Sounds appropriate, right? The first bi-racial American President should note the passing of time and the marker best remembered of that era. Here's the problem - it appears there was a no Republicans allowed policy in place. Though some now lamely proclaim that top Republican leaders turned down invitations to participate, after the slight is noticed and remarked upon, the fact is that invitations were not issued in a timely fashion for everyone to participate. For instance, we learn that invitations were sent out to Republicans only 2 to 4 weeks ago. Speaker of the House Boehner had already committed to an event honoring MLK out of town. No serious person expects invitations to be accepted by political leaders on such short notice, especially when most are out of town and meeting with voters in their own districts during a political recess.
No doubt many will read pieces like this in the Washington Post and think to themselves that those mean Republicans just don't care about black people or their historical struggles. The press is nothing without righteous indignation for perceived slights to their guy and his political party.
There is no answer, however, as to why Senator Tim Scott, the only black serving in the U.S. Senate, was not invited. Does a Republican from South Carolina not count? No answer on the exclusion of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, either. How about the newly declared Republican from the State of Louisiana, State Senator
The stories of black Republicans are just as important and worthy of celebration as those of Democrats. The Rev Martin Luther King, Jr. was not one to divide using political affiliation. The fact is, at that time, most blacks voted Republican. King and his father before him did. Dr. Condoleezza Rice grew up in Birmingham, Alabama and lived through the deaths of some little friends who were killed in a bombing of their church.
How about Mitt Romney? Was he invited? His father marched in that famous march. Would he be as worthy of mention as the liberal white marchers, back in the day?
You get the picture. An event that liberals are trying to prove was not political was, in fact, just that. This is what happens when the top of the leadership governs on purely party lines. This president doesn't work with those who oppose his agenda and is quite vocal about any opposition he receives.
I didn't watch the speech delivered by President Obama or any of the festivities, frankly. I knew what it would turn into. Here is the speech transcript, which I read. As I knew would happen, he takes the opportunity to bash Republicans in Congress. He speaks against using politics to divide, though that is his own practice. He also speaks of the current plight of black Americans - high unemployment, for instance, and a growing distance between lower, middle and upper classes in our economy. He doesn't, however, take any responsibility for that truth. Higher numbers of black Americans are measured as he has been President. Unemployment of black teens is at its highest level.
Black celebrities were given the spotlight, as this is how liberals win public opinion - through the culture and celebrity obsession. So, Oprah and Jamie Foxx were allowed speeches. It is a bit much for Foxx to compare the past struggles of blacks and the present generation by comparisons with today's Kanye and Jay Z. Really? This is the best he had to use?
The March on Washington was used by Martin Luther King, Jr. to promote equality through jobs and employment opportunities. This could have been an opportunity to promote the coming together of all Americans for others yet that doesn't fit the pattern of this administration.
Former Presidents Carter and Clinton were there. Former Presidents GHW Bush and GW Bush were unable to attend due to health concerns. GW Bush did release a respectful statement through his Presidential Library.