be doing.

  41. 41
    RonF says:

    No, Stefanie, I wouldn’t say that. But, for example, I have to ask whether commentary on the various governmental bodies’ responses to the Katrina hurricane being plopped in President Bush’s lap is an appropriate thing to do at her funeral. It didn’t seem so to me, for various reasons.

    I have to be careful here. Apparently this ceremony lasted for hours. I don’t want to overreact to a couple of 30-second media clips of commentary. I don’t imagine this kind of thing dominated the funeral.

  42. 42
    RonF says:

    Yet you know as well as I that all sorts of powerful monied interests find it easy to either get elected officials to ignore the voter’s interests, or to fool themselves into thinking that a lobbyist is simply “the people” in a more expensive haircut and shoes.

    One reason why I try to get various elected officials in front of the Scouts. For one thing, I think it’s important for the elected officials to answer questions about their obligations to a bunch of young people in a non-photo-op situation. Maybe it’ll make them think. I also want the Scouts to realize that these are ordinary people with a non-ordinary job, not some kind of ruling-class types that aren’t to be approached or questioned by ordinary folks like us. The other folks that the BSA suggests are people that the kids interact with on a daily basis (in my neighborhood, a group of 15 or more parents is bound to include at least one lawyer and one doctor).

  43. 43
    RonF says:

    Well, Stefanie, that’s what I’m asking about. Is an elected official’s presence always a political issue? Why was President Bush there? To personally honor Mrs. King? No one cares what private citizen Bush would think. To honor her on behalf of the Republican Party? Hardly, don’t you think? To promote his administration’s policies? Doesn’t make much sense, either, especially since as far as I know he did no such thing. I don’t see any reason why he was there except 1) to honor her on behalf of the people of the United States and the Federal government at the highest level, and 2) to avoid the shitstorm that would have ensued if he hadn’t shown or had sent a lower-level official.

    And as far as the latter goes, why else would there be a shitstorm except that the critics would expect that the passing and celeberation of the life of someone of Mrs. King’s stature would be honored by the very highest levels of our government; not of our political parties. Why else would they want him there?

  44. 44
    alsis39.5 says:

    I have the same birthday as Paul McCartney, RonF. But I don’t want to fill the world with silly love songs. :D

  45. 45
    tigtog says:

    At Reagan’s funeral there were various sly partisan digs at political opponents who weren’t there, because the Reagan family did not invite the two surviving Democrat ex-presidents to speak. If Gore had actually been the American President at the time, then perhaps the Reagan family would have invited Clinton and Carter to also speak at the Reagan funeral.

    If it had been President Gore at Reagan’s funeral, does any Bushite really, truly, hand on heart believe that Bush 41 would not have made some telling contrasts between Reagan’s presiding over the period wherein the Iron Curtain was dismantled, and his own Gulf War liberating Kuwait, versus Gore’s handling of 9/11, whatever Gore’s response might have been, even (nay, especially) if identical to the current quagmire?

    ‘Cos I don’t.

  46. 46
    Robert says:

    What were the digs at the Reagan funeral, tigtog?

  47. 47
    tigtog says:

    Bush 43 and others made digs against the Cold War political opponents, there was plenty of glorifying of Reaganomics, and plenty of political grandstanding in general. I grant you that my partisan above should have read political, as there were no specifically anti-Democrat remarks that I can find (although interestingly that hadn’t been my actual impression at the time). Mea culpa.

    Still, say Gore had won in 2000 and been re-elected in 2004, and had gone to war in Afghanistan and Iran after 9/11 just as GWB did with the same unsatisfactory resolution. Imagine Bush 41 died and Gore was a guest of honour as the incumbent President. If one of the eulogisers mentioned Gulf War I admiringly while President Gore squirmed, would Republicans view any Democrat outcry as a reasonable response to the partisan hijacking of a funeral, or would they be outraged at an attempt to stifle the deceased’s achievements in the name of “dignity”?

  48. 48
    tigtog says:

    Ack. Iraq, not Iran. Coffee!

  49. 49
    tigtog says:

    That 5-word post of mine above only looks like a brain-dead non-sequitur because the post previous to it awaits moderation.

    I wish I could use that excuse more often.

  50. 50
    Robert says:

    OK. So the example you DID find didn’t contain partisan attacks. And to counter-example the real-world examples of putatively-bad Democratic funeral behavior, you have to make up hypothetical what-ifs.

    Check.

  51. 51
    Ampersand says:

    The thing is, for a couple of partisan statements – totally perhaps 30 seconds? – to slip out in six hours of celebrating the life of a political partisan isn’t bad funeral behavior. It’s just normal, human behavior.

    To cynically twist those few moments for partisan purposes, as Republicans have done, is both indecent and hateful. This is a day when you should be ashamed of your allies, Robert.

  52. 52
    Robert says:

    Please. We’re bad guys for cynically twisting politically partisan attacks for politically partisan purposes? Bethy broke my dolly, I hit her with it.

    Those thirty seconds were a calculated, and successful, attempt to embarass the President. It was a shrewd political move, in one sense – it helped to cement the divide between the Republican leadership and most black Americans, and put future Republican administrations in a very real bind – either blow off the funerals of important black leaders and take the hit for being standoffish and indifferent to black concerns, or attend and be a punching bag for partisan attacks.

    As I’ve said, I don’t find the attacks themselves particularly out of line – and if my allies do, well, that’s their business. Last time I checked, I don’t have to issue fatwas against fellow conservatives every time I disagree with them. I do think that the attacks were politically inopportune in the bigger picture – they cemented a Democratic interest group more firmly into the coalition, but it wasn’t a group that was likely to go anywhere, and in the process they yet again looked like jackals on national TV.

  53. 53
    tigtog says:

    My hypothetical what-ifs are not saying that if any Repubs talked up Gulf War I at the funeral of Bush 41 they’d be bad-bad-bad partisans, but that that would actually be the right thing to do to celebrate the man’s presidency, even if the incumbent president was stuck in a Middle-Ease military quagmire and was sitting right there.

    My point is that anyone who took exception to that would be a partisan fuckwit.

  54. 54
    alsis39.5 says:

    It was a shrewd political move, in one sense – it helped to cement the divide between the Republican leadership and most black Americans, and put future Republican administrations in a very real bind – either blow off the funerals of important black leaders and take the hit for being standoffish and indifferent to black concerns, or attend and be a punching bag for partisan attacks.

    Cement on cement ? I like it.

    The other alternative would be for future Republican administrations to treat Black folks as people truly deserving of more than platitudes and a few mumbles about enterprise zones. Perhaps then, they’d be more welcome at the funerals of civil rights leaders.

    Not that the Democrats are doing much better. You are quite right that they expect most Black voters to keep voting Democrat. It’s also possible that as they continue to alienate Black voters in their own passive-agressive way that more Black voters will simply decide to stay home from the polls…

  55. Pingback: Sufficient Scruples » Blog Archive » Newest Talking Fetus: Humorless, Nonsensical, and Insomniac

  56. Pingback: Rad Geek People’s Daily 2006-02-14 – Tuesday Lazy Linking