The Jerry Springer Party

The Democratic party is swiftly turning into the Jerry Springer Party. The Democratic presidential contest is about one degree away from bleeped out tirades and security guards tackling the guests amid the biting, scratching and name-calling.

JERRY! JERRY! JERRY!

Even though the resignation of New York Governor Eliot “Backdoor” Spitzer is the story of the day, the recent comments of infamous womanyst, and the first female VP candidate for a major US political party, Geraldine Ferraro are worth quoting here. The followers of the various victimhood factions of the Dems have decided to start leveling the same charges and insinuations at each other that they usually reserve for those evil Republicans. It is also interesting to see the sharp blades of political correctness being turned on their usual wielders.

Ferraro seems stunned that her comments were taken poorly by some (how long has this woman been a Democrat?) but I am personally convinced that as soon as someone gives her something shiny or sparkly that she’ll be fine. But until then, she continues to embarrass her friend Hillary Clinton whose campaign she is loosely affiliated with.

The following quotes are by Geraldine Ferraro in the last few days.

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

“In all honesty, do you think that if he were a white male, there would be a reason for the black community to get excited for a historic first? Am I pointing out something that doesn’t exist?”

“Sexism is a bigger problem. It’s OK to be sexist in some people’s minds. It’s not OK to be racist.”

Now conservatives tend to laugh out loud at the perceived horror by liberals at the ultimate sin (as defined by liberals), the controversial or ‘insensitive’ comment, and this case is no different. America will never fully heal from its racial fissures if we are afraid to talk about race. The outrage should not be over whether or not she should have made these remarks, but whether or not the statement was rooted in truth.

That’s the problem with political correctness. Everyone is frightened to mention the obvious (he’s black and it’s helping him) whether or not it is true. One should be critiqued and criticized for the worthiness, strength, or truth of something, not whether or not one has the urge to discuss it.

As a society we need to throw off the ‘white man’s burden’ once and for all while still seeking justice, opportunity and success for all American citizens regardless of race. And the hand wringing over whether or not such comments ‘remind’ voters that Sen. Barack Obama’s father was African is ridiculous. Do they think that the voters can’t tell that? That they didn’t know that until now? Please. The chains of political correctness and the idiocy surrounding it needs to broken and tossed into the dustbin of history as soon as possible.

That is not to say that Geraldine Ferraro is not a dullard and a ditz for once again injecting race into the leprous corpse of the Clinton campaign in the hopes of helping it limp on to the finish line. It was poor politics at best and continues to backfire as she stubbornly defends her position instead of doing the usual progressive penance of apologizing and meeting with Sharpton and Jackson to complete her ideological reeducation.

The other possible angle on all this is that the Obama camp is trying out the ‘CRY RACISM’ tactic everytime their candidate is mentioned by an opponent or their minions to see how the MSM reacts and how far they will ‘carry his water’ for him. It appears that they will carry it as far as asked. I sincerely hope that Hillary does win the nomination because you can beat her up all day long and no one really cares, but McCain or anyone else with an (R) after their name will be branded a racist for merely uttering Obama’s name, let alone daring to point out the utter incompetence, socialist policies or inexperience of the Democratic nominee.

As for the truth in her premise that Obama would be nothing but a has-been state senator if not for his race, I can’t say with any reasonable degree of accuracy. But I can ask: Where John Edwards is today and what is the difference between him and Obama?

Case closed. Or is it?

Geraldine Ferraro has finally decided to disengage herself publicly from the Clinton campaign with her usual tact and grace.

Dear Hillary –

I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.

The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you. I won’t let that happen.

Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do to make this a better world for my children and grandchildren.

You have my deep admiration and respect.

Gerry

So join me now in chanting:

GERRY! GERRY! GERRY!

Posted by David M. Huntwork at March 13, 2008 2:17 AM
Comments
Comment #247835

David M.y

Your accusations that the race has a Springer-esque tone to it is preposterous. Yesterday Obama casually blew off suggestions of racism with respect to this matter.


Ferarro is obviously a person who does not handle jealousy or losing well. I think it may also be assumed by her statement that she is a racist. There are not degrees of racism. You either are or you are not. The fact that she claims herself as a liberal does not automatically exclude her from being a racist. Anyone who holds any bias against another human being because of the color of their skin is a racist. It is not an exclusive black man stigma.

I consider myself as a pretty open minded person and a liberal. I live in a largely blue state and can say that I know and interact with a lot of racists, liberal and conservative. I do make an obvious effort not to engage in what many consider light hearted fun when referring to ethnics in a less than respectable manner. Occasionally someone will take me to count on why I refuse to participate in their banter. I tell them quite simply how I feel and that to join them would lower my standards to that of a hypocrite.

The outrage should not be over whether or not she should have made these remarks, but whether or not the statement was rooted in truth or belief

It is quite obvious that Mr. Obama is a highly intelligent, well educated, capable, responsible person of integrity who has accomplished a lot of good in his relatively short time in public service. With the expected exception of the deep south he has to date received the support of a large percentage of Caucasian votes. Your suggestion that perhaps the only way we can validate his continued presence in this race is because of the color of his skin speaks volumes about your character. It has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with basing a persons abilities on the color of their skin. Racism at its best.

Posted by: RickIL at March 13, 2008 9:46 AM
Comment #247836

David M

A correction to the previous post.

The outrage should not be over whether or not she should have made these remarks, but whether or not the statement was rooted in truth or belief

Posted by: RickIL at March 13, 2008 9:50 AM
Comment #247837

The Smirking Chimp Nazi Party

The Republican Party is swiftly turning into the Blood Thirsty Smirking Chimp Nazi Party.

With the slaughter of innocent men, women and children in the Iraq Holocaust.

The last minute rush to clean out the treasury department buy the wing nut military industrial complex and their no bid contracts.

The world, thanks to the smirking chimp and company see us as fascist aggressors.

This all makes the Democrats little election spat not even worth talking about!!!!!!!

We have some very big problems facing this country in the future because of the wing nut polices of the last nine years. We need to focus on them!!!!!!!

So every one please join me in chanting!!!!!!!

BOOM!!!!! BOOM!!!! IRAN!!!!
BOOM!!!!! BOOM!!!! IRAN!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at March 13, 2008 9:53 AM
Comment #247840


We all have to face the fact that we are a Jerry Springer nation. The only reason most of the guests are lower class is because the show is to cheap to pay the upper crust for being guests. Does anyone doubt that George Bush, Elliot Spitzer or a multitude of our elected officials wouldn’t make excellent guests on Springers show.

Speaking of Spitzer, it is amasing how stupid seemingly intelligent people can be. Spitzer knew that he was on Wall Street and it’s governments hit list and he walked right in to the lion’s den. I thought that everyone in this country knew that the government was keeping tabs on the D.C. hookers. It reminds me of one of those low budget horror movies where you know that there is a crazy in the house chopping up people with a hatchet but, you go into the house anyway and get chopped up with a hatchet.

Posted by: jlw at March 13, 2008 10:27 AM
Comment #247842


Race is an issue in the Democratic primary this time around, how could it not be, this is America. If Obama wins the nomination, race will continue to be an issue. If Clinton were to win the nomination, gender will be and issue in the general election.

Let us not forget that the Republican mouthpieces were trashing Obama with racial slurs before the Democrats had their first debate.

Posted by: jlw at March 13, 2008 10:48 AM
Comment #247845

jlw:

“Let us not forget that the Republican mouthpieces were trashing Obama with racial slurs before the Democrats had their first debate.”

could you please help me and provide some supportable examples.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at March 13, 2008 11:06 AM
Comment #247860

” Your suggestion that perhaps the only way we can validate his continued presence in this race is because of the color of his skin speaks volumes about your character. It has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with basing a persons abilities on the color of their skin. Racism at its best.” - Rick L.

That is not my suggestion, but Geraldine Ferraro’s. I do believe that is a valid point for discussion but those bound by the unwritten laws of political correctness have declared it ‘out of bounds’ because it is deemed insensitive. Fortunately, I am not bound by such a straightjacket ideology.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at March 13, 2008 12:58 PM
Comment #247867

I don’t know. Men in Diapers being serviced by prostitutes. Auto-erotic asphyxiators found dead wrapped in a pair of wetsuits. Crank-smoking homophobes having sex with male prostitutes. A homophobic congressman getting caught trying to have public sex with another man in the men’s restrooom?

Stop me when this starts sounding sordid.

The Republicans have little room to claim superiority, and Democrats really don’t give that much of a crap about it, unless it strays into illegal or unethical territory.

Ultimately, The Republicans would just do well to admit that they are not the party of moral superiority, they’re sinners like the rest of us, and that these matters should be left to personal judgment.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 13, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #247871

Spot on, Stephen Daugherty.

As for what the GOP has become, I’m immediately reminded of a recent piece I read in Matt Taibbi’s blog:

— John McCain, defying the expectations of almost everyone who watched him last summer — myself included — has risen from the political dead to wrap up the GOP nomination. He’s survived because Onward to Victory is the last great illusion the Republican Party has left to sell in this country, even to its own followers. They can’t sell fiscal responsibility, they can’t sell “values,” they can’t sell competence, they can’t sell small government, they can’t even sell the economy. All they have left to offer is this sad, dwindling, knee-jerk patriotism, a promise to keep selling world politics as a McHale’s Navy rerun to a Middle America that wants nothing to do with realizing the world has changed since 1946.

The lesson of the McCain campaign is that one should never underestimate America’s capacity for self-delusion. Balls-deep in one of the biggest foreign-policy catastrophes of all time, an arrogant military misadventure destined to make us infamous for a generation across a dozen cultures, minivan-driving suburban America is still waiting for Bill Holden to make it right by blowing up the Bridge on the River Kwai — and returning, tanned and handsome, to get the girl with a mouth full of cool one-liners.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 13, 2008 2:46 PM
Comment #247876

Stephen,

Did you post this on the wrong article? I don’t see how it has anything to do with the topic at hand…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 13, 2008 4:29 PM
Comment #247880


Beirut Vet: Calling Barrak Obama Hussein Obama or Osama Obama and suggesting that he is really a Muslim rather than a Christian may be religious rather than racist slurs in a purely technical sense. Philosophicly it is the same thing, and it was meant to be guilt by association. I haven’t heard right wing mouth pieces wasting much time making distinctions between good, moderate Muslims and bad, radical Muslims. However, I have, on more than one occasion, heard some of them say that since the good or moderate Muslims won’t do anything about the bad ones, there are no moderate Muslims, which is another attempt at guilt by association.

I realize that a majority of Republicans do not adhere to many of the reactionary views of their talking heads but, aren’t they equally guilty by association if they don’t loudly and publically denounce those who espouse those views. Just this past week, John McCain was on stage, hand in hand with the Reverend Hagee, accepting his endorsement. Should McCain reject the reverend’s endorsement or is it alright to accept the endorsement and say that the reverend is a good man but I don’t believe everything he believes?

Obama has a similar problem with his preacher and he has reacted to it the same way that McCain has.

Posted by: jlw at March 13, 2008 5:40 PM
Comment #247881


Beirut Vet: Calling Barrak Obama Hussein Obama or Osama Obama and suggesting that he is really a Muslim rather than a Christian may be religious rather than racist slurs in a purely technical sense. Philosophicly it is the same thing, and it was meant to be guilt by association. I haven’t heard right wing mouth pieces wasting much time making distinctions between good, moderate Muslims and bad, radical Muslims. However, I have, on more than one occasion, heard some of them say that since the good or moderate Muslims won’t do anything about the bad ones, there are no moderate Muslims, which is another attempt at guilt by association.

I realize that a majority of Republicans do not adhere to many of the reactionary views of their talking heads but, aren’t they equally guilty by association if they don’t loudly and publically denounce those who espouse those views. Just this past week, John McCain was on stage, hand in hand with the Reverend Hagee, accepting his endorsement. Should McCain reject the reverend’s endorsement or is it alright to accept the endorsement and say that the reverend is a good man but I don’t believe everything he believes?

Obama has a similar problem with his preacher and he has reacted to it the same way that McCain has.

Posted by: jlw at March 13, 2008 5:41 PM
Comment #247890

jlw:

Just this past week, John McCain was on stage, hand in hand with the Reverend Hagee, accepting his endorsement. Should McCain reject the reverend’s endorsement or is it alright to accept the endorsement and say that the reverend is a good man but I don’t believe everything he believes?

jlw, latest is that McCain now has yet another dangerously fanatical “spiritual adviser” he needs to denounce and reject. Check it out:
McCain’s Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam

Senator John McCain hailed as a spiritual adviser an Ohio megachurch pastor who has called upon Christians to wage a “war” against the “false religion” of Islam with the aim of destroying it.

On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a “strong, true, consistent conservative.” The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain’s effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a “spiritual guide.”

The leader of a 12,000-member congregation, Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the “spiritual desperation” of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual “culture” (“homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree”), the “abortion industry,” and the crass and profane entertainment industry. And Parsley targets another profound threat to the United States: the religion of Islam.

In a chapter titled “Islam: The Deception of Allah,” Parsley warns there is a “war between Islam and Christian civilization.” He continues:

“I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.”

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 13, 2008 7:29 PM
Comment #247896

David M

RE- I do believe that is a valid point for discussion but those bound by the unwritten laws of political correctness have declared it ‘out of bounds’ because it is deemed insensitive. Fortunately, I am not bound by such a straightjacket ideology.

If you are not bound by such ideology then you should have no problem with that discussion. It is one thing to discuss race and its nuances within politics. It is another to discuss race issues with a tact based on hatred and bias. The latter is not discussion it is a mindset of cultist like fanaticism mired in century old racist hatred. It serves no credible function other than fueling a continuation of those biases. All this makes me wonder if it would even be possible to have such a discussion on this blog or any blog without the infusion of racist slurs.

Posted by: RickIL at March 13, 2008 9:15 PM
Comment #247897

jlw, VV

I think it is becoming increasingly clear that McCain either associates his beliefs with these fanatics or he is catering to them in hopes of eliciting votes. After all in the recent past pandering to evangelicals has been a favorite ploy of republican campaigning. I would think that in view of recent party weaknesses with regard to moral standards it would be difficult for him to raise the support of a large number of the religious base. While McCain may have appearances of being somewhat virtuous and having strong beliefs, he still has to live by the ideals and with the support of a circumspect republican party that has yet to atone for its failings.

I have no idea as to the actual size of these organizations. I do have to believe though that they do not comprise a particularly large percentage of the republican base. It may very well be that his close association with these groups may do more to harm him with the larger percentage of republicans, independents, mainstream evangelicals and even democrats who otherwise may have been inclined to vote for him.

Posted by: RickIL at March 13, 2008 9:46 PM
Comment #247923

“It is quite obvious that Mr. Obama is a highly intelligent, well educated, capable, responsible person of integrity” Posted by: RickIL at March 13, 2008 09:46 AM

What I find hard to comprehend about Obama is his 20 year association with the pastor of his church. This pastor has, in the tapes I have listened to, called America damned by God and is an outright racist. I can not understand why Obama has sat in that church and listened to sermons of this sort for 20 years. He obviously agrees with what the pastor is saying or he would have left long ago. Please help me understand why he should not be considered a racist himself or someone too ignorant to understand the vicisiousness of this pastors message.

Posted by: Jim M at March 14, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #247927

Jim M

I don’t believe Obama has elicited the support of his pastor. Nor am I aware of him pandering to any specific religious groups. I really can not say why he continues at that church. Perhaps it is social associations which keep him there. So long as he leaves the opinion of the church at the church it really is of no concern to me.

I have known people who devoutly believe everything their pastor says and does everything he or she tells them to. But I think that for the most part people tend to pick up the good in a message and ignore the not so good in a sermon. I would like to think that people are generally independent and intelligent enough to form their own conclusions about what is best for them and the world they live in. I also think we can find fanatics in just about any church or place of worship in America. Hell we can find fanatics in just about any organization in America. The important thing is that they are kept in check and not allowed to gain such strength that they can impose their will on the masses.

Posted by: RickIL at March 14, 2008 1:54 PM
Comment #247930

RickIL, my comment had nothing to do with Obama seeking the political support of Pastor Wright. It has everything to do with Obama’s intelligence and associations. Mr. Obama has stated that Pastor Wright is his, “Spiritual Mentor and Role Model.” Should the president of the US have as a role model one who is a bigot and racist?

Imagine for a moment that Mr. Obama is the president and the nation is watching a live broadcast of him at a church service by Pastor Wright nodding in agreement when the pastor talks about “God Damn America” and his other outrageous hate-speech.

Can you understand why most Americans have a problem with this?

Posted by: Jim M at March 14, 2008 2:09 PM
Comment #247935

Jim M,
Here is Wright’s full quote from that sermon:

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

Sounds like typical Christian railing at the pulpit to me.

Jim M:

He obviously agrees with what the pastor is saying or he would have left long ago. Please help me understand why he should not be considered a racist himself or someone too ignorant to understand the vicisiousness of this pastors message.

Here’s what Obama said when he was just asked about Wright’s 2003 sermon:

Q: I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but it’s all over the wire today (from an ABC News story), a statement that your pastor (the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago’s South Side) made in a sermon in 2003 that instead of singing “God Bless America,” black people should sing a song essentially saying “God Damn America.”

A: I haven’t seen the line. This is a pastor who is on the brink of retirement who in the past has made some controversial statements. I profoundly disagree with some of these statements.

Q: What about this particular statement?

A: Obviously, I disagree with that. Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it’s important to judge me on what I’ve said in the past and what I believe.

I think he’s right. We should judge Barack Obama on the things that he says, not on what his pastor has said. Should he feel that he needs to drop a twenty year relationship with his pastor for a handful of statements?
And if guilt by association is so important to you folks then why hasn’t McCain been taken to task for recently embracing Hagee who he knows full well has made outrageous statements? Or for embracing Parsley who is actually calling for a crusade against Islam to destroy it?
How come people on the right never judged George W. Bush for the some of the insanely outrageous things that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have said? Both of these guys had a direct line to the White House, despite some truly whacked-out comments:

Robertson:

“You say you’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist.”

Who spoke of feminism as a:

“socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

Or who thought that the explosion of a nuclear weapon at the State Department Headquarters would be good for the country:

“What we need is for somebody to place a small nuke at Foggy Bottom.”

Robertson also stood by nodding and agreeing with Jerry Falwell when he said that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks were caused by:

“pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the American Civil Liberties Union and the People For the American Way.”

Falwell also later elaborated on this theme:

“If we decide to change all the rules on which this Judeo-Christian nation was built, we cannot expect the Lord to put his shield of protection around us as he has in the past.”

That last quote sounds almost identical to Wright’s comments to me. And let’s also not forget that McCain had become a great friend to Falwell just before his death.
Maybe the real problem here that people are having is that Wright is a Black Pastor railing at the pulpit?

Even Billy Graham, who most Christians consider as benign as can be was caught on tape back in the 1970’s actually agreeing with Richard Nixon that Jews had a “stranglehold” on the media. Where he said of Jewish people who he considered his own friends: “They swarm around me and are friendly to me… They don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country.”

Let’s face it, Christian leaders have a tendency toward dramatic and often intolerant statements; yet if our leaders didn’t adhere to any particular faith, most Americans would reject them outright and consider them unfit for presidential leadership. It’s a “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” scenario.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 14, 2008 3:20 PM
Comment #247936

VV-

First of all will not be held to any statement coming from the mouth of my pastor. I love him dearly but he has some pretty crazy sermons!

But I’m with David on this one; the Democrats are eating their own on what can and can not be said. I mean, when they go after Geraldine, a stall worth of the liberal left, or when Mark Thompson devotes an entire show to debating whether or not Bill Clinton is a racist (he was the first black President you know), you have to think that the PC insensitive stuff is going a little too far.

And from a political perspective, it appears (to me least ways) that the Obama campaign is using these little awkward moments to shield Mr. Obama from substantive political attack. Limbaugh intimated this when he coined Mr. Obama as “Barak, the man with the middle name we must not say, Obama”. That’s really a great strategy if you are the Obama campaign; your candidate is free from attack for fear that you will end up like Hillary and have to apologize every five minutes.

I say we end all of this foolery and just anoint Mr. Obama President right now.

Posted by: George in SC at March 14, 2008 3:45 PM
Comment #247945

“God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

Sounds like typical Christian railing at the pulpit to me.” Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 14, 2008 03:20 PM

VV, Can you please provide the “sound-bite” you’re referring to. Typical Christian railing in all the church services I have attended for 67 years have never used such inflammatory and hate-filled language.

Again I ask, can you imagine Obama attending a service by Pastor Wright and listening to this kind of language without getting up and leaving? Obama’s disavowals of Pastor Wright’s bigoted and racist statements don’t ring true to me in light of his statement that the pastor is his “spiritual mentor and role model”.

Some are apparently so enthralled by Obama that they will tolerate his association with such a pastor and others of very questionable character. Comparing any other candidate’s associations with one Obama has chosen as his role model is merely an exercise in obfuscation.

Frankly, I don’t know any good way for Obama to parse this. He can’t say he didn’t know the pastor very well after attending his church services for 20 years and being married by the same man who also baptized his children. If he now condemns pastor Wright he will loose a large chunk of black voters. According to your quotes above Obama has said he, “profoundly disagrees with some of these statements.” Well, it’s weak, but a good start. I don’t think this will blow over any time soon. American is 80% or so Christian and the vast majority will not welcome Obama’s association with this pastor over a period of so many years. It displays Obama’s bad judgment and a refusal to change, even when confronted with hate-speech. This is not a virtue for a would-be president.

Posted by: Jim M at March 14, 2008 5:00 PM
Comment #247947

George:

First of all will not be held to any statement coming from the mouth of my pastor. I love him dearly but he has some pretty crazy sermons!

Exactly, George. You can even love the guy, but still think he’s totally wrong about some of the things he says. In many ways it can be just like it is with family.

But I’m with David on this one; the Democrats are eating their own on what can and can not be said.

I think it’s perfectly acceptable for Democrats to go after their own, exactly the way we go after Republicans for comments or actions we don’t agree with. Indeed, if we were willing to overlook such comments simply because they came from Democrats, we’d be nothing but a party full of hypocrites.
Personally, I’m a little surprised that you aren’t praising us for not being the kind of jerks who are always willing to create double standards for themselves. The fact that we aren’t willing to withhold our criticism among our own should inform folks on the right side of the aisle that we are actually sincere in our desire to make racism in this nation a thing of the past.
If all of us believe that “All Men Are Created Equal”, then this kind of intolerance is nothing to build a decent future upon. Surely all of us can agree that is true, right? No matter what our political beliefs are?

I mean, when they go after Geraldine, a stall worth of the liberal left, or when Mark Thompson devotes an entire show to debating whether or not Bill Clinton is a racist (he was the first black President you know), you have to think that the PC insensitive stuff is going a little too far.

So, you think it was okay that Bill Clinton compared Obama to Jesse Jackson after his wife lost in South Carolina? I considered it a pretty questionable comment, because the only trait I can discern that is shared by both Obama and Jackson is the color of their skin. There is no real comparison between the campaigns that those two men have run. It was a cheap, and slightly racist shot.
Gerry Ferraro’s comments on the other hand, were far more than merely questionable. They were definitely racist, as well as moronically illogical and wrong.
Btw, it’s not that I no longer admire Ferraro’s desire to blaze a trail for women. It’s just that now I also must loathe her obvious (yet perhaps unconscious) racism. There are many people throughout history who I have been forced to view with mixed feelings.

And from a political perspective, it appears (to me least ways) that the Obama campaign is using these little awkward moments to shield Mr. Obama from substantive political attack.

I don’t think Obama needs to be shielded from anything. I think he should be asked about everything that the American people want answers for.
But personally, having read his books, and listened to him speak, and watched the way he’s dealt with attacks on his person, and run his campaign, and handled himself on the campaign trail, my respect for him has only continued to grow. I think that Barack Obama is a decent and honorable person, with exactly the kind of intelligence and good judgment we need in a president.

Limbaugh intimated this when he coined Mr. Obama as “Barak, the man with the middle name we must not say, Obama”. That’s really a great strategy if you are the Obama campaign; your candidate is free from attack for fear that you will end up like Hillary and have to apologize every five minutes.

I think it is as unfair to attack Obama for the fact that his middle name is Hussein, as it would be to attack McCain for his middle name of Sidney. What’s in a name? Not much, in my opinion. What’s important is what kind of brain and heart a person has got, and what kind of skills they possess if they want to be our nations leader.

I say we end all of this foolery and just anoint Mr. Obama President right now.

No, not president, but Democratic nominee for president? Yes. He should have been anointed as such by now. However, it seems that Mrs. Clinton isn’t done throwing the kitchen sink — or more correctly — the garbage disposal at him yet, due to the fact that he’s won our primary.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 14, 2008 5:56 PM
Comment #247949

Jim M. If you don’t like or approve of Barack Obama, then you shouldn’t vote for him.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 14, 2008 6:02 PM
Comment #247951

Jim M

Again I will not denounce Obama for attending a church for 20 years. Obama unlike McCain has not elicited the support of a fanatic. Yes he claims him as his spiritual adviser. So what? Spiritual associates with religion not politics. As I said before, I find no good reason to mix politics and religion. Our legislators have a hard enough time trying to deal with practical matters without the injection of religious influences.

And yes Jim I do understand why people would question his association. The only thing voters should be concerned about is trying to determine if Mr. Obama supports the views of this man. I simply do not see anywhere in Mr. Obama’s character any indication of such racist hate filled thoughts. As a matter of fact it is just the opposite that he basis his campaign on.

All that said I see that he has officially denounced and distanced himself from the statements made by his pastor. To denounce the views of a pastor you have known for 20 years surely must be the ultimate assurance.

I realize that Obama haters or even those who can not tolerate the thought of a black man in office are hungry for any kind of scandal that can further their cause. I am sure this will play out well with the small percentage who thrive on race related hatreds. The rest of us realize this for what it is. If those words had emanated from Obama’s mouth it would be something to worry about. On the flip side I do not for a moment seriously believe that McCain abides by the ideologies of those nut cases he is eliciting support from.

Posted by: RickIL at March 14, 2008 6:38 PM
Comment #247953

VV, I have stated before that my vote will go to McCain. I want a president who will encourage congress to rein in spending by making porkers famous. He now supports my position on illegal immigrants. His position on energy is one I can live with and his refusal to capitulate to terrorists is admirable and right.

Last night on the Hannity and Colmes show he stated that he will appoint strict constitutionalist judges and talked briefly, when prodded by Hannity, to describe some of his experience as a prisoner. This man is a true hero in the eyes of everyone who knows his military background. He has two sons in the military and has generations of honorable military service in his family.

McCain is a man of principle and good judgment. And finally, if his pastor of 20 years uttered the racist and bigoted remarks said by Obama’s pastor he would have the decency, good judgement and love for America to get up and leave. McCain would never have such a person as a “role model.”

Posted by: Jim M at March 14, 2008 6:50 PM
Comment #247955

Obama has just written and posted on this subject for the Huffington Post.

Barack Obama: On My Faith and My Church

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 14, 2008 6:54 PM
Comment #247957

RickIL, you left out “role model” in Obama’s portrayal of his association with Pastor Wright. To take 20 years and a run for the presidency to denounce what is clearly a bigoted and racist person does not indicate “good judgment”.

I neither hate or love Obama, I just want to know a whole lot more about him for the sake of our country. A full vetting by the media is in order for Obama as well as the other candidates. With the pending release of papers concerning Hillary’s white house years we will know even more about her. Too bad Obama claims he saved no papers from his Illinios senator days. Smart? Perhaps. Suspicious? Yes.

Posted by: Jim M at March 14, 2008 7:00 PM
Comment #247958

Jim M,

John McCain doesn’t agree with your views here. Last night on the Hannity and Colmes show this exchange took place:

HANNITY: Sen. Clinton claims that Barack Obama has not had the scrutiny that other candidates have had in this campaign.

There is a big emerging controversy about his pastor of 20 years, a man who went on a trip with Louis Farrakhan to Tripoli, a guy that has — his church has given a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakhan. We now have some of his sermons. He used “g-d America,” “the U.S. of KKK of A.” “The chickens have come home to roost,” he said the Sunday after the attack on this country on 9/11.

He has called him — Barack has said of his pastor, his trusted adviser, he’s proud of his pastor. He married him and his wife. He’s baptized his kids.

Does that sound like a problem for you?

MCCAIN: I think that when people support you, it doesn’t mean that you support everything they say. Obviously, those words and those statements are statements that none of us would associate ourselves with, and I don’t believe that Sen. Obama would support any of those, as well.

HANNITY: He’s been — but he’s been going to the church for 20 years. His pastor — the church gave a lifetime achievement award to one of the biggest racists and anti-Semites in the country, Louis Farrakhan. Would you go to a church that — where your pastor supported Louis Farrakhan?

MCCAIN: Obviously, that would not be my choice. But I do know Sen. Obama. He does not share those views.

And we get sometimes — I don’t — a lot of those statements I’ve just heard for the first time that you mentioned. But I know that, for example, I’ve had endorsements of some people that I didn’t share their views…

HANNITY: Pastor Hagee recently, yes.

MCCAIN: … but they endorsed mine. And so I think we’ve got to be very careful about that part.

Btw, like McCain, Obama’s Pastor served in our military. Wright was a Marine, who later served more years in the Navy. I truly doubt that someone who served so many years hates America, no matter what he said up on the pulpit in a few of his sermons.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 14, 2008 7:21 PM
Comment #247959

VV, You may be correct in saying that pastor Wright did not hate America in his youth and while in service to this country. But to blithely ignore and “truly doubt” what he has said recently is awesome to me.

If we can’t believe the words coming from pastor Wright’s own mouth, then he is merely a hypocrite and not a bigot and racist. So now we have a man who is either a hypocrite, or bigot and racist, who is the mentor for a potential president of the US. Gee, that makes me feel better.

Posted by: Jim M at March 14, 2008 7:34 PM
Comment #247971

Jim M

Obama’s statement in VV’s link pretty much says it all. Obama has done the right thing. He has stepped up to the plate and explained his stance on this matter. I do not begrudge the fact that this matter has appeared. I see it as a good thing. People need these types of issues so they can make a determination as to how Obama will handle controversy and adversity.

It is obvious you have made your mind up on this matter. As stated earlier I feel no need for panic or doubt. In most cases such as this a person simply has to trust their judgment and instincts. I could raise doubts all day long about McCains judgment in his obviously close associations with less than mainstream religious fanatics. But my instincts tell me differently. At least until someone can show me proof that he himself practices those ideologies.

Posted by: RickIL at March 14, 2008 8:46 PM
Comment #247973

Jim M:

VV, You may be correct in saying that pastor Wright did not hate America in his youth and while in service to this country.

Oh, so then you admit that within the passage of time, Wright may well have completely changed his tone in what he said, or even in what he believed. So, if you can admit that, then you may be able to understand why someone who had a twenty year long relationship with his pastor and within his church congregation might still continue that relationship, even if he doesn’t approve or agree with the new direction his pastor’s feelings have gone in.

But to blithely ignore and “truly doubt” what he has said recently is awesome to me.

I said I truly doubt that Wright would go from being a U.S. Marine to hating America, but like Obama, I have absolutely no inclination to defend any of the things that Wright said in his sermon.

So now we have a man who is either a hypocrite, or bigot and racist, who is the mentor for a potential president of the US.

Just like McCain who has two brand new spiritual advisers who are bigots and racists who he doesn’t necessarily agree with, it seems like Obama has a twenty year long relationship with a man who he doesn’t always agree with.

Gee, that makes me feel better.

It’s pretty obvious that your real problem is that you don’t like Obama, so you’re not willing to excuse him for his relationship with Wright, though you’re obviously willing to excuse McCain for his new relationships with Hagee and Parsley.

That seems rather hypocritical to me.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 14, 2008 9:09 PM
Comment #248058

I guess all of these comments by the preachers just goes to show why the seperation of church and state is such a good idea, no matter who is in office and no matter which party is in office.

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as
religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: j2t2 at March 15, 2008 6:06 PM
Comment #248131

David M. your article is aptly named and the moniker does indeed fit the Democratic Party at this juncture. Just two months ago, there was no virtually no possibility of a Republican beating a Democrat for the White House. Democrats however, having shown their counterpart’s same desire for power over nation, power over leadership, power over common sense, seem to have managed to change those odds in Las Vegas to the GOP now having a reasonable chance of winning.

The Democratic Party is stupid enough to deliberately turn Democrats against Democrats like Hatfield’s and McCoy’s when all that was required was civility between the two front running candidates and a respect for rules. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot, they are worse than Cheney with a shotgun, he at least shot someone else. What is this suicidal penchant Democrats have at election time? Greed for power above all else, I say, which makes them no better than Republicans in this regard.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 16, 2008 1:44 AM
Comment #248137

David R.

Re- The Democratic Party is stupid enough to deliberately turn Democrats against Democrats like Hatfield’s and McCoy’s when all that was required was civility between the two front running candidates and a respect for rules. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot, they are worse than Cheney with a shotgun, he at least shot someone else. What is this suicidal penchant Democrats have at election time? Greed for power above all else, I say, which makes them no better than Republicans in this regard.

What we are witnessing is the Clinton aristocracy dropping all diplomacy in an all out attempt to avoid the embarrassment and humiliation of possibly being beaten by a black man. What is sad is that they are putting their needs ahead of those of the party and the American people. It is indeed a sad thing to witness David.

I was truly enjoying a refreshing respectable campaign for the first time that I can ever remember. I was really hoping that the dems would not lower themselves to republican campaign standards. Guess I should have known better.

Posted by: RickIL at March 16, 2008 10:28 AM
Comment #248155

Um, this from the party that smeared the Current Contender by implying through push polls that he had an illegitimate black child? That bastion of forthrightness and rectitude? C’mon, now. Don’t be disingenuous in your attempt to score cheap political points.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at March 16, 2008 3:56 PM
Post a comment