I see, so because he wanted to appoint a guy to the bench who has been called racist, despite very little evidence supporting it, means he is not allowed to show respect for what Martin Luther King stood for in his life and accomplished for our country?
Many people, including organizers of the MLK day celebrations, think he used it so he could go to the fundraiser using tax payer money by making it an 'official' trip. He disrupted the organization of the event by inviting himself just days before it. At first, secret service told them the event would have to be cut short, but finally agreed to limiting public access. Most of Bush's time was spent at the fundraiser.
Many people, including organizers of the MLK day celebrations, think he used it so he could go to the fundraiser using tax payer money by making it an 'official' trip. He disrupted the organization of the event by inviting himself just days before it. At first, secret service told them the event would have to be cut short, but finally agreed to limiting public access. Most of Bush's time was spent at the fundraiser.
Understood. But that is sort of the nature of the beast during the election year. Everything is done in between fundraisers. I'm not excusing it, but it's a reality.
As a counterpoint- Heaven forbid if the President of the most powerful nation in the free world should have a packed schedule on Monday. I mean, what if he didn't bother to stop by at all? Then people would be complaining, "Would it have killed him to put aside 20 min? What a rascist!" I mean, who does he think he is not rearranging his entire schedule 1 day before, the day of, and the day after, to properly honor MLK w/o a hint of "up to something else"?
Hey, I dropped off my car for transmission work on Monday. I MUST BE FRICKEN BASTARD! THE NERVE OF ME! WHO DO I THINK I AM?!
Understood. But that is sort of the nature of the beast during the election year. Everything is done in between fundraisers. I'm not excusing it, but it's a reality.
Limiting access to the observance isn't acceptable since he wasn't invited.
ATLANTA - In a sign of the difficulty President Bush faces as he tries to win black support for his reelection, several hundred protesters loudly booed him on Thursday as he laid a wreath at the grave of civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
"Bush go home" and "peace not war" the predominantly black crowd of protesters shouted from behind a barrier of buses, as Bush paid tribute to King on the 75th anniversary of his birth.
Bush wants to improve his standing among black voters this reelection year, after winning less than 10 percent of the African-American vote in 2000.
The president was accompanied by King's widow Coretta Scott King, and sister, Christine King Farris. He placed the wreath, bowed his head for a few moments, and departed without speaking or facing the protesters as the boos from the crowd increased.
The protesters carried signs with slogans like "Money for jobs and housing, not war" and "It's not a photo-op George."
----
Bush's King visit scorned
President's self-invitation a problem, organizers say
By CHARLES YOO
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
President Bush's visit on Thursday to observe what would have been the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 75th birthday isn't sitting well with area tribute organizers.
They say Bush invited himself to their party and will potentially force the cancellation of some events due to security concerns. What's more, they say, Bush will profit from a fund-raiser he will piggyback with his visit to Atlanta.
About 3:45 p.m., the president will lay a wreath at the late civil rights leader's crypt at the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site. The president announced his visit on Friday.
But the MLK March Committee, a group of area civil rights activists who worked with King, say they have worked for months on a program to honor the civil rights leader at Ebenezer Baptist Church, across the street.
"They told us that the Secret Service wanted us out of there by 2 p.m.," said the Rev. James Orange. "We are not leaving the church." The Ebenezer program from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. focuses on human rights.
I watched the "damn video" last night, and was stunned by what I saw. I was never anti-Dean until last night. I don't think you all can see past your pro-Dean bias.
Even the commentators at CNN were stunned, calling it the worst speech since Quayle in 1988.
It was deeply, deeply bad. It's sad you can't see how this plays to the average voter. This is why Dean lost.
No, he didn't lose. He was crushed.
You're being too hard on the Future Democratic Presidential Nominee.
I, for one, think that he delivered a fine speech. As I've said before, it's important to stick to your candidate, to support him through thick and thin, and to hang tough through to the inevitable triumph.
You're being too hard on the Future Democratic Presidential Nominee.
I see no reason to presume he'll be the nominee. He is losing the race right now, after all.
Quote:
As I've said before, it's important to stick to your candidate, to support him through thick and thin, and to hang tough through to the inevitable triumph.
I'm not going to stick just out of some sense of loyalty. The moment I doubt a candidate's viability, I go shopping.
I'll vote for Dean in November if he gets the nod. But I'll be one out of only a low 40-something percent of Americans who do. And I won't be happy to do so.
I'd happily vote for Clark, Kerry or Edwards, but Dean has lost me. I'll back him, but not enthusiastically. He's the worst real choice the Democrats have got right now, and I'm not backing down from that position until I see some compelling evidence that addresses my concerns ? until he drops the rage, drops the hate and goes positive. Positive campaigns (Clinton '96, Clinton'92, Bush '88, Reagan '84, Carter '76) win in America, not negative ones (Bush '92, Carter '80, Mondale '84).
I see no reason to presume he'll be the nominee. He is losing the race right now, after all.
I'm not going to stick just out of some sense of loyalty. The moment I doubt a candidate's viability, I go shopping.
I'll vote for Dean in November if he gets the nod. But I'll be one out of only a low 40-something percent of Americans who do. And I won't be happy to do so.
I'd happily vote for Clark, Kerry or Edwards, but Dean has lost me. I'll back him, but not enthusiastically. He's the worst real choice the Democrats have got right now, and I'm not backing down from that position until I see some compelling evidence that addresses my concerns ? until he drops the rage, drops the hate and goes positive. Positive campaigns (Clinton '96, Clinton'92, Bush '88, Reagan '84, Carter '76) win in America, not negative ones (Bush '92, Carter '80, Mondale '84).
Kirk
Loyalty is one of the cornerstones of the Democratic Party. Better to go down with the ship than to surrender one's principles. Besides, hate sells.
I see so you want others to demonstrate a behavior you forgo.
No wonder you support Dean, you two have so much in common.
Nick
There's a huge difference between a couple guys on a message board goofing on Bush and a guy who runs the #1 news portal in the United States. Big lop-sided difference.
You know this. You just choose to continue this stupid argument.
I was upset at the Clark slander. I'm upset at the Dean characterization. If Drudge ran a "hit piece" on Bush that was chock full of lies and outright distortions, I'd be upset as well. But, Drudge doesn't run those stories, does he?
So, let me get this straight. We all recognize and agree that President Bush has a tendency to murder the English language. We might cringe and riff off it, but in the end, it's perfectly acceptable. Right? And many of his most famous verbal gaffes were on the campaign trail...right? After all, he did get elected and probably will be re-elected regardless.
So, if Howard Dean goes a little nuts trying to re-excite his base (albeit a blunder) then he is complete disqualified to be the president? Is that what everyone is saying? I just wanted to make sure the hypocrisy was accurate before I distilled this down to its real point.
So, let me get this straight. We all recognize and agree that President Bush has a tendency to murder the English language. We might cringe and riff off it, but in the end, it's perfectly acceptable. Right? And many of his most famous verbal gaffes were on the campaign trail...right? After all, he did get elected and probably will be re-elected regardless.
So, if Howard Dean goes a little nuts trying to re-excite his base (albeit a blunder) then he is complete disqualified to be the president? Is that what everyone is saying? I just wanted to make sure the hypocrisy was accurate before I distilled this down to its real point.
i don't think either is acceptable.
with president bush i think it's an affectation, he just loves to make liberals cringe and squirm when he says nucular, and who can blame him? if i knew shawn personally, i'd try to work it in to the conversation as often as possible just to get a rise out of him. but he's the president and he needs to set a better example.
as for dean's histrionics, it's going to cost him the nomination, it's probably already cost him new hampshire.
i don't really care (i'm still on the fence, i don't get to vote until the end of march) if he wants to whoop it up or not, but it's going to cost him the nomination, forget about the presidency.
with president bush i think it's an affectation, he just loves to make liberals cringe and squirm when he says nucular, and who can blame him? if i knew shawn personally, i'd try to work it in to the conversation as often as possible just to get a rise out of him. but he's the president and he needs to set a better example.
as for dean's histrionics, it's going to cost him the nomination, it's probably already cost him new hampshire.
i don't really care (i'm still on the fence, i don't get to vote until the end of march) if he wants to whoop it up or not, but it's going to cost him the nomination, forget about the presidency.
If you are right, then that is a very sad state we're in as a country and as a culture.
If Howard Dean is finished, I go away with one great reality. He shaped the debate. He forced Democrats to look within and come to the realization that THEY ARE ALSO TO BLAME. He was the first to rail against the popular zeitgeist that labels any critic of the administration a "terrorist sympathizer". He was the first to question why Democrats were lining up behind Bush's. Now, everyone is pretty much co-opting Dean's platform. And that is good.
Comments
Originally posted by rageous
I see, so because he wanted to appoint a guy to the bench who has been called racist, despite very little evidence supporting it, means he is not allowed to show respect for what Martin Luther King stood for in his life and accomplished for our country?
Many people, including organizers of the MLK day celebrations, think he used it so he could go to the fundraiser using tax payer money by making it an 'official' trip. He disrupted the organization of the event by inviting himself just days before it. At first, secret service told them the event would have to be cut short, but finally agreed to limiting public access. Most of Bush's time was spent at the fundraiser.
Originally posted by giant
Many people, including organizers of the MLK day celebrations, think he used it so he could go to the fundraiser using tax payer money by making it an 'official' trip. He disrupted the organization of the event by inviting himself just days before it. At first, secret service told them the event would have to be cut short, but finally agreed to limiting public access. Most of Bush's time was spent at the fundraiser.
Understood. But that is sort of the nature of the beast during the election year. Everything is done in between fundraisers. I'm not excusing it, but it's a reality.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
20 minutes. That's all the time he took for the observance. Classy.
Less than 15 according to the seattle times. What a prick.
Stay for an hour. Not have it sandwiched between two fundraisers... not appoint Pickering the next day...
I would have liked that.
Hey, I dropped off my car for transmission work on Monday. I MUST BE FRICKEN BASTARD! THE NERVE OF ME! WHO DO I THINK I AM?!
Originally posted by rageous
Understood. But that is sort of the nature of the beast during the election year. Everything is done in between fundraisers. I'm not excusing it, but it's a reality.
Limiting access to the observance isn't acceptable since he wasn't invited.
TOPIC says "Does Drudge Have No Shame".
<tsk, tsk>
Bush Booed at Martin Luther King Gravesite
\t
Thu Jan 15, 7:34 PM ET
By Randall Mikkelsen
ATLANTA - In a sign of the difficulty President Bush faces as he tries to win black support for his reelection, several hundred protesters loudly booed him on Thursday as he laid a wreath at the grave of civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
"Bush go home" and "peace not war" the predominantly black crowd of protesters shouted from behind a barrier of buses, as Bush paid tribute to King on the 75th anniversary of his birth.
Bush wants to improve his standing among black voters this reelection year, after winning less than 10 percent of the African-American vote in 2000.
The president was accompanied by King's widow Coretta Scott King, and sister, Christine King Farris. He placed the wreath, bowed his head for a few moments, and departed without speaking or facing the protesters as the boos from the crowd increased.
The protesters carried signs with slogans like "Money for jobs and housing, not war" and "It's not a photo-op George."
----
Bush's King visit scorned
President's self-invitation a problem, organizers say
By CHARLES YOO
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
President Bush's visit on Thursday to observe what would have been the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 75th birthday isn't sitting well with area tribute organizers.
They say Bush invited himself to their party and will potentially force the cancellation of some events due to security concerns. What's more, they say, Bush will profit from a fund-raiser he will piggyback with his visit to Atlanta.
About 3:45 p.m., the president will lay a wreath at the late civil rights leader's crypt at the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site. The president announced his visit on Friday.
But the MLK March Committee, a group of area civil rights activists who worked with King, say they have worked for months on a program to honor the civil rights leader at Ebenezer Baptist Church, across the street.
"They told us that the Secret Service wanted us out of there by 2 p.m.," said the Rev. James Orange. "We are not leaving the church." The Ebenezer program from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. focuses on human rights.
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/met...4kingbush.html
Originally posted by Kirkland
I watched the "damn video" last night, and was stunned by what I saw. I was never anti-Dean until last night. I don't think you all can see past your pro-Dean bias.
Even the commentators at CNN were stunned, calling it the worst speech since Quayle in 1988.
It was deeply, deeply bad. It's sad you can't see how this plays to the average voter. This is why Dean lost.
No, he didn't lose. He was crushed.
You're being too hard on the Future Democratic Presidential Nominee.
I, for one, think that he delivered a fine speech. As I've said before, it's important to stick to your candidate, to support him through thick and thin, and to hang tough through to the inevitable triumph.
Well done, Doctor Dean!
Aries 1B
Rather listen to him than witness the Shrub's presidential smirk and lip curl.
Originally posted by Aries 1B
You're being too hard on the Future Democratic Presidential Nominee.
I see no reason to presume he'll be the nominee. He is losing the race right now, after all.
As I've said before, it's important to stick to your candidate, to support him through thick and thin, and to hang tough through to the inevitable triumph.
I'm not going to stick just out of some sense of loyalty. The moment I doubt a candidate's viability, I go shopping.
I'll vote for Dean in November if he gets the nod. But I'll be one out of only a low 40-something percent of Americans who do. And I won't be happy to do so.
I'd happily vote for Clark, Kerry or Edwards, but Dean has lost me. I'll back him, but not enthusiastically. He's the worst real choice the Democrats have got right now, and I'm not backing down from that position until I see some compelling evidence that addresses my concerns ? until he drops the rage, drops the hate and goes positive. Positive campaigns (Clinton '96, Clinton'92, Bush '88, Reagan '84, Carter '76) win in America, not negative ones (Bush '92, Carter '80, Mondale '84).
Kirk
Originally posted by Kirkland
I see no reason to presume he'll be the nominee. He is losing the race right now, after all.
I'm not going to stick just out of some sense of loyalty. The moment I doubt a candidate's viability, I go shopping.
I'll vote for Dean in November if he gets the nod. But I'll be one out of only a low 40-something percent of Americans who do. And I won't be happy to do so.
I'd happily vote for Clark, Kerry or Edwards, but Dean has lost me. I'll back him, but not enthusiastically. He's the worst real choice the Democrats have got right now, and I'm not backing down from that position until I see some compelling evidence that addresses my concerns ? until he drops the rage, drops the hate and goes positive. Positive campaigns (Clinton '96, Clinton'92, Bush '88, Reagan '84, Carter '76) win in America, not negative ones (Bush '92, Carter '80, Mondale '84).
Kirk
Loyalty is one of the cornerstones of the Democratic Party. Better to go down with the ship than to surrender one's principles. Besides, hate sells.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by trumptman
I see so you want others to demonstrate a behavior you forgo.
No wonder you support Dean, you two have so much in common.
Nick
There's a huge difference between a couple guys on a message board goofing on Bush and a guy who runs the #1 news portal in the United States. Big lop-sided difference.
You know this. You just choose to continue this stupid argument.
I was upset at the Clark slander. I'm upset at the Dean characterization. If Drudge ran a "hit piece" on Bush that was chock full of lies and outright distortions, I'd be upset as well. But, Drudge doesn't run those stories, does he?
So, if Howard Dean goes a little nuts trying to re-excite his base (albeit a blunder) then he is complete disqualified to be the president? Is that what everyone is saying? I just wanted to make sure the hypocrisy was accurate before I distilled this down to its real point.
Originally posted by Northgate
So, let me get this straight. We all recognize and agree that President Bush has a tendency to murder the English language. We might cringe and riff off it, but in the end, it's perfectly acceptable. Right? And many of his most famous verbal gaffes were on the campaign trail...right? After all, he did get elected and probably will be re-elected regardless.
So, if Howard Dean goes a little nuts trying to re-excite his base (albeit a blunder) then he is complete disqualified to be the president? Is that what everyone is saying? I just wanted to make sure the hypocrisy was accurate before I distilled this down to its real point.
i don't think either is acceptable.
with president bush i think it's an affectation, he just loves to make liberals cringe and squirm when he says nucular, and who can blame him? if i knew shawn personally, i'd try to work it in to the conversation as often as possible just to get a rise out of him. but he's the president and he needs to set a better example.
as for dean's histrionics, it's going to cost him the nomination, it's probably already cost him new hampshire.
i don't really care (i'm still on the fence, i don't get to vote until the end of march) if he wants to whoop it up or not, but it's going to cost him the nomination, forget about the presidency.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i don't think either is acceptable.
with president bush i think it's an affectation, he just loves to make liberals cringe and squirm when he says nucular, and who can blame him? if i knew shawn personally, i'd try to work it in to the conversation as often as possible just to get a rise out of him. but he's the president and he needs to set a better example.
as for dean's histrionics, it's going to cost him the nomination, it's probably already cost him new hampshire.
i don't really care (i'm still on the fence, i don't get to vote until the end of march) if he wants to whoop it up or not, but it's going to cost him the nomination, forget about the presidency.
If you are right, then that is a very sad state we're in as a country and as a culture.
If Howard Dean is finished, I go away with one great reality. He shaped the debate. He forced Democrats to look within and come to the realization that THEY ARE ALSO TO BLAME. He was the first to rail against the popular zeitgeist that labels any critic of the administration a "terrorist sympathizer". He was the first to question why Democrats were lining up behind Bush's. Now, everyone is pretty much co-opting Dean's platform. And that is good.