February 08, 2006

2/8: Fit For A King?

Nothing brings people together like the subject of race -- for a big knockdown argument, that is. Race isn't often the basis of a blogosphere-wide debate, but when it does happen, it means fireworks. In '05 we observed the evolving controversies involving MD LG/SEN candidate Michael Steele (R) and his liberal critics (see previous Blogometers), and the relatively minor outcry over (see 11/3 Blogometer) Jesse Jackson's comments at the Rosa Parks funeral.

Even so, the funeral of Coretta Scott King probably sets a new standard. The dispute about how to interpret what actually took place is so stark that we fear even describing the events themselves, lest we be accused of misrepresenting the whole affair. But we'll certainly give it a shot: In their speeches about the Kings' legacies, Rev. Joseph Lowery criticized the Iraq war and ex-Pres. Carter criticized the NSA wiretaps and federal response to Katrina. Upon hearing this, conservatives objected to the injection of lefty politics at a public funeral. The left objected to that objection as disingenuous and out of line. This summary doesn't even come close to describing how bitter the disagreement about these points; lucky for you, we've got a round-up of just that below.

Conservative bloggers instantly saw a parallel in that the '02 Paul Wellstone funeral turned into a "political rally." Liberal bloggers argue that the politics were inherent to the people being honored -- to ignore that aspect would be to leave out the very reason the person is being honored. Moreover, while the right would claim its reaction to be one of genuine anger, the left sees something else in the Wellstone analogy -- that they will use it as a cynical political tool to tar Dems as opportunists. At least we can say there's plenty of opportunism to go around.

But the fight goes deeper than the usual partisan divide, and is more specific than overall racial differences. It's not black and white per se; it's about the very nature of Dr. King's legacy and how the right and left understand it.

For the right, non-violence was King's effective means to the worthy end of achieving racial equality; to the left, non-violence and racial equality are integral to one another. Just as conservatives understand King's legacy to be about the civil rights movement, liberals understand his legacy to be about peace more broadly. No conservative considers him or herself heir to the legacy of Bull Connor and George Wallace, but a significant percentage of liberal bloggers do. The right feel they too are the heirs of King's legacy; conservatives often hold up his famous declaration that people should "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" as an argument against racial quotas, even though King had expressed support for affirmative action policies.

Is it significant that the majority of commenters on both sides are white? That's another Rorschach-like question, but it's also worth mentioning that African-American church services tend to be more political than their majority Caucasian counterparts. In any case, the funeral itself was already an unusual event -- how many funerals are televised, include a eulogy by Oprah, and run six hours in length? The attendance of Pres. Bush is certainly one reason why yesterday's ceremony was a big deal; that one of his critics was ex-Pres. Carter is another, and we haven't even mentioned the Clintons.

It's sometimes said that hard cases make bad law, and perhaps the unusual nature of this event should make this fight a one-off. In one sense, it will be -- there won't be another chance to revisit the King legacy quite like this. But in another sense it won't be, and that's too bad -- it's clear there is still a profound and largely un-addressed disagreement about what Martin Luther King's life and accomplishments mean.

KING FUNERAL I: Who Threw The First Wellstone?

Before reading any comments from conservative bloggers, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis was pretty sure he knew what to expect: "Get ready for the white men of the Republican party to lecture black leaders about not knowing their place. ... I say this because you know it's only a matter of hours before the Republican Swift Boating of Rev. Lowery and Coretta's funeral begins. ... Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King, and the legacy they leave behind, is far too dangerous to the right-wing extremists that run our country. They'll have to do something to mar Coretta's legacy. I have a hunch this will be it." Aravosis was far from the only one to describe the GOP's response as "swift boating."

And he was right about the conservative reaction -- As Cold Fury put it, "I went to the Coretta Scott King funeral and all I got was this lousy liberal political rally." Header from Jay Reding: "Can We Have Some Dignity, Please?" James Joyner wrote: "Like the controversial funeral for Paul Wellstone, much of it struck me as incredibly inappropriate for the occasion. Of course, applause and standing ovations, which were routine in this event even for non-controversial comments, also are something that I am unaccustomed to at funerals." He added, in response to AMERICAblog: "I would note that we had the same reaction to the funeral of Wellstone, a white man." Evincing conservatives' impression of the King legacy, Betsy Newmark wrote: "What an opportunity was lost to reflect on the life's work of these two people and how far we've come from the time of MLK's death in racial relations."

It wasn't just Lowery's words that ticked off the right -- Ed Morrissey wrote of Carter: "He of course neglects to mention that the wiretaps were approved by Bobby Kennedy, one of the saints of his party, and that the reasons for it had nothing to do with national defense." The Anchoress quotes a friend making the same point, and asking, "Why does the world forget that it was Democrat Bull Connor putting the hoses and the dogs on the marchers, and the Republicans standing up for civil rights?"

Rightwingsparkle: "The Bush family, of course, handled it with their usual class and dignity," with Bush 41 joking afterward: "I kept score in the Oval Office desk -- Lowery 21, Bush 3. ... It wasn't a fair fight." GOP Bloggers also praised Bush's "class" in the face of "tasteless and crass sloganeering," adding: "The fact that these people can't even sit through a eulogy without launching into a political tirade against Republicans speaks to who is responsible for the acrimonious partisanship in Washington."

A number of conservatives say they're unsurprised by the political content of the funeral, but are up in arms regardless. Ann Althouse, a centrist generally seen to be part of the right-blogosphere, is unsurprised and not greatly stirred: "It's not surprising that some of the eulogizing went political at the funeral for Coretta Scott King. It would have been better to pretend that President Bush's attendance at this 6-hour event was not itself political. But, of course, it was. So the Rev. Joseph Lowery said a little something about Iraq? Let it go."

KING FUNERAL II: Race Goes To The Swift Boaters?

Quoting from Aravosis' expectation that white men would object, Barbara O'Brien wrote: "Apparently it was a white woman, Kate O'Beirne, who led the charge." O'Beirne's appearance on "Hardball" last p,m. was widely held up as the signature example of the right's take -- after all, one can quote bloggers saying something, but a well-known pundit on nat'l cable makes a bigger impact. Crooks and Liars makes video of her appearance available. (Also worth noting, O'Beirne's new anti-feminism book has made her a lot of enemies on the left. And for what it's worth, Aravosis and O'Brien are both white.) She adds, "I don't think they'll get away with it. Oh, the hard right Bush base will be outraged. But there is no way they can do to Coretta Scott King's funeral what they did to Paul Wellstone's funeral without coming across as a bunch of racist windbags." Steve Gilliard, using one of the milder insults directed at O'Beirne, wrote: "Let me put this simply: Kate O'Beirne needs to shut her filthy mouth." At Hullabaloo, the widely-read Digby: "Oh lawdy, lawdy, lawdy Miss Mellie, I do decleah these Democrats are so ungenteel! Why, they were talkin' politics and singin' and dancin' and actin' all Negro and everything!" More, Digby back in his normal voice: "Do they really think that African Americans don't know how to behave at a funeral for one of their own? How very white of them." Firedoglake has more. Black liberal Pam Spaulding quotes from a Free Republic thread where a Freeper adopts a black voice: "We's for the gubmit but not Bush's gubmit. Bush's gubmit is against us black peoples." She lists a number of prominent black conservatives as "Self-Loathing Negroes." Greg Saunders: "Pity the poor conservatives who hate being reminded that they've been on the wrong side of every civil rights struggle in our nation's history."

As an example of how emotional this issue was, there's Norwegianity, which made use of a few four-letter words before commenting: "It's a funeral, and chances are the only thing that happened today that went against the wishes of the family was George and Laura inviting themselves. If they were made to feel uncomfortable, well, it's hard to imagine Bush the Lesser being confronted with his own policies and not feeling uncomfortable." Liberal PSoTD is a bit more sanguine: "So the disenfranchised and the unempowered and the disagreeing and even the powerful took the opportunity to make a few, slight, clever, quiet and accurate comments that alluded to the current Presidency at the funeral of a national political and cultural figure. Imagine that." He adds: "I'll be the first to say it was inappropriate if Coretta Scott King's family comes out and says they were unhappy about it. But that's the point -- it is their call. Who the hell is Kate O'Beirne to say?"

The Carpetbagger Report disagrees that the references to the Iraq war and wiretapping were primarily "jabs" at Bush: "Several speakers honored King, celebrated her life, and honored the values and principles to which she dedicated her life. The fact that those values and principles happen to be diametrically in opposition to Bush and his conservative agenda was an inconvenient coincidence for a clearly-uncomfortable president, but the point of the eulogies wasn't to attack Bush; it was to pay tribute to King and her beliefs." Jeralyn Merritt agrees: "They are charging that the Democrats shamelessly politicized the funeral and went out of their way to insult Bush. This is all nonsense. The tributes were appropriate. They were on topics not only relevant, but central to the lives and work of Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King, Jr." Scott Lemieux disputes the notion that the Wellstone funeral was politicized by the left, calling that a "series of lies." UNC law prof Eric Muller makes the same argument, illustrated with photos.

KING FUNERAL III: Blog From A Birmingham Jail

Libertarian Cathy Young sides with the right on this one: "In a society where political polarization is increasingly rancorous, her funeral could have been a rare moment that united. It should not have been a time for division, or for scoring political points. Mrs. King herself, I think, would have understood that." Making the opposite argument, No More Mr. Nice Blog quotes an AP story from 11/02 where Coretta Scott King spoke out against the then-impending Iraq war, saying it would "increase anti-American sentiment, create more terrorists and drain as much as 200 billion taxpayer dollars that she says should be invested in America." NMMNB adds: "So if the Reverend Joseph Lowery wants to talk about Iraq at Mrs. King's funeral ... he doesn't need the permission of Matt Drudge, Michelle Malkin, Kate O'Beirne, or any of the other spiritual descendants of the people who attacked the civil rights movement in its heyday, thank you very much."

Daily Kos' SusanG heads a post "Please, Politicize My Funeral," adding: "Not that I plan on departing anytime soon, but today's hyped-up, hand-wringing caterwauling about the 'politicizing' of Coretta Scott King's funeral makes me inclined to officially endorse any political use that can be made of my death." And evincing the notion that King belongs to the left, she concluded: "Just get out of our lives. And our deaths. And our funerals. And the way we honor our heroes, damn it." Black conservative La Shawn Barber criticizes the King family and also "bloggers," without specifying whether of the left or right: "Nothing is 'sacred' or off-limits anymore. In my mind, funerals should be dignified and respectful services to honor the life of the deceased and help family and friends say goodbye, not political events. But the King family turned it into one, and bloggers became participants in the sideshow by adding to the partisanship. In my opinion, bloggers were just as disrespectful as the family and the politicians."

>>Less noted but not unremarked was the moment where ex-Pres. Clinton said: "I'm honored to be here with my President, and my former Presidents, and, and, ah, when, when..." The crowd began to cheer and call for Sen. Hillary Clinton to run, and both Clintons calmed the crowd. Newmark, in the same post linked above, saw it as calculated: "Why turn a moment to honor the lives and memories of Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King into a political attack on President Bush and a campaign ad for Hillary Clinton?" But at Open Letter to Chris Matthews, Matt Stoller hit the aforementioned MSNBC host for implying that that this was the case: "Bill Clinton didn't use the funeral as a political prop for his wife. That's just another lie from a partisan hack." Ian Schwartz at Expose the Left, on the other hand, praised Matthews for "distancing" himself from Lowery and Carter's remarks.

DEMOCRATS: Opportunity Costs

Perhaps the most-linked article this a.m. is the one from New York Times' Nagourney which quotes a number of Dems, on- and off-the-record, about the "missed opportunities" to capitalize on the GOP's woes, and the fear that it will hurt them in the fall midterms. Conservatives don't usually look favorably on Nagourney, but nor can they resist an article that quotes Dems criticizing other Dems, and some of them link smugly. The left doesn't care for Nagourney much either, as one can tell by reading the satirical blog Adam Nagourney's Personal Diary, and they certainly aren't pleased by this piece either.

MyDD is upset that the article exists in the 1st place, and offers Dems some advice: "No elected Democrat should talk to Adam Nagourney on a strategy piece. ... If you are an elected Democrat, just stop talking about what Democrats need to do to be elected. Tell the country that Republicans are in charge and if people want a change they should vote for new leaders." More: "If you don't know what to say use the following preface to every single one of your sentences. 'You have to keep in mind that the Republicans control Congress, which means...'"

From Nagourney: "Some Democrats said they favored remaining largely on the sidelines while Republicans struggled under the glare of a corruption inquiry." Oliver Willis responds: "I'm going out on a limb here but I bet these whining unnamed Democrats are the same stupid Democrats who thought we should cede the whole argument about Iraq to Bush ... because some random Republican dumbass told them that -- oh heavens -- Karl Rove might say something mean about them." Brilliant at Breakfast, on the same: "There's an argument to be made for not shooting your opponent while he's got the gun pointed at his own head. On the other hand, while your opponent is busy trying to kill himself, it's a good opportunity for you to swoop in and get your own message out -- something the Democrats have been unable or unwilling to do."

Conservative Orrin Judd thinks this weakness may actually be a hidden strength: "They'd be in even worse shape if they had a national leader to more closely identify the party with being soft on terror, in favor of higher taxes and more spending, and associated with Hollywood 'values.' Just look across the entire Anglosphere -- and to Japan, Germany and Poland -- to see how parties of the Left are faring." Andrew Sullivan, emphatically not a Dem but still highly critical of the current GOP, offers to Dems an example of what they should say: "These guys are corrupt and incompetent. They have screwed up the Iraq war, turned FEMA into a joke and landed the next generation with a mountain of debt. We're for making the homeland safer, winning back our allies, and taking on the Iranian dictatorship. We're for energy independence, universal health care and balancing the budget again."

PLAMEGATE: Why Not Me?

Slate's John Dickerson, who was Time's Dickerson when the key events of the Plamegate scandal occurred, has written a 2-part article (here and here) on his relevant encounters with top WH officials during the summer of '03. As a collaborator on the story that ensnared Time's Matt Cooper in the investigation, he wonders why he was never subpoenaed, and proceeds to spell out how Valerie Plame's identity was suggested to him. In it, Dickerson gives a shout-out to the leading Plameologists at Firedoglake for turning up the letter from Patrick Fitzgerald that mentions him.

Firedoglake's ReddHedd liked Dickerson's 2-parter very much as well, commenting: "If Fitz was trying to flush something out of the underbrush with his letter to Libby's lawyers, he's gotten a whole brace of fat pigeons with this missive. And if I were representing Karl Rove, I'd be puckering this morning... along with several other Administration officials." The pieces confirm for her that the "this was a planned, coordinated effort ... And when you read it in concert with everything else we know about the Traitorgate case, you have to think that Fitzgerald is sitting on a whole lot of information we have yet to see." Dickerson writes that 2 officials led him to look into who sent Wilson to Niger, but "were really careful not to let the information slip, which suggested that they knew at the time Plame's identity was radioactive." ReddHedd keys in on this point: "You know, you would be awfully careful not to let a name slip if you knew you'd be committing a felony and treason to do so, wouldn't you?"

Some commenters at Firedoglake think there isn't much new in Dickerson's account, and conservative Mark Coffey agrees: If Dickerson's account is true, then, we know definitively that Rove was the first source for Matt Cooper, and Libby the confirming second one -- but really, we already knew that, didn't we? Note to those looking for a smoking gun here: nothing in the above suggests that Rove knew of the 'covert status' of Plame, nor that he lied to investigators or a grand jury." Tom Maguire figures the 2 officials who pointed toward Plame had to be Ari Fleischer and Condoleezza Rice. He also finds it less than newsworthy that WH officials were pointing the press in the direction of who sent Joe Wilson on the trip: "So the White House conspired to respond to press inquiries? Cool. Someone tell Fitzgerald."

Kevin Hayden at The American Street thinks Bush is on the verge of losing his "teflon" reputation: "Critics are starting to recognize that Bush is vulnerable. This is just the very dirty tip of the iceberg. More revelations are forthcoming, as his critics sense blood in the water. For as crooked as we know Bush is, there's wayyyy more crook to uncover."

All these months in, Plameology is a highly specialized field. Stygius, Tough Enough and other left-of-center bloggers -- who are following this closer than their right-of-center counterparts -- mostly leave this one up to Firedoglake. On the right, Coffey waited for close Plame follower Maguire to address this develtopment, then updated when he did.

MIDTERMS: Plain Raw Deal?

As reported in multiple CT newspapers, businessman Ned Lamont (D) -- possible challenger to Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) -- has set up an exploratory cmte, and his website has expanded. At Swing State Project, DavidNYC is a bit concerned that Lamont does not seem to have reached the minimum number of volunteers he's seeking: "Still hasn't reached 1,000. Maybe I'm basing this too much on personal experience, but I still really feel like 1,000 names is not a lot. When I was running New York for Dean three years ago, we had over a thousand local e-mail addresses in just a couple of months -- and we weren't promoted on the million-visitors-a-day Daily Kos, nor did we have our URL mentioned in newspaper articles. I would have expected Lamont to get 1K inside a week -- but maybe I'm being unrealistic." But Markos Moulitsas accept's Lamont's candidacy as a given; he doesn't mention his source, but confidently imparts different info about his recruiting: "Ned Lamont broke the 1,000 Connecticut volunteer mark (4,000 nationwide), which means he's in. But we already knew that." Per the Hartford Courant, conservative California Yankee observes that Lamont has moved the goalposts: "His website states the campaign will start as soon as 1,000 volunteers sign up. According to the Associated Press, Lamont's new 'exploratory campaign' manager now says that for Lamont to officially get in, they need to recruit volunteers from every town."

On 2/7, Tim Russo pointed out at Brewed Fresh Daily that the Cleveland Plain Dealer's new blog, Open Mike, has so far included only posts by GOP GOV frontrunner and Sec/State Ken Blackwell. Russo asks: "How is this not a corporate contribution to Blackwell's campaign? Only way it isn't is if Blackwell paid for it." The site is listed as being written by "Guest Contributors," but there is no indication about how long Blackwell will be writing for it, or whether Dem GOV candidate/Rep. Ted Strickland will get a shot at it. Buckeye Senate Blog posts screen shots of the Plain Dealer blog and Blackwell's own site, asking readers if they can tell the difference. In case you couldn't spot it, he points it out: "The Blackwell blog has a disclaimer at the bottom, the PeeDee leaves it readers to guess who is paying and authorizing the material." Russo updated this a.m. at BFD, suggesting that a complaint will be filed with the OH Elections Commis.

EAVESDROPPING: Are There Second Acts In American Political Movements?

Attention has temporarily swung away from the NSA wiretap debate (just as Plamegate fell off the radar yesterday) but Vichy Democrats -- launched in the wake of the failed filibuster of Samuel Alito -- is contemplating another campaign, this one aimed at getting Dems to put the screws to the Bush admin. Quoting a report from the conservative Insight, Vichy Democrats states that Rove "already is afraid that the Congressional investigations may ultimately result in impeachment proceedings, and is putting tremendous political pressure on Republicans to support the President no matter what, saying that any R Senator who deems warrantless wiretaps unlawful will be 'blacklisted' in the next elections." Another letter-writing/fax-faxing campaign is proposed: "So I'm considering launching a new Game Plan to encourage people to harangue the Dem members of Judiciary and Intelligence, the Dem Senate Leadership, and the more moderate or liberty-loving Republicans on the Committee, insisting that the Dems show a unified front if the hearings continue to show that crimes were committed, and that the Republicans place principle above politics, and honor their oaths of office, by calling a crime a crime."

BUDGET: Seeing Red

Raw Story reports that the FY'07 budget "quietly omits a table included in previous years which lays out the impact" of the budget on the deficit. The omission "likely signals that the Administration is trying to keep the focus off the massive deficits which the United States will incur after 2010," when the impact of tax cuts would take effect. The Liberal Avenger: "We are currently looking at the worst long-term federal budget outlook in the history of the country, and there is not even really a second place."

Truth Laid Bear's PorkBusters project posts the letter distributed by Appropriations cmte staffers calling for earmark submissions, and sarcastically declares: "It's feeding time, so line up at the trough!" RedState: "The email reads like a free for all -- you want money, just send in how much you want with priority for projects. It's just about enough to make you vomit that a group of Republican Senators would encourage living so high off the trough. Sick 'em Senator McCain."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Best Offense

Jeff Jarvis weighs in on AP's decision not to circulate the controversial Muhammad cartoons, based on what they say are "long-held standards for not moving offensive content": "I understand what she is trying to say. But that is an absurd standard they will live to regret. The news is often offensive. Murder is offensive. War is offensive. There are no end of images, in photos and words, that offend in the news -- and often that is why they are news. If the news becomes only that which is offensive to no one, we end up with what some people have long wanted: Just good news."

LEST WE FORGET: We Have Seen The Future ...

... and there will be meat carcass cubes!

Posted by at February 8, 2006 01:06 PM