Obama: Excusing the Inexcusable

As the race and religion debate continues to swirl around him, Senator Barack Obama is having trouble keeping his story straight. His close relationship with his self-described spiritual advisor, Jeremiah Wright, has become a lightning rod for criticism and condemnation by people across the political spectrum.

His association with the David Duke of the black religious community is causing Obama to attempt to excuse the inexcusable and justify the unjustifiable while contradicting himself in the process.

On My Faith and My Church

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church. - - Barack Obama 03-14-08
I promptly labeled this the “ignorant boob” defense. The “I didn’t know nothin’ “argument lasted about four days to be followed by the “everyone’s racist, throw Grandma under the bus, I knew about it all along but that’s ok” defense.

Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. - Barack Obama 03-18-08

This, of course, was a direct contradiction of his Sergeant Shultz Huffingtonpost statement issued just a few days before. I wish he’d make up his mind. Will the real Barack please stand up? Which is it? You can’t have it both ways. And will the press be as observant as myself or just swallow the excuses hook, line and sinker? The American people should demand answers and the truth about a major presidential candidate having a bigot as a spiritual advisor.

It would also appear that Mr. Obama is woefully uniformed on what actually comes forth from the average pastor, priest or rabbi. If anyone has actually watched the various clips of the good Reverand at his best it is amazing that Barry could stand ten minutes of that, let alone twenty-three years worth.

My educated guess is that the fear of the possible (and probable) existence of a tape showing Barack nodding along to a radical and racist tirade by the good Reverend Wright helped him to change his mind in a hurry. So much for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, aura that the Senator from Illinois had been so careful to cultivate. The increasing panic in regards to these most recent revelations and Rev. Wrights racist rants was almost palpable.

Most of us could not get away with having a twenty plus year relationship with an anti-Semitic, anti-American mentor, but we are being asked to excuse that simply based on the candidate’s race and ‘rage’ at past injustices or something or other. The concept that African American pastors, and candidates, should get a free pass on disturbing behavior and speech simply because of their race is not an argument that I am willing to concede.

Either Barack Obama was just using Jeremiah Wright as a tool to gain acceptance in the black community all these years, or he actually believes this garbage and thought it was acceptable to expose his young children to such divisive and bitter sentiments, or he has just showed extremely and incredibly poor judgment over the last quarter century. I guess it’s just a case of picking your poison. Certainly any of these reasonable conclusions casts some dark doubts onto whether or not someone like that is even remotely qualified to be the President of the United States.

I am pleased that it wasn’t just me who noticed the flip flopping and misleading (to put it nicely) from He who can do no wrong. I guess in all the gushing, swooning and tear wiping over the new Gettysburg address, many forgot to ask the most important question of all. What about the lying and deceiving?

Buried in Eloquence, Obama Contradictions About Pastor

Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America’s racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons.

It increasingly appears that mere eloquence may be all it takes for one to find one’s way to the white house. The gushing in response to the “throwing Grandma under the bus because we used to have to ride in the back of it” speech was interesting to watch.

Some have indeed been extremely giddy over Obama’s version of Mitt Romney’s well received Mormon speech earlier in the year.

“[It was] best speech ever given on race in this country… I think this is the kind of speech I think first graders should see, people in the last year of college should see before they go out in the world. This should be, to me, an American tract.” —MSNBC’s Chris Matthews

While others have been less than impressed:

“[Barack] Obama says Rev. [Jeremiah] Wright is no longer among his campaign’s spiritual advisers.’ Obama should not be asked which of Rev. Wright’s outrageous statements he disagrees with, but rather which ones he does agree with. That Obama remains a member in good standing of Trinity United Church of Christ indicates that he prefers the company of many people who have demonstrated that they believe what their pastor has said.” —Cal Thomas

It remains to be seen if Sen. Obama managed to get the upper hand in this controversy while issuing enough reassurances that his crazy “uncle” is just an excusable contradiction to his public persona that he has so carefully constructed over the last few years. While this may satisfy the faithful that he is not just an easily led empty suit rubbing shoulders with radicals and racists, the entire situation does put a few more doubts in the minds of the so-called ‘moderates’ who increasingly see Sen. McCain as the only adult in the race watching the children wrestle in the mud.

It does appear that this speech was all the Main Stream Media needed to excuse their favorite presidential candidate from his unsavory associations and more than questionable judgment in the matter. Whether this was ‘too little, too late’ remains to be seen and whether this episode was enough of an excuse for superdelegates to break for Hillary despite the protestations of their constituents will be an interesting thing to watch for at the Denver Democratic convention.

Posted by David M. Huntwork at March 20, 2008 2:53 AM
Comments
Comment #248547

David H., what pure nonsense is this?

My great Aunt is a Republican. Does that mean I should disavow her as my Great Aunt and not give her a hug and a kiss when I meet her? My uncle is a Libertarian. Should I disavow him because of his anarchist views, and refuse to greet or stand in the same room as he at family gatherings. I love my Great Aunt, and my Uncle. Even if I find their political views abhorrent, and I do.

Obama condemns Wright’s over the top remarks, and displays a capacity for respect of differences and loyalty to friends and family, both qualities admired by Republicans. Or, are these qualities only admired when demonstrated by other Republicans and to be condemned by non-Republicans as your entire article implies?

Man, get a grip. I know Republicans are desperate, but, the vast majority of the critics of the relationship between Obama and Wright seem to be conservatives and Republicans. Methinks ya’ll doth protest too much! And hypocritically so, to boot that dumb cow down the trail.

Go back to some real and legitimate inquiries about Obama like experience. Y’all actually had some people joining you in that inquiry. This association smacks of a loser Party’s sour grapes and sense of desperation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 20, 2008 4:53 AM
Comment #248552

No excuses. He thoroughly criticized those points. But the Republicans have long indulged both in a selective focus on the faults of Liberal candidates and their associates and family, and in a rather unforgiving, divisive style of politics that judges quickly and harshly those outside the party, while giving folks inside the broadest possible benefit of the doubt (with a few notable exceptions) even to the point of shooting the messengers.

I think those that McCain willingly seeks out and associates himself with (Rod Parsley, John Hagee, Bob Jones University, that Cunningham guy in Ohio, and the late Jerry Falwell) are much more illuminating to his character, (given his past denunciations) and to the Republican’s hypocrisy on this subject.

Wright held some eccentric, even bigoted views. But is he alone in that in his generation? By no means. His generation is full of people who had an experience of a much more divided, bigoted America. Even my own parents, baby boomers, occasionally shock me with their beliefs.

You folks have narrowed your focus on Wright’s Views to the extent that Obama has broadened the dialogue in his historic speech. Your laser focus on his few objectionable sermons has increased, and the Republicans are repeating these talking points like human tape recorders.

I think it shows the cynicism, the habitual race-baiting that you folks can’t let this go, can’t acknowledge what should be the obvious fact that Obama has much more broader or nuanced ideas about race than Rev. Wright. You have to act like Barack is Wright’s clone, as if that’s the way we seriously relate to all our mentors. I know from my own experience that mentors and their proteges can have their differences on matters, sometimes to the point that they take radically different paths. If you were actually listening to the nuanced, understanding speech that Obama gave, you would not once entertain the thought that Obama’s a slavish follower of those bigoted beliefs.

But hey, you guys aren’t looking to really vet him, you’re looking to destroy them, like you look to destroy every liberal who comes your way, facts be damned. Last time you guys used race to try to win a campaign, you managed to sink a white guy. I guess sinking Obama would be a step up from that. You get to try and swiftboat an actual man of color this time. Aren’t you proud?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2008 7:20 AM
Comment #248554

David R. Remer

I think it is you who must a grip.

First off, Barry Obama’s chosing that particuliar church says a whole lot about his philosophical point of view….

Black Liberation Theology…which both you and I should be familiar with since our Vietnam-era days…is closer to a Malcom X type philosophy than a Martin Luther King philosophy.

The angty black man who is angry versus the black man who does what Jesus says to do..love.

Black Liberation Theology, born in that mold, preaches an undercurrent of solicialism, isolationism,and racicial divide. Look Wright’s web site, for heaven’s sake. Res ipse loquitor.

Thus, Barry’s chosing THAT philosophical type of a place for his spiritual guidance is the issue.

You portay Wright, it seems as a St. Paul or a John the Baptist….prophetic.

Dead wrong.

During the mid-nineteenth century, my ancestors were toiling the field of Sicily, economic slaves to the rich Spanish land owners. They lived in poverty, despair.

Exactly what do they have in common with the whites of the slave trade…a trade aided, by the way, by many black tribes in Africa who were only too happy to assist the white European as potential slaves were hunted and sold.

That is a convienient truth forgotten.

Or, how about the poor european immigrants…who died on the battlefields during the Civil War..over 500,000 “whites”….the vast majority of which never owned a slave…or saw one?

Or how about the 200,000 who died during the First World war, the 500,000 who died during the Second, the 45,000 who died during Korea, the 50,000 who died during Vietnam, the nearly 4,000 who died in Iraq…..the vast majority…white.. died trying to stamp out tyrany.

No, David…this is a philosophical war within the Black communiry…the philosophy of Malcom and his prodigeny versus the message of Gandhi and King.

Today we know where Barry is on that side…and the American voters..all of them…have evry right to know this prior to pulling that lever in November.

Posted by: sicilia eagle at March 20, 2008 7:27 AM
Comment #248557

Sicilia eagle,

Totally agree with your point of view. Black are generally intellectually inferior and cowardice. There is no doubt about it.

Many blacks are working in government or elected representative simply because of number of black voters. They never make it in private sector, where only intelligence counts.

Ada

Posted by: ada at March 20, 2008 8:04 AM
Comment #248558

ada

Bull crap. If that is what you think, look in the mirror. You will see Jerimiah Wright.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at March 20, 2008 8:24 AM
Comment #248559

‘Go back to some real and legitimate inquiries about Obama like experience.’

Life experience and the influence of the people around you don’t count?
I can’t choose my crazy Uncle anymore than he can choose the niece that thinks he’s crazy. It doesn’t mean I have to go to his house every sunday.

Posted by: Dawn at March 20, 2008 8:26 AM
Comment #248560

What complete nonsense.
One side of the Republican rhetoric mouth claims Obama is Muslim, sends pictures of him in African garb. The other side of the mouth says that he should be held accountable for the words of the Pastor in his Church.

Which is it? Are you going to call him a Muslim or a Christian? Or are you accepting that he’s a Christian and are now going after Obama with someone else’s words? Are you saying that the Pastor’s comments are actually Obama’s comments in-proxy?

What a load of crap.

Posted by: john trevisani at March 20, 2008 8:33 AM
Comment #248563

Apparently, a number of people have never heard of a black person growing up outside the “black community”. The confusion about this indicates the level of residual racism in the country. Obama lives in an integrated community, but ran for office in the predemoninantly segregated district that surrounds it. Changes will be happening there too, as it is supposed to be the site for much of the 2016 Olympics.

Obama should never have given that speech.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 20, 2008 9:06 AM
Comment #248568

David H

Reasonable people have listened to the man and understand his stand on the issue. Until you can find instance of similar words of Pastor Wright spewing forth from Mr. Obama’s mouth you can not fairly accuse him of holding such extreme views.

People such as yourself do not want this issue to die. Racism as expressed quite eloquently by a poster in another blog yesterday is seen as a necessary tool for those who hope to use the issue to their advantage. Unfortunately such tactics only help to fuel and grow the resulting hatreds.

I would ask you if you have acquaintances with bigots in your life. If you say no I know you would be lying. They exist in everyones life most everyday of every year. We work with them, go to church with them, live with them, eat and drink with them. Are you prepared to denounce and completely dissociate every person you know, friends, family, casual acquaintances, fellow workers who have ever uttered a bigoted remark? Are you prepared to distance yourself from everyone who has ever uttered a remark that did not share your beliefs? I doubt it.

I believe you mentioned that your father is a pastor in another post. Has your father denounced these people and demanded that they leave his church. I doubt it. Many of them probably contribute quite nicely to the church coffers.

My point here is that you can no more expect Mr. Obama to denounce and separate himself from a family of people he has known for years simply because some of them share and express different views, than you would expect of yourself or anyone else.

Posted by: RickIL at March 20, 2008 9:41 AM
Comment #248571

So let’s take a look at this “contradiction”.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.
and then…
Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely
The statements made by Wright are, I assume, something recent. So how often has Barack had a chance to go to his home church recently? What with being on the campaign trail and all? Two, maybe three times in the last 4 months? So, while he has heard Wright say controversial things in the past, the statements that started this controversy are something Obama did not personally hear. Thus, no contradiction. Sorry.

Oh, and for the record, still votin’ for Barack, but his pastor is a dolt. I think it was Chris Rock who said on one of his stand-up DVDs that the most racist people in the world are old black men.

L

Posted by: leatherankh at March 20, 2008 9:47 AM
Comment #248572

The statements made by Wright are, I assume, something recent. So how often has Barack had a chance to go to his home church recently? What with being on the campaign trail and all?

You assume wrong. The comment about “America’s chickens coming home to roost” on 9/11 were made the Sunday following 9/11

Posted by: Duane-o at March 20, 2008 10:08 AM
Comment #248574

Face it. Jeremiah Wright has done what neither Hillary nor the Republicans have been able to do. He has ended Obama’s campaign for the White House. He’s finished, and all the recent polling bears that out. John McCain is now polling five to six points ahead of both Democrats, and Obama is in a state of freefall against Hillary. Problem for the Dims is, they are stuck with Barry for the general election. With Florida and Michigan out of the picture as it now appears, there’s no way for Hillary to make up the needed ground. “I John Sydney McCain do solemnly swear…….”

Posted by: Duane-o at March 20, 2008 10:22 AM
Comment #248575

‘Until you can find instance of similar words of Pastor Wright spewing forth from Mr. Obama’s mouth you can not fairly accuse him of holding such extreme views.’
RickIL at March 20, 2008 09:41 AM

Until you can read his mind you can’t say that he doesn’t.
Obama is supposed to be a smart man.
He was also working on a political career.
He must have known a long time ago that he would never get out of that district if he sounded like his pastor.


Black Theology
‘Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]’


This is taught at Obama’s church?
Sounds familiar.

Posted by: Dawn at March 20, 2008 10:41 AM
Comment #248577

Sicilian Eagle-
What do you guys know about what he preached on a regular basis? You guys watch five seconds on your pundits talk shows, and all of a sudden you know everything about what Jeremiah Wright preached, and what Obama believes, and took away from their relationship.

The irony is, if you actually read or heard his speech is that he talked about the resentment of those whose ancestors didn’t bring the slaves over, who built themselves up from nothing, who weren’t given anything and dislike others being given something, just because they had it hard.

Such resentments are understandable, he said, but they can get in the way, become distractions, a point he made in parallel about his own pastor, as he explained the long suffering and consequences of slavery and Jim Crow. Even as Italians and Irish like my family and yours were allowed to move on up, and move on up, they were still excluded, often by force. The humiliation and degradation of not merely having to fight up from nothing, but having others trying to take it from you had its effects, and this anger, this resentment, he said, is real, and you can no more wish it away than you can wish away the resentments of whites who think the Blacks are getting it easy.

Until you recognize this anger for what it is, and recognize the resentment of many whites born of immigrant heritage, until you are willing to forgive these people on both side for their harsh, negative feelings, there is no way to take the focus off of those distractions and focus on the issues we have in common.

If you want to know what “Barry” really thinks, you have a prime opportunity to find out that you’ve passed up. So committed are you to holding Wright against Obama that you have closed your ears to what he really said, words that agree more closely with your sentiments than you seem to indicate. Here’s your opportunity to read and watch it for yourself, straight from the horse’s mouth.

Personally, I can say that it’s one of the bravest speeches I’ve been witness to in my life. Never have I heard a politician be so candid, frank, and pointed about the third-rail subject of race. He did what you are trying to do, and did it right: he presented exactly what was wrong with this Pastor’s words.

At the same time, he did the Christian thing, and with his long and much more in depth experience of Reverend Wright as a pastor, explained both the outbursts, and the context that leads him to neither disassociate himself from the church nor from the man who raised him in his faith.

The sad part about this is the extent to which the right is happy with taking such a pessimisticaly and cynically narrow view of the pastor, instead of seeing the portrayal as the race-baiting cariacture that it is. It’s time for America to grow up and stop kneejerk reacting to race in such divisive ways. You’re not opposing Reverend Wright’s error in his preaching, you’re simply imitating it in reverse.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2008 10:59 AM
Comment #248578

Dawn’s comments were written by James Cone, a Black Liberation Theologian. In an interview on “Hannity and Colmes” in early 2007, Jeremiah Wright told Sean Hannity that he needed to “go read the works of Cone” to get a handle on Wright’s theology before asking the obviously stupid white ignorant questions he was asking.

Posted by: Duane-o at March 20, 2008 11:02 AM
Comment #248581

Stephen

Answer one simple question:

Is Barry’s philosophy closer to the Gandhi/King non-violent philosophy or the Malcom X/ New Black Panther philosophy?

American voters have a right to know.

Try focusing on that simple question.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at March 20, 2008 11:12 AM
Comment #248582

Obama is finished. Not only is he unfit to be President, but the proper thing for him to do would be to resign from his Senate seat. Imagine video of a white preacher saying what Wright said in reverse, and then imagine any Republican politician having been in the same state as said preacher during any time in his political life. Just like Obama calling for Don Imus’ head when that controversy broke, and now coddles Wright. Obama is a lying hypocrite who needs to go.

Posted by: Duane-o at March 20, 2008 11:13 AM
Comment #248588

SE, Duano, et all,

If your comments here weren’t so ironic, they would be hysterical.

You are so willing to take Rev. Wright’s comments at face value, as the mere ravings of a black bigot, yet seek a deeper motivation as to Obama’s repudiation of those comments.
You also seem unwilling to understand there is a perception in the black community that a black man can go only so far in American society, and no further.
You think that Obama has been “coddled” to get to where he is and he deserves to get no further because as you say, he is a hypocrite.
I suppose that it’s OK in your eyes that McCain is sucking up to the “Bob Jones’” of this country because he is more in line with what your perception of what a President should be.
Yep, old, white, and conservative, that makes perfect sense.
Is the right so incapable of original thought that they must be lead by the nose by these far right commentators, who obviously are the only true “patriots” left in this country?

Who are the true hypocrites here?

Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2008 12:13 PM
Comment #248589

S.D., that speech is even worse than I remember, when you see it in writing. I am going to compare it to the Selma speech, which was what I linked previously, which has some similarities. Obama needs to hire a professional speech writer, and the usual consultants like any other candidate, and stop trying to do it all himself. We are not living in the era of William Jennings Bryan, who practiced law in a college town where my grandfather taught. ( Jacksonville, IL )

Posted by: ohrealy at March 20, 2008 12:15 PM
Comment #248594

“Yep, old, white, and conservative, that makes perfect sense.”

Well, I’d take young, black, and conservative. Or old, hispanic, and conservative. Or middle aged, Asian, and conservative. Or ancient, middle eastern, and conservative. And make those guys or girls, by the way. Yeah, conservative goes well with all races, ages, and genders.

Posted by: Duane-o at March 20, 2008 12:28 PM
Comment #248599

The Obamawan has created a no-win situation for himself and his “chickens have come home to roost”. Those with political aspirations seek support from wherever they can find it. The Obamawan sought the support of the black community to rise in politics in Illinois. That’s fine and appropriate. He made the choice to associate with those whose words he would later have to denounce. That’s fine too. And now, he is being judged by those associations and choices as he should be.

Many claim to know The Obamawan’s mind today. I don’t think so. How could we? We have heard conflicting statements from Obamawan about his beliefs. That is very Clintonesque and won’t get him out of the mess of his own creation.

There will be more coming on the Obamawan saga and it won’t be pretty. We have just seen the previews, not the movie.

Posted by: Jim M at March 20, 2008 12:37 PM
Comment #248598

Obama is a racist and needs to drop out of the Presidential race. It’s the only right thing for him to do.
If someone is a member of a church for 23 years you can bet you last dollar they have heard everything their pastor believes. And they agree with 99.99% of it.
I’ve been a member of the same church for 24 years. I’ve been there that long because I believe what the church teaches. I’ve also heard my pastor’s religious views preached and agree with him. And after having him over for dinner on several occasions I also know his political views and pretty well agree with him. Of course there are some points where I disagree with him both religiously and politically. But these are very minor point. If they were major points (specially the religious points) I wouldn’t attend the church. Much less be a member there.
Something as racist and divisive as Pastor Wrights remarks ARENOT minor points. And if Obama disagreed with them why did he stay a member of that church for 23 years? Why didn’t he leave the church and find another one? The fact that he didn’t tells me that he agrees with his pastors statements. This leads me to believe that Obama is as racist as his pastor. And it should tell everyone else the same thing.
Again, Obama is a racist and needs to out of the Presidential race.
I don’t care what color they are. There aint no room for a racist in the White House.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 20, 2008 12:37 PM
Comment #248597

Obama is a racist and needs to drop out of the Presidential race. It’s the only right thing for him to do.
If someone is a member of a church for 23 years you can bet you last dollar they have heard everything their pastor believes. And they agree with 99.99% of it.
I’ve been a member of the same church for 24 years. I’ve been there that long because I believe what the church teaches. I’ve also heard my pastor’s religious views preached and agree with him. And after having him over for dinner on several occasions I also know his political views and pretty well agree with him. Of course there are some points where I disagree with him both religiously and politically. But these are very minor point. If they were major points (specially the religious points) I wouldn’t attend the church. Much less be a member there.
Something as racist and divisive as Pastor Wrights remarks ARENOT minor points. And if Obama disagreed with them why did he stay a member of that church for 23 years? Why didn’t he leave the church and find another one? The fact that he didn’t tells me that he agrees with his pastors statements. This leads me to believe that Obama is as racist as his pastor. And it should tell everyone else the same thing.
Again, Obama is a racist and needs to out of the Presidential race.
I don’t care what color they are. There aint no room for a racist in the White House.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 20, 2008 12:37 PM
Comment #248596

Obama is a racist and needs to drop out of the Presidential race. It’s the only right thing for him to do.
If someone is a member of a church for 23 years you can bet you last dollar they have heard everything their pastor believes. And they agree with 99.99% of it.
I’ve been a member of the same church for 24 years. I’ve been there that long because I believe what the church teaches. I’ve also heard my pastor’s religious views preached and agree with him. And after having him over for dinner on several occasions I also know his political views and pretty well agree with him. Of course there are some points where I disagree with him both religiously and politically. But these are very minor point. If they were major points (specially the religious points) I wouldn’t attend the church. Much less be a member there.
Something as racist and divisive as Pastor Wrights remarks ARENOT minor points. And if Obama disagreed with them why did he stay a member of that church for 23 years? Why didn’t he leave the church and find another one? The fact that he didn’t tells me that he agrees with his pastors statements. This leads me to believe that Obama is as racist as his pastor. And it should tell everyone else the same thing.
Again, Obama is a racist and needs to out of the Presidential race.
I don’t care what color they are. There aint no room for a racist in the White House.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 20, 2008 12:37 PM
Comment #248600

Watchblog Editor
I don’t know what happend. It seems that my comments got posted 3 times. Can you correct it?Sorry.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 20, 2008 12:40 PM
Comment #248602

David Remer:

“My great Aunt is a Republican. Does that mean I should disavow her as my Great Aunt and not give her a hug and a kiss when I meet her?”

No one is suggesting you should treat your family that way. As stated above more eloquently than I, you can’t choose your family. But this man clearly choose his pastor and what’s more, chose him to be his mentor. He did not try to mentor Wright to a position more in line with a man of god but chose to let this bigot be his “spiritual advisor”. And if he knew nothing of this mans overt racism, why was he dis-invited to give the opening prayer to his campaign kickoff? It is because clearer heads saw what trouble was under that rock.

“Obama condemns Wright’s over the top remarks,”

OVER THE TOP? are you kidding me? Have you or any of your political stripe ever characterized David Duke’s remarks as “over the top”? No, he is denounced as the racist scum that he is and his remarks branded as the worst that man can say of his fellow man. I have led that charge on more occasions than I can count. Why can’t you see this and help lead this charge, as you know you should? It is because of your blind obedience to your political identity that will allow you to overlook something that is on your doorstep, that you would scream from the rooftop if it was on your neighbors porch.

Stephen Daugherty:

“But the Republicans have long indulged both in a selective focus on the faults of Liberal candidates and their associates and family, and in a rather unforgiving, divisive style of politics that judges quickly and harshly those outside the party, while giving folks inside the broadest possible benefit of the doubt”

Once again your tendency to project Democrat faults on Republicans shines through. As indicated from most of your posts, you are always the first to jump on the “you Republicans do it too” bandwagon so fast as to denude yourself of any credibility in your argument.
Not one of those people you associate with Mcain could be classified as the close spiritual advisor as Wright was to Obama.

“Wright held some eccentric, even bigoted views.”

Oh, thank you so much for that admissin, as dissembled as it is.

“But is he alone in that in his generation? “

I suppose that is meant as an excuse to just give it a pass.

“I know from my own experience that mentors and their proteges can have their differences on matters, sometimes to the point that they take radically different paths.”

But their paths never parted, did they? He remains a member of the church that is the home of vile, racist tendencies and friends with a vile and racist leader of that church. How convenient that the “reverend” Wright is now out of the country and not expected back until December, long after the election is over.

ada:

I do not know who you are, but I think you are a plant to try and brand all the red column as racist.

“Totally agree with your point of view. Black are generally intellectually inferior and cowardice. There is no doubt about it”

Nowhere in SE’s post did he say this. Yours is the type of bigotry that EVERYONE here is trying to stamp out. Can I get an Amen from the left here?

Dawn:

“I can’t choose my crazy Uncle anymore than he can choose the niece that thinks he’s crazy. It doesn’t mean I have to go to his house every sunday.”

Perfectly stated. David and Stephen, PLEASE take note of this statement, I believe it was directed at you.

John Trevisani:

“One side of the Republican rhetoric mouth claims Obama is Muslim, sends pictures of him in African garb.”

No, son, it is the Dems of Camp Hillary who are doing this, but thanks for the effort.

“The other side of the mouth says that he should be held accountable for the words of the Pastor in his Church.”

No one has ever said that ANYONE is responsible for the words of ANYONE. You are just trying (unsuccessfully) to try and put words in other peoples mouths, when you should be watching what comes out of yours.

RickIL:

“My point here is that you can no more expect Mr. Obama to denounce and separate himself from a family of people he has known for years simply because some of them share and express different views, than you would expect of yourself or anyone else.”

Most everyone I have known who goes to church went to several of them to find a message they can believe in and people they can relate to. And by the standing ovation and applause these racist rants received, I would say that most people there shared the reverends views. So yes, I expect Obama to distance himself from those who hate because of the color of someones skin. In fact, I would have expected no less from anyone who seek to represent all of us, regardless of the color of our skin.

Leatherankh:

“The statements made by Wright are, I assume, something recent.”

These are not just recent statements, and they are not an exception, either. Until recently they were available at the church on DVD, no less. You people are really reaching here to excuse something you would not tolerate in the Republican ranks.

” the statements that started this controversy are something Obama did not personally hear. Thus, no contradiction. Sorry.”

One of the above mentioned DVD’s was purchased by Obama, but I am sure a campaign aid has surreptitiously redacted his collection.

Dawn:

“He must have known a long time ago that he would never get out of that district if he sounded like his pastor.”

Again, you are right on target. The reasons behind this are very simple. While it suited his purpose, he had no problem being associated with this church to bolster his black street credibility. Now that he is seeking national office, he would prefer if no one had ever heard of the reverend Wright, a man who has no doubt helped him to achieve that which he now holds. A man who has been instrumental in the “experience” that Obama claims to make him able to be president.

Posted by: Beirut Vet at March 20, 2008 12:45 PM
Comment #248601

I think that those of you who find this “inexcusable” do protest too much. Either it hits a vulnerable spot for you, or you are so desperate that this is all you can concentrate on. Either way, it’s pretty desperate. That’s what’s inexcusable.

Posted by: womanmarine at March 20, 2008 12:45 PM
Comment #248604

“Who are the true hypocrites here?”

The one’s who constantly suggest all Republicans must support what the “Bob Jones” of this country preaches, but that its wrong to suggest Obama may support what his own Pastor preaches?

Posted by: kctim at March 20, 2008 1:06 PM
Comment #248606

SE-
Easy: it’s closer to King.

As for what the relationship with Wright means, I’m a practicing Catholic who attends church weekly almost without fail. Does that mean that I am the same politically or spiritually as my pastors? Not necessarily. I’m not comfortable with all aspects of Catholic Doctrine, but I consider the attractions of the faith, which I only recently joined in full, greater than the downsides. Now you know my positions. Am I just hiding my true feelings, or am I telling you a truth that somebody with stereotyped visions of my religion might not accept easily?

I would say that it’s better to ask the man first, to peruse his statements on the record. Factually speaking, I have yet to see Barack Obama promote hating whitey. He was recently stating that he believed OJ guilty. At classes he has taught, he told students that he hadn’t done his job right unless they came out of his class a little more uncertain about the rightness of affirmative action. This is a guy who said in his speech that there was something to the resentments of those who didn’t appreciate busing or blacks getting help.

To really smear Obama, his words are little help. You have to tar him by association, assert the paranoid notion that he’s hiding his real beliefs. In other words, you have to ignore the evidence in front of you.

ohrealy-
You’re in a distant minority. Most people who heard or read that speech thought it was brilliant, including some prominent Republicans. You’re probably the exception that proves the rule on this one.

Ron Brown-
I’ve heard somethings in mass, which I’ve attended for the past 6 years, 5 years as a full member, that I’ve badly disagreed with. But on the whole, I agree with much of the doctrine, and see the sense in it. It’s not a simple equation, especially not with Liberals who may be more inclined to take the good with the bad.

Obama is not a racist. I doubt you can really come up with anything HE said to prove that point. You’re assigning him responsibility for Pastor Wright’s words. Should you assign me responsiblity for whatever my priest says? Should I be held responsible for everything the Catholic Church says or does? Or should I be considered responsible for what I say and/or do?

Are you for that or against it? If you’re for it, then you must judge Obama by his own actions, his own statements, not rain on his parade for his pastor or churches. Just as you should not hold the racism of the Mormon Church during its more segregationalist days agains Mitt Romney, nor should you hold against Obama any doctrines that his church has put forward that he himself has not advocated.

This is, at its basis, nothing else than fear of (to borrow the controversial phrase) the racial chickens coming home to roost. You’re afraid that Barack Obama will lead some kind of Black Panther presidency, revealing his true bigotry at the last moment, when it’s too late.

Or worse, you’re just trying to race-bait for cynical reasons, distracting from the strength of his capabilities as a presidential candidate. I would rather think you prey to irrational fears than rational bigotry. The real question is, are you going to take Obama’s consistent statements of racial harmony at face value, or are you going to level accusation based on unfounded speculation relating to his associations?

Jim M-
The politically conventional thing for him to do would have been to quit the church. Instead, he strongly distanced himself from what was wrong in no uncertain terms, but at the same time acknowledge his association. He wasn’t going to try to fool anybody about his associations. Instead, he told the truth about himself and his throughts, and how they differed from his spiritual mentors.

We are not limited by the beliefs and ideas of our mentors. We can grow beyond them. If you need any more evidence that he’s grown beyond them, I don’t know what to tell you. He’s done all that’s humanly possible to make his opinions known.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2008 1:18 PM
Comment #248607

SicilianEagle,
“Or, how about the poor european immigrants…who died on the battlefields during the Civil War..over 500,000 “whites”….the vast majority of which never owned a slave…or saw one?

Or how about the 200,000 who died during the First World war, the 500,000 who died during the Second, the 45,000 who died during Korea, the 50,000 who died during Vietnam, the nearly 4,000 who died in Iraq…..the vast majority…white.. died trying to stamp out tyrany.”

You helped make Wright’s point.We are seen by others as the “tyrants”. We are a nation that stole it’s land from indigenous(brown) people, enslaved(brown) people and nuked(brown) people and attacked(Vietnam, Middle East)(brown) people for less than credible reasons.
So many non white churches have historically questioned the white Christianity that constantly allows for their(Christians) actions to be totally contrary to the teachings of Christ.
If you were a slave and just got beaten for let’s say stealing bread or god forbid you tried to stop the plantation overseer from selling your children, wouldn’t you think Christ must really suck or the white version of Christianity must suck because the followers of that religion who are attending church as we speak and call themselves “Christians” are assholes?
What about Muslims who realize this administration attacked Iraq based on lies and misinformation? Bush is a “Christian.”
What about the long history of Christian atrocities commited by white Europeans? I can see why there is a divide between white America Christianity and Christianity.
If you think MLK didn’t on many occasions think to himself, how the #&** do the people who spit in my face and call me nigger call themselves “Christian?” you’re kidding yourself.
When a pastor at his church wants to point out fault with United States policies he’s doing so because he has every right to.
There are way too many Americans who want to pretend the United States is this gentle giant of good christian values that sprang up because the fortitude and grit of a few white guys.
This country has screwed way too many groups of folks for me to be able to look at it through rose colored glasses.
Reality is what reality is and you can’t change our past with god bless America, or live free and die hard dip shit slogans.
Here’s a question for the “Christians?” You really think that god would take time out from his busy(I’m assuming) schedule to go, “mmmm, I think I’ll bless a small percentage of the humans I created because they have more F#$#king T.V.’s and more breast implants than those jack-offs in China and the Ukrain?”
Why can’t we ask questions or have expectations any more?
Why do people of color have to pretend to share your beliefs even though they have a completely differnt experience from yours?
What about the far right kooks who say god is damning us for being too gay friendly, rock and roll music, interracial dating, letting women leave the kitchen wearing shoes to boot?
The GOP is sooooooooooo desperate to get another of the rich old white guys elected they have to grasp at” patriot” straws.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 20, 2008 1:25 PM
Comment #248609

kctim-
Where’s your evidence that he supports what came out in those sermons?

Beirut Vet-
The major spokesmen of your party come on television all the time and say things just as hateful as anything Reverend Wright ever spoke or wrote. Not only do they do this, but they are encouraged to do this. They associate themselves with people whose views, as presented have been just as bigoted, just as nasty as Wrights were in those few sermons. And what do you say? You’re just as bad.

No. We’re not. When somebody on our campaign starts beating up on Christianity, or even calling the opponent a monster, it doesn’t get waited out, we fire the person, even if they’re an otherwise great advisor. When somebody among us makes a racial slur, you know they’ll be nailed six ways from Sunday if they don’t apologize or explain that they really meant. The polls indicate that Obama lost some support for his Reverends view. His speech may gain it back for him, but it was becoming a serious issue.

We’re not all perfect. We’re not always politically correct. But we find those who exploit racial divisions not truth tellers defying political correctness, but folks at odds with our principles who need to explain themselves.

I will take Obama’s stated positions as representing his opinion, rather than carbon copying his pastors sentiments and stapling those to Obama’s forehead. A man takes responsiblity for himself. He cannot be asked to be responsible for everybody who speaks beside him and on his behalf. You can love the sinner without loving the sin.

If we only embrace those who never offend us or fall short of our standards, we will find our arms pretty empty. Adults in this country disagree freely. Take Obama’s disagreements at face value.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2008 1:29 PM
Comment #248611

Rev. Wright preaches out of, what I consider to be, a legitimate tradition of revolt, insurrection, resistance, anger, frustration with a racist system that lives on today, ala Malcolm X, Marcus Garvey.
I am 56 years old. I can remember walking up to a water fountain and being admonished not to drink out of it because it was “for colored only”.
I lived in Tucson for many years. There was a community pool there in the 40’s and 50’s and blacks were most generously allowed to swim in it on each thursday. Why Thursday? because the pool was drained and refilled each Friday with fresh water.
I completely understand how an older black in this country could say the things that have been attributed to Rev. Wright. Housing denied, Jobs denied, voting rights denied, prosperity denied, ACCESS denied. If the people on this board who criticize this man’s words (and by extension Obama, because that is really the agenda here) had experienced what the average elderly black person in this country has, how would you feel?
I’m asking how you would feel?

Posted by: Charles Ross at March 20, 2008 1:34 PM
Comment #248612

kctim,

“The one’s who constantly suggest all Republicans must support what the “Bob Jones” of this country preaches, but that its wrong to suggest Obama may support what his own Pastor preaches?”

I never suggested support either way.
I merely suggested that Republican “candidates” have sought the political support of the “Bob Jones’” while condemning Obama even after he repudiated the comments of his former pastor.

That, my friend, is hypocrisy.

Please, show me the Republican candidate that has repudiated the “Bob Jones’” segment of the Republican Party and I will retract my comment about hypocrisy.

Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #248613

Excusing the Inexcusable,

The people of this country are guilty of excusing the inexcusable!!!!!!

We have excused the smirking chimp and the wing nuts for rigging the last two presidential elections, destroying the US economy with trickledown economics, record profits for his oil buddies, record gas prices, record prescription drug costs by making laws that prevent us from negotiating lower prices, record health care cost, record uninsured, allowing predatory lending practices, the rape of our environment, the deterioration of our schools, roads and bridges and the Iraq holocaust!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at March 20, 2008 1:44 PM
Comment #248618

Obama is finished. Get over it. Let’s move on to more important matters like President McCain’s plans for Iraq and the economy.

Posted by: Duane-o at March 20, 2008 2:37 PM
Comment #248619

Stephen

malarky. If Barry was closer to King in his philosopy, he would never had been in Wright’s congregation.

You say now he is…that is becasue of one thing: politics.
He needs the white vote. period.

He sat and listened for years to a racist….a racist who held the opposite view of King…

Now you say he is closer to King?

Baloney.

A wolf in sheep’s clothing is what he is.

This discussion has nothing to do with the inhumanity of the white race . Nothing.

It has to do with a complete lack of judgement.

Plain and simple.

The polls are reflecting this too….

Now, you guys will be stuck with him…talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory….


Posted by: sicilian eagle at March 20, 2008 2:39 PM
Comment #248620

Stephen
You are twisting so badly in order to defend a fellow Dem, that you are not reading or hearing straight. The majority of people who may or may not vote for Obama are asking questions and seeking a clear answer, but so far all they have gotten is a deflection speech, have been shouted down or have been told its all the Republicans fault.

Rocky
I never suggested support either. I simply suggested that liberals are quick to condemn any and all Republicans who are just in the same room as a person such as wright, but are even quicker to defend and justify the situation when it is one of their own.

That, my friend, is also hypocrisy and watching people trying to score political points or trying to cover their party’s ass, is very entertaining.

Posted by: kctim at March 20, 2008 2:53 PM
Comment #248621

kctim,

“That, my friend, is also hypocrisy and watching people trying to score political points or trying to cover their party’s ass, is very entertaining.”

If you also include trying to end the debate by changing the subject of the debate I couldn’t agree more.

Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2008 2:58 PM
Comment #248623

Yes Rocky, you got me. We both pointed out the hypocrisy on this issue and neither of us can prove the other wrong, so my attempt for an amicable conclusion is nothing more than an attempt to “change the subject.”
My bad.

Posted by: kctim at March 20, 2008 3:15 PM
Comment #248624

kctim,

My comment was aimmed not at you, but at the others here that seem not to be able to conduct a reasoned debate without changing the subject, or taking their marbles and going home.

On the other hand it took 35 responses to this thread for someone to take a swipe at Bush.

Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2008 3:27 PM
Comment #248627

Bierut Vet

So yes, I expect Obama to distance himself from those who hate because of the color of someones skin. In fact, I would have expected no less from anyone who seek to represent all of us, regardless of the color of our skin.

Now you are assuming that every person who attends that church is a hateful person with ill intent. Pretty presumptuous on your part. Also pretty shallow and certainly not in keeping with good Christian philosophy.

You folks of small minds can rant all you want it will change little. Your misconceptions and true colors are showing through more and more as each and every new anti Obama post here seems to evolve into the presentation of an ever deeper and darker demagogue of sin and hatred. I would suggest that all you holier than thou do gooders load up your buses with good Christian conservatives and drive to Chicago and try to save these despicable black people from themselves. Don’t forget your ropes because it may be useful to lynch a couple of those white hatin ni—ers. Damn them to hell for not practicing religion in the good white Christian conservative format. A format that consists of leaving your prejudices at the door when entering the church, and picking them up on the way out.

Posted by: RickIL at March 20, 2008 3:36 PM
Comment #248629

What irony the dems are defending the religious comments of their presidential candidate from the republican parties obvious intolerance of religious sppech. Hopefully it is now clear to the repubs why there is a seperation between church and state in this country. Perhaps now those on the far religious right can come to terms with why their attacks on this seperation of church and state the past 30 years is so foolish.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 20, 2008 4:05 PM
Comment #248631

What really strikes me here is how every conservative and right-winger on this site has started out with the assumption that Wright is that seriously racist. Tell me: how many of you say this having actually examined any other evidence than those few clips? What then, if you have not, entitles you to say what is the normal kind of sermon that Wright would perform, the normal kind of preaching that he would preach?

What’s more, how many of you have enough experience of black churches to understand the context of his objectionable comments?

There’s another bad habit on display here from the Republicans and the right: the notion that explanation and giving of context is excusal. Maybe to a mindset that wants to condemn and demonize anything that lessons the appearance of absolute, unadulterated wrongness could be seen that way, but there is a way to acknowledge what is wrong without casting the person as a villain in some melodrama.

Very few are defending his comments. Some are saying, though, that these are not typical, that Wright typically takes a less strident line than this. If so, it is patently dishonest and a distortion to present those clips as the sum of his opinions. The same would apply for whatever adherence to a supposedly followed theology might be true. It would explain why an apparently moderate man would not throw his pastor under the bus for the sake of his political career.

Obama is saying there are some deeply felt hard feelings here, and you need to forgive the people who express those hard feelings even as you take issue with what they say and disagree. After all, your party wants people to forgive Whites for feeling some resentments over recent history, recent perceived injustices. How can you ask forgiveness without giving it? How can you indulge your own hard feelings, but say to the guy whose got a hell of a lot longer ancestry of greivance that he can’t indulge his?

Finally, what particular good can come from our endless parade of dissociations? The collapse of the Republican Party as a political force is in no small part due to their wish to sever relations with those they disagree with. They separate themselves from critics of the war, of Bush’s foreign policy, separate themselves from those who don’t endlessly favor tax cuts, separate themselves from those who don’t agree with church intrusion into matters of state, and so on and so forth; the problem has become that Republicans have recognized that their party is not of one mind. But instead of recognizing this range of opinions, they pretend nothing’s wrong, and pretend like they like each others positions, while at the same time constantly working at cross purposes.

At some point, you have to learn to live with those who disagree with you. I remember being invited to another student’s room and being unexpectedly browbeated with a sales job on their religion. At the time, I was pretty much of an agnostic, your standard issue secular humanist. I could have been very angry and very offended.

But you know something? These weren’t bad people. They didn’t deserve me turning them into the bad guys, even if what they did seemed rather rude and deceptive. So I gently parried their arguments, and kept my cool. It wasn’t my fondest idea of how to spend my time, but I didn’t have to become disagreeable to disagree with them.

So let me reiterate what I’ve said, perhaps in a different form: those piling on Rev. Wright and Obama by extension are not defeating his errors, or his bad thinking, they’re simply imitating it in the opposite direction, distorting and defaming people they don’t know because of more deep-seated resentments, fears and humiliations. You’re not part of the solution here, you’re part of the problem.

If the Republicans won’t forgive people for disagreeing with them, it’s going to be ever harder for them to sway people towards what they believe is right.

SE-
If Obama truly was racist, a black separatist, I don’t think he could have written that speech, nor delivered it with conviction. It was a political risk to do so, and he could have simply gotten away with all sorts of political boilerplate if safety was his aim. Go read it or watch it, and then decide what he’s taken away from his years at Wright’s church. Tell me: what bigot would go so far and into so much detail to tell his opponents that he understands where they’re coming from?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2008 4:17 PM
Comment #248633

Stephen/etc.

This is simply politics. I’m not sure what people expect.

Obama is extremely gifted, green and very liberal. The further you get to the fringes of the political spectrum the more “interesting” people become.

The Wright episode is simply the first box car in a long train. You simply cannot be as liberal as Obama is without having extremist embarrass you.

You had some real crap up there a ways when you were implying Rebublicans should be concerned. McCain is at least even with Obama in the polls. If anyone needs to be concerned it’s the left. Obama is a much higher risk candidate that McCain because McCain is well known.

Besides, who me where liberals increase their popularity between March and November. Ford made up almost 30% in 1976 against Carter. Your candidate needs to be way ahead right now to win, and you are not, you are neck and neck with McCain.

The most likely outcome is the Obama is going to fade. He is so far up there in expectations that it is hard to imagine him going higher. It is far easier to imagine him dropping as his extremist associations come to light on at a time.

He is the best spoken liberal I have ever heard!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 20, 2008 4:58 PM
Comment #248635

Stephen:

I reread your post above and I think you are way off base. You want all of us to be reasonable when many of us have been accused of being racist for saying far less. We can go on and on and on with examples of mis statements by someone on the right only to see the black community in a rage demanding someone be fired etc.

Look at what was done with Don Imus. Just use the same tone you used then!!

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 20, 2008 5:19 PM
Comment #248639

Difference between Imus and Obama: Imus said “ho” Obama never said anything like that. While Wright’s comments are an embarassment to Obama, that’s about all it is. It just ain’t gonna change the eventual outcome; Obama as Democratic nominee, and then President.

No wonder all you folks are trying so hard to tear Obama down. No wonder you all want to see Hillary prevail. If I were you, I certainly would not want to put the likes of McCain (as honorable as he is) against the likes of Obama. Won’t be close, I promise.

Final point. Why don’t you turn your focus from bullshit attempts to smear Obama for something he reviles, and never said in the first place, to talking up YOUR guy. I’m waiting for you guys to start singing McCain’s praises…………well?

Posted by: steve miller at March 20, 2008 5:33 PM
Comment #248640

Stephen:

But hey, you guys aren’t looking to really vet him, you’re looking to destroy them, like you look to destroy every liberal who comes your way, facts be damned. Last time you guys used race to try to win a campaign, you managed to sink a white guy. I guess sinking Obama would be a step up from that. You get to try and swiftboat an actual man of color this time. Aren’t you proud?

This is pretty offensive. You are the ones who are nominating a relative unknown. Now you are paying a price. Don’t blame the right for your nominating or nearly nominating a novice.

You are simply paying a price for nominating someone on the liberal edge. The right would be in the same place if we nominated someone of the right edge. The right is not doing anything, you are doing it to yourself.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 20, 2008 5:36 PM
Comment #248641

News item for those republicans on this board who are already talking about how Obama is finished and what is President McCain going to do:
Here in Portland, Or., Obama is coming to give a speech at the convention center.
They gave away 18,000 free tickets that were gone in a couple of hours.
Now those same free tickets are being offered on Craig’s List for a 100 bucks a pop.
Think about that.

Posted by: Charles Ross at March 20, 2008 5:37 PM
Comment #248642

Stephen, you need to stop trying to convince those who disagree with you, that they, not wright, are in the wrong, and start trying to convince your fellow Dems to quit jumping over to the hillary wagon.
Or is this sudden shift the rights fault too?

Posted by: kctim at March 20, 2008 5:40 PM
Comment #248644
As I have walked among the desperate, rejected, and angry young men, I have told them that Molotov cocktails and rifles would not solve their problems. I have tried to offer them my deepest compassion while maintaining my conviction that social change comes most meaningfully through nonviolent action. But they asked, and rightly so, “What about Vietnam?” They asked if our own nation wasn’t using massive doses of violence to solve its problems, to bring about the changes it wanted. Their questions hit home, and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government. For the sake of those boys, for the sake of this government, for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.

MLK

Unfortunately we can’t all be MLK, even though MLK himself was considered by some to be un-American in his time. My use of his quote is not to disparage his memory, but to point out that to compare MLK to Pastor Wright is to do both a disservice. I am not defending Pastor Wright’s comments, but there is no way any one can be compared favorable to a memory/legend. Also to ignore that the militant faction of the civil rights was important to some who felt oppressed, is to ignore an important if not regrettable part of our history.


Posted by: Cube at March 20, 2008 6:00 PM
Comment #248649

RACIST AMERICA AND ITS DOUBLE STANDARDS MAKING WRIGHT WRONG!

Obama’s preacher has said that America brought 9/11 on itself, but first consider:-

1. In 1979 did the then Soviet Union invade Afghanistan?
2. Did the C.I.A give monetary and military assistance to resistance fighters that fought the Soviets under a banner of Islam?
3. Did the same fighters funded in what some have called “Charlie Wilson’s war” not morph from Mujahadin into the Taliban?
4. Since the Mujahadin and Taliban were trained with US help then is it illogical for Wright to focus on the original monetary source of the funding, with bin Laden being a beneficiary, himself accused of being behind the 9/11 attack, to conclude in by reference to those interrelationships that – in a certain sense America did bring the 9/11 attack upon itself? Having fanned the flames of militant Islam with the C.I.A’s money, then the militancy was unleashed on America – is Reverend Wright so wrong about that?


With America having marched into Iraq for its oil, it is now the Iraqis to be blamed for resisting the illegal invasion and US occupation – not Bush and his misguided foreign policy.

With true double standards so many are up in arms about what Reverend Wright has to say about America, but just consider from 19th March,2008, ABC’s Good Morning America just how much VP Cheney cares:-

CHENEY: On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.
RADDATZ: Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.
CHENEY: So?
RADDATZ So? You don’t care what the American people think?
CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.


But, back to Reverend Wright, just look below at how in actuality he squares with and decide whether there aren’t double standards and racism. But also link to http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646 to consider the top 40 reasons to doubt the official version on September 11 –2001 - huh?

The White Preacher Double Standard: How Hagee, Parsley and the Rest Get Away with Everything
Posted by Cenk Uygur, Huffington Post at 12:03 PM on March 19, 2008.

Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam.
Rudy Giuliani’s priest has been accused in grand jury proceedings of molesting several children and covering up the molestation of others. Giuliani would not disavow him on the campaign trail and still works with him.
Mitt Romney was part of a church that did not view black Americans as equals and actively discriminated against them. He stayed with that church all the way into his early thirties, until they were finally forced to change their policies to come into compliance with civil rights legislation. Romney never disavowed his church back then or now. He said he was proud of the faith of his fathers.
Jerry Falwell said America had 9/11 coming because we tolerated gays, feminists and liberals. It was our fault. Our chickens had come home to roost, if you will. John McCain proudly received his support and even spoke at his university’s commencement.
Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the “Great Whore.” He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil’s army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee’s endorsement.
Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an “anti-Christ religion” brought down from a “demon spirit.” Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.
John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his “spiritual guide.”
What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama’s? You guessed it. They’re white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it’s not racism that’s causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?
I’m willing to listen to other possible explanations. And I am inclined to believe that the people these preachers go after are more important than the race of the preacher. It’s one thing to go after gays, liberals and Muslims - that seems to be perfectly acceptable in America - it’s another to accuse white folks of not living up to their ideals.
I think there is another factor at play as well. The media is deathly afraid of calling out preachers of any stripe for insane propaganda from the pulpits for fear that they will be labeled as anti-Christian. But criticism of Rev. Wright falls into their comfort zone. It’s easy to blame him for being anti-American because he criticizes American foreign and domestic policy.
If Rev. Wright had preached about discriminating against gay Americans or Muslims, there probably would not have been any outcry at all. That falls into the category of “respect their hateful opinions because they cloak themselves in the church.”
But one thing is indisputable - the enormous disparity in how the media has covered these white preachers as opposed to Rev. Wright. Have you ever even heard of Rod Parsley? As you can see from what I listed above, all of these white preachers have said and done the most outlandish and offensive things you can imagine - and hardly a peep.
If the disparity in coverage isn’t racist, then what is it?
Reverend John Hagee has called the Catholic Church the “Great Whore.” He has said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union (of course, the Anti-Christ will also be Jewish). He has said all Muslims are trained to kill and will be part of the devil’s army when Armageddon comes (which he hopes is soon). John McCain continues to say he is proud of Reverend Hagee’s endorsement.
Reverend Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam. Since this is such an outlandish claim, I have to add for the record, that he is not kidding. Reverend Parsley says Islam is an “anti-Christ religion” brought down from a “demon spirit.” Of course, we are in a war against all Muslims, including presumably Muslim-Americans. Buts since Parsley believes this is a Christian nation and that it should be run as a theocracy, he is not very concerned what Muslim-Americans think.
John McCain says Reverend Rod Parsley is his “spiritual guide.”
What separates all of these outrageous preachers from Barack Obama’s? You guessed it. They’re white and Reverend Jeremiah Wright is not. If it’s not racism that’s causing the disparity in media treatment of these preachers, then what is it?
I’m willing to listen to other possible explanations. And I am inclined to believe that the people these preachers go after are more important than the race of the preacher. It’s one thing to go after gays, liberals and Muslims - that seems to be perfectly acceptable in America - it’s another to accuse white folks of not living up to their ideals.
I think there is another factor at play as well. The media is deathly afraid of calling out preachers of any stripe for insane propaganda from the pulpits for fear that they will be labeled as anti-Christian. But criticism of Rev. Wright falls into their comfort zone. It’s easy to blame him for being anti-American because he criticizes American foreign and domestic policy.
If Rev. Wright had preached about discriminating against gay Americans or Muslims, there probably would not have been any outcry at all. That falls into the category of “respect their hateful opinions because they cloak themselves in the church.”
But one thing is indisputable - the enormous disparity in how the media has covered these white preachers as opposed to Rev. Wright. Have you ever even heard of Rod Parsley? As you can see from what I listed above, all of these white preachers have said and done the most outlandish and offensive things you can imagine - and hardly a peep.
If the disparity in coverage isn’t racist, then what is it?
Cenk Uygur is co-host of The Young Turks, the first liberal radio show to air nationwide.

Posted by: Courtenay Barnett at March 20, 2008 6:32 PM
Comment #248650

Andre M. Hernandez, you rockin’ that keyboard!

On MLK, they reran some of Eyes on the Prize during black history month here. The part about Chicago was pretty interesting to me. MLK came to Chicago, where black people already homes, jobs, voting rights, and had been represented by Owens and Metcalf in the USHOR for decades. He went around looking for injustices that needed correcting, and whenever he found something, the city would send out crews to straighten it out. MLK found this to be a very frustrating experience, and the locals who were getting publicity off his celebrity status kept pushing him to do something more to provoke a more negative response from the authorities. This was basically when things shifted to a more hate based rhetoric, and MLK was already becoming irrelevant before he was murdered.

Another 56 year old? Is this the 56 year old forum?

S.D., Jeff Greenfield doesn’t agree with you on the speech either. Hopefully, this will blow over. I don’t know if it’s really bad publicity. The people who have a negative reaction weren’t likely to vote for Obama anyway. His concern needs to be about people who vote for Obama as a feelgood vote. Are they still feeling good?

Posted by: ohrealy at March 20, 2008 6:37 PM
Comment #248652

kctim, that’s funny! Susan Eisenhauer (R) and Lincoln Chaffee (R) were both on Hardball today endorsing Sen. Obama for president.

Care to name Democratic names endorsing McCain? HaH!

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 20, 2008 6:44 PM
Comment #248655

David

I am a recently retired Army military officer. One of my mentors is a Vietnam Veteran (like you) who was charged and convicted of war crimes. The lesser crimes stuck and the major charges were acquitted. My mentor’s life is full successes and things he regrets. A simple description of my mentor: He an “I’ll rather be judged by “12” than buried by 6” kind of American Hero.

This man taught me millions of personal and professional lessons that I still use today to survive in this cruel would. I’ve served tours of duty in the first Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq and you can best believe his words were in my ear the entire time. I have used all the good things he taught and the negatives lessons/views he shared as my personal compass in my times of crisis.

Now, based on your logic, should I have walked away from serving under this man?

Would you not agree, this county needs help and at times it needs …Damnation?

Please stop playing political games with other people’s lives. Let us decide this election on what candidate can give us the best reason to vote for HIM/HER and not by what candidate can dig up the best reasons for voting AGAINST someone.

Posted by: BuffaloSoldier at March 20, 2008 6:51 PM
Comment #248656

Courtenay Barnett, you didn’t mention the drug part of the equation in the Afghanistan CIA LeBlond Bush nexus. The Russians kept procrastinating on using biological warfare to eradicate the drug crop, fearful of unintended consequences. Most Americans don’t realise that the Bush drug war actually increased tenfold the amount of heroin on the streets.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 20, 2008 6:57 PM
Comment #248658

kctim-
It would be useful for me and the other folks not buying into the FOXNews line on this if you could mention for me where Barack Obama shared any sentiments stating the justification for the offending comments.

I’m sure you will try and use the words he spoke to explain where Wright came from on these issues, the reasons he said that Wright might not hold back, but I can come right back and quote relevant sections of his speech where he call Wright’s language and expression of anger counterproductive, where he stated that he believe the man was wrong about the progress of race in in America.

Prove me right. Show me where Obama said it was appropriate for Wright to say those things. Show me where he said that Wright’s points were correct. Show me where his explanation amounted to a free pass for the man.

Obama’s point was to say that he could hate and repudiate the sin and imperfection without disowning the sinner and vilifying the imperfect man that he knows better than most of us.

I would say at this point that anybody who is really smart would just drop the matter at this point. If they keep on going with this, the left is going to hit back on those wonderful people on the Right’s side who said things as bad or worse in their careers.

Craig Holmes-
If you are offended by my objecting to the notion that this obsessive, destructive fault-finding may be called vetting, I’m sorry, but I must maintain my point.

Vetting is supposed to check things out. But vetting is supposed to be friendly, a precaution. So far, it’s been more like character assassination. You don’t throw the kitchen sink at a person to vet him.

What has this vetting come up with so far? An association with a crooked land developer where he seems to have done nothing illegal, and where he’s admitted the part of things that looks bad was a mistake. Then, an association with a pastor who holds some radical views, but whose views seems to have not been shared by the man he mentored, who so eloquently and stirringly gave his views on the subject that even big critics on the right were impressed by the breadth and depth of his views.

And whose doing it? The Clintons, and one of the founding members of the Keating Five, a man who even today has lobbyists running and funding his campaign even though he claims he can’t stand to be in the same room with them. I guess that’s why he campaigns with them in a bus, letting one run a lobbying firm right from it.

It’s political BS, plain and simple. It’s friendly helpful cover for a cynical, character assassinating approach to campaigning.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2008 7:15 PM
Comment #248662

sicilian eagle, thank you for demonstrating your insistence in pissing on the U.S. Constitution, which states that religion shall not be a test for office.

What church Obama attends and what individuals at that church think bears no reflection on the vast number of words and convictions now public record spoken by Obama over course of his lifetime.

You Republican supporters just can’t resist tearing another hole in the U.S. Constitution can you. You won’t quit until you have converted the United States into a dictatorial fascist state.

No wonder your party lost so HUGE in 2006 and will again in November. I do empathize with your sense of loss for having backed the wrong party, but, hey, it was your choice. Take responsibility instead trying to defend with irresponsible attacks on others by association, which btw, is rejected by every court in the land as evidence of anykind of guilt at all when facing charges.

How very UnAmerican of your comment.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 20, 2008 8:09 PM
Comment #248663

duane-o said: “The comment about “America’s chickens coming home to roost” on 9/11 were made the Sunday following 9/11.

Similar comments came from Prominent REPUBLICAN supporting clergy after 9/11, guess your selective REPUBLICAN memory erased all that historical data, eh? What hypocrisy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 20, 2008 8:16 PM
Comment #248664

No religious test? Then how come the majority of justices appointed to the SCOTUS have been Roman Catholic since abortion became the test for nomination by Rpblcns.

On Obama and Rezko, it looks like Obama is insulated by his wife Michelle, but they are talking about Rezko’s appointments to the hospital board today.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 20, 2008 8:23 PM
Comment #248665

Sicilian Eagle, your ignorance of Macolm X’s life is monumental. He died a very different person than that which gave him rise in Mohammed’s organization. He died a noble and great American, noble and great for having rejected the errors and diminutions of his youth, and having chosen wisdom and humanity as his guides before his murder.

Malcolm X has been a hero of mine most of my life. You would do well to entertain such heroes who demonstrate the will and ability to change and improve their mind, soul, and heart and reject the errors of their previous hating and vindictive ways.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 20, 2008 8:25 PM
Comment #248667

Stephen:

Vetting is supposed to check things out. But vetting is supposed to be friendly, a precaution. So far, it’s been more like character assassination. You don’t throw the kitchen sink at a person to vet him.

What has this vetting come up with so far? An association with a crooked land developer where he seems to have done nothing illegal, and where he’s admitted the part of things that looks bad was a mistake. Then, an association with a pastor who holds some radical views, but whose views seems to have not been shared by the man he mentored, who so eloquently and stirringly gave his views on the subject that even big critics on the right were impressed by the breadth and depth of his views.

I think the vetting process should be more serious with Obama than others because of his thin resume’.

Also, vetting should show Obama’s judgment in his associations. Who does he hang out with?

I would expect Obama to have “hung out” with many other extremely liberal people. I think this is probably just the beginning.

Of course my picture of obama is simply the most elegant liberal of our time. He is much like others on the far left.

Look at this:

You tube had a entry called “Is Obama Wright” that you should look at.

Also Obama his moving down in the polls. I would actually expect that. We have heard nothing but the good of Obama, and now we will have a season of nothing but the bad of Obama. He is somewhere in between. Brilliant, but extemely liberal.

I think his star is just past it’s max, and by fall he will be much farther down in the polls.


Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 20, 2008 9:13 PM
Comment #248670

Craig Holmes-
This is pathetic. Thin resume? Constitutional law professor with years of community organizing on his record, a Law degree from Harvard, where he lead the Law Review, more years in the legislature than Hillary Clinton, and a much more substantial record of legislation than her.

As for judgments in associations? I don’t want to hear that bull coming from McCain or Clinton at this point directed towards a man who hasn’t done political favors for the person under indictment.

As for who he hangs out with? You know, you don’t have to agree with people, much less take on their views in order to associate with them.

As for where he will be in the polls? I think he will be talented enough to maintain presence in the polls. If he he can make the lemon meringue pie out of the lemons handed to him, then he’s better than the two other candidates, who can’t even seem to make lemonade out of what they’ve been handed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2008 9:33 PM
Comment #248673

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God damn America … for killing innocent people. God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme. – Pastor Jeremiah Wright (April 2003)

I can no more disown [Rev. Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe. – Senator Obama (March 2008)

My question is…why did it take Senator Obama 5 years to address this issue? Why now? Why, as he running for President, is he still affiliated with this type of extremism? The same extremism that is the foundation for the terrorism we are fighting today. If he can’t disown this extremism, why are Americans still supporting him? The next quote is from a radio broadcast 19 Mar 2008…

The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know (pause) there’s a reaction in her that doesn’t go away and it comes out in the wrong way – Senator Obama

A supposed Presidential hopeful slamming whites and his own grandmother to the nation he wants to run. Please, somebody explain this to me…

Here are some more quotes…

…I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites… - Senator Obama’s Book “Dreams From My Father” page xv

Trinity [Church] embodies the black community in its entirety – Senator Obama

My Rant…The Democrats will put our country in a downward spiral, just as Bill Clinton did during his term. More importantly they will open our country to terrorism, they will send the wrong message to the whole world and more importantly to them…they plan to slap the almost 4000 men and women that have died in Iraq by pulling out of Iraq and letting that country go to Iran, Al Qaeda and Muslim extremists. Bill Clinton and the democrats are to blame for the down sizing of our military and our intelligence community that led to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. President Bush didn’t have time to fix these issues…he only had time to react. President Bush also asked for the parties to unite…take a look today…there isn’t any unity on the hill. The democrats DO NOT GET IT and THEY NEVER WILL. The democrats were the first to jump on the issue of troops not having the proper equipment to fight a war, our troops were lacking proper armament and personal protection…who did they point the finger at…President Bush. President Bush had nothing to do with it. Bill Clinton is to blame…and Americans support another Clinton!! Amazing! On the flip side of the coin, we have never fought a war like we are fighting today and just as we did during all previous wars…we adapted. Unfortunately, lives are lost before weaknesses are realized. This is the nature of war…been there, done that. Still, the democrats point at the Republicans.

What is that saying, “That birds of a feather will flock together”. The Clintons are married and are still married. Bill Clinton lied to our faces when he stated he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I remember that broadcast, while he pointed his finger, pounded on the podium all while squinting his eyes at the camera. He was scalding the American people for questioning his behavior (behavior unbecoming an American President). By the way, questioning our elected leaders is not only a duty and but a responsibility of an American citizen. HE WAS LYING RIGHT TO OUR FACES!! So what makes people who support the Clintons think that Hillary will not lie to our faces also? “Birds of a feather will flock together”. Another quote…

Our view is that if you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House – Mrs. Obama

My vote is for Mrs. Obama!! LOL, just kidding…see below.

If anyone has had their patriotism tested, it has been Senator John McCain. During his 23rd bombing mission on October 26, 1967, a missile struck his plane and forced him to eject, knocking him unconscious and breaking both his arms and his leg. He was then taken as a prisoner of war into the now infamous “Hanoi Hilton,” where he was denied necessary medical treatment and often beaten by the North Vietnamese. He spent much of his time as a prisoner of war in solitary confinement, aided by his faith and the friendships of his fellow POWs. When he was released in accordance with the Paris Peace Accords in 1973, Senator McCain continued his service by regaining his naval flight status. He was a POW for 5 ½ years! His naval honors include the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Senator McCain is a loyal and faithful patriot of our country. He came home to us honorably in 1973 and for that and for the love of his country, he has earned my vote as the next President of the United States. No other candidate compares.

Posted by: Chris at March 20, 2008 9:46 PM
Comment #248676

I will not dispute, Chris, that Bill Clinton did somethings that did not help this country, not the least of which was all the Republican Deregulation he allowed go through.

But if we really wanted to identify when America went into the downward spiral, I would think most Americans would nail the transition at about the time Bush got into office.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2008 9:52 PM
Comment #248677

Stephen:

yes thin resume’. That is why he is running on change, because he does not have experience.

The last 20 years will come to light. It’s not a scarey he is hiding anything sort of thing. He is just outside of the mainstream of thought. That is why he is running his campaign the way he is.

Here is a pretty good article.

http://www.rasmusen.org/x/archives/c/archives/000175.html

It will show how the right thinks. Liberal candidates fade, that is there history. He is behind nationally now. I think his decline is simply because with Clinton the exposing liberalism is coming earlier.

It’s not that Liberalism is terrible, it’s just that most Americans are not liberal. Basically, it means pointing out that Obama doesn’t share the values of the average voter. Every election since 1976 with the exemption of Gore the liberal candidate faded. I don’t have a reason why Obama will be different.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 20, 2008 9:54 PM
Comment #248680

The Republicans have built their entire reputation up on being a tough, hardline party, allowing, even encouraging their people to say a great many things that rivals Wright’s diatribes for offensiveness.

Here’s the key difference: Republicans at this point are like the parents that cheer their kids on when they get obnoxious. Democrats at least have a sense of shame about what things are said, even if some of our people are so imperfect as to occasionally stick their foot in their mouth.

If you want free rides, and “can I get you a pillow” political softballs, look no further than McCain. I mean, damn: it is well known that al-Qaeda is a Sunni Organization, especially al-Qaeda in Iraq, which McCain was so kind to remind Obama were in Iraq, and he couldn’t even think clearly, or put his jaw in neutral long enough on four separate occasions to dissociate sunni al-Qaeda from Shia Iran and its distinctly different terrorist groups.

If this is the judgment and expertise he gained from being a fighter pilot in Vietnam and a POW about four decades ago, then I’m not sure his resume is all that impressive anymore. Nor is his judgment when he’s publically joking about Bombing Iran to a Beach Bboys tune. He’s a maverick who’s proved his bonafides by essentially selling out to all the Republican vested interests he could, and by slavishly copying the policy positions of the president on his way out.

He’s supposedly a champion of honesty, but staffs himself to the gills with Lobbyists, supposedly a champion of centrism though he’s backing the Republican hardline on most of its plays…

The list goes on. His advantages as a candidate are mythology and the question of whether this mythology survives long enough on the campaign trail to give him a decent chance is an open one.

Of course, he will also have to likely contend with Barack Obama as his opponent which will be no picnic. If Bush could shove John McCain out the door, what do you think a trully talented politician will do to him. Worse, whatever negatives McCain throws at him will likely sour people on his popular appeal. He will have to defend hardline positions against somebody who pretty effectively plays to the left and center.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2008 10:08 PM
Comment #248681

Craig Holmes-
America is much more liberal than the Right would like to admit. The Republicans only hung on so long because the liberalism was not all of one piece, but had different layers to it. In one place, race might be the issue, in another, guns. The Republicans used wedge issues to funnel voters into their column, but that didn’t necessarily make them committed Republicans.
It made them folks who tolerated Republicans because they had doubts about the Democrats.

The difference is, as Republicans started undermine the mythology that set them apart from Democrats, people floated over to the Democrats. Despite years of Republican gerrymandering, Democrats managed to completely reverse the congressional majority.

If you look at the morals of the younger generation, if you look at the culture, conservatism is not wearing well. The next generation is going to be blue to an extent not seen since the Great Depression, and for similar reasons. People are ready for a confident progressive candidate. They need the antidote to years of Cheney and Bush.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2008 10:16 PM
Comment #248693

“And oftentimes excusing of a fault doth make the fault the worse by the excuse.”
William Shakespeare

Posted by: David at March 20, 2008 10:41 PM
Comment #248716

Stephen:

I just look at numbers.

Look at this:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/03/twice_as_many_americans_conservative_over_liberal/

Maybe you have something different that proves another point. Basically this shows there are about twice as many conservatives as liberals with the rest moderates. So a conservatives can run as a conservative. If they get half of independents/moderates, they win.

On the other hand, I’m not sure how you run as a liberal in a national election and win. So liberals need to run on something other than their record (read “change”), and Conservatives need to simply point out that the democrat is in fact liberal.

In our present case, I think Obama looses when the country figures out that change is just another word for liberal.

For liberals to win they have to win a super majority of intedpendents. It has to be a coalition like what Clinton did. So i don’t see Obama winning, although I think he will loose with the best style we have seen in a long time.

It is very bad to be behind and a democrat here in march. WOW!! to think that the Republican candidate is ahead after all that Bush has done?

By the way Stephen, if the democrats can’t run a primary season, what makes you think the country will give you another branch of government?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 20, 2008 11:57 PM
Comment #248717

Stephen
Would you continue to attend your church year after year if the priest continually made racist statements? Or would you find another church to attend where the priest didn’t?
I know if my pastor started making racist statements (specially from the pulpit) and the church wouldn’t get rid of him I’d be gone in a heart beat.
And if I was a politician with my eye on the Presidency I wouldn’t wait until after I had the nomination pretty much sewed up and the media released my pastors remarks to condemn him for his remarks.
If someone continues to sit year after year under a pastor that continually makes racist statements it’s a safe bet that person is a racist too.
Obama is a racist or he would never had put up with his pastor making racist remarks. He’d have found another church to attend.

Let’s see. The press releases McCain’s pastor making racist remarks and McCain was a member and stayed a member of the church while this was going on. Reckon all y’all that are defending Obama would defend McCain just as hard? I don’t believe it for one second. All y’all would want McCain’s head on a platter.

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 20, 2008 11:59 PM
Comment #248731

“I think the vetting process should be more serious with Obama than others because of his thin resume’.”

Is that like how Bush/Republicans vetted McCain back in 2000?

“Cars outside churches on the Sunday before the GOP primary in 2000 were papered with fliers … questioning Sen. John McCain’s sexuality and warning that a vote for McCain would be a vote for “McCain’s Fag Army.”

or

“a flier distributed at McCain’s final debate said that he’d fathered a “Negro child” out of wedlock; it used a photo of Bridget McCain, an orphan adopted years earlier by the senator’s wife, Cindy”

or

“Bush surrogates circulated stories that McCain’s five years as a POW had made him “mentally unstable,” gave him a “loose screw,” that he “committed treason while a POW” and “came home and forgot us.”

Or is that like a poster here, trying to call Wright’s comments rascist, and then try to accuse Obama as rascist (which is odd considering he is half white) by association. When by close examination, Wright’s comments (at least the ones I’ve seen) maybe despicable or unpatriotic, but they can’t be classified as rascist.

Vetting/smear campaign? I think we can intelligently differentiate between the two.

Posted by: Cube at March 21, 2008 2:08 AM
Comment #248739

A few points.

1) Obama’s pastor clearly is a bigot, maybe a racist. Clearly a progressive left wing liberal as well. Pictures of him with the Clinton’s have surfaced. He’s long preached far left politics from the pulpit and has been catered to by the democratic party as he runs a large black church and carries political weight.

2) Obama has now admitted (after first denying) that he has indeed heard Wright preaching this hateful bigotry. He admitted it because people were starting to call him a liar for denying it.

3) Obama sat there for 20 years and never said a word against it. Clearly he lacks leadership on this issue. That is, the issue of politically correct, Black Anti-White hate. The hate he mentioned in his speech (as apparently a back handed way of giving justification). The left teaches us (and blacks) blacks should hate us white…because “we” made them slaves. Never mind there hasn’t been a slave in America for nearly 150 years.

The real issue here is that the democratic party has long enjoyed a status in black churches with black leaders of large churches “preaching” White hate and absolute support for the democratic party as the party to help them “get what they deserve” out of those nasty slave owning republicans. And the pork money flows to them in various ways.


Black Anti-White racism is politically correct. But it’s ingrained in the black culture. It’s like breathing air. It’s an excuse for failure and for remaining poor and angry. This culturalizaton of hate in the progressive left is why Obama had saw problem accepting it for 20 years and supporting it with his Sunday offering dollars. This is why Obama hangs on to this bigoted group instead of denouncing them and leaving them. He thinks black hate for whites is justified and ok. Nothing else explains 20 years of acceptance.

That is the real race conversation we need to have in America. Why this brain washing of black youth with White hate is wrong.

The progressive left will treat this Black hate for Whites and the preaching of it like they treat their pro illegal-alien stance. Deny they support it and deny that it exists….all while doing all they can do to protect the process for being exposed or changed.

Wouldn’t it have been great if instead of Obama staying, we had heard that Obama had removed his family from that bigoted church 20 years ago because he would not tolerate this anti-white message?

But he obama does tolerate the message of hate. So his supporters are left to justify it and tell us that Obama is made in the likeness MLK and JFK and his speech’s are the very words of God himself passing through the lips of Obama.

Oh how I shiver when I hear him speak! LAUGH.

Posted by: Stephen at March 21, 2008 4:07 AM
Comment #248740

David Remer

From you I expect better. Pissing on the constitution?

You know very well that the point of almost all my posts was that Barry chose to acssociate himself “spiritually” with a religious philosophy closer to the nationialistic/seperatistic movement that that of a traditionial philosophy of MLK….and that is what I was illustrating.


While every American is entitled to practice whatever his religion is, no matter how zany the belief,I also think it the right of every American ,prior to stepping into that voting booth, to know exactly where that candidate is on the spectrum.

That was the point…and you know it.

Wait until next week when his associtaion with the a former radicial Weather Underground member who bombed the Pentagon in the 70’s comes to light….then we will have even a better understading of his judgement associations, won’t we?

Posted by: sicilian eagle at March 21, 2008 6:04 AM
Comment #248742

You can’t tell me that a person who is ALONE and walking up on a stranger -or two, doesn’t feel uncomfortable no matter what any of their races are.
It is typical of ALL of us to wonder if we just walked into a bad situation.

Posted by: Dawn at March 21, 2008 8:17 AM
Comment #248744

Obama was given free airtime to give 3 speeches this week. Will Clinton and McCain be given equal time?

Posted by: Dawn at March 21, 2008 8:40 AM
Comment #248746

This is hilareous. You guys should get a show on TV.

The followers of the fruitcakes in the religious right wing-nuts faction don’t like religion all of a sudden?

Jesus comes along and trashes the money changers and the wing-a-doodles shout blasphemy and traitor.

Oh man, this is too much. I can’t stop laughing.

Posted by: googlumpus at March 21, 2008 8:52 AM
Comment #248749

Cube:

Or is that like a poster here, trying to call Wright’s comments rascist, and then try to accuse Obama as rascist (which is odd considering he is half white) by association. When by close examination, Wright’s comments (at least the ones I’ve seen) maybe despicable or unpatriotic, but they can’t be classified as rascist.

I simply think Obama is an extemely talanted, inexperienced ultra liberal. When you are on the far left, (or far right) you associate with our more interesting people.

You will hear Wright’s comments, and then Michelle’s and then pictures of Obama during the Natinal anthem being the only person on stage without his hand over his heart all day campaign long.

Because there are more conservatives that liberals, liberals cannot run on a liberal platform and win. So, what liberals to is run on something else “change”. Then of course conservatives sho that the democrat is in fact liberal, and they drop in the polls.

In our present case, Obama has a very thin record nationally. So in Obama’s case, conservatives will show who he has associated himself with the last 20 years. I expect to see the Wright thing being only the first car in a long long train. The simple point is to show who Obama is, which is a liberal.

I think being a liberal is something to be proud of. It is what a minority of people are. The way to lead and win the presidency is by coalition building.

Liberals can win the presidency by ditching a bunch of their liberal agenda and working with moderates to pass a moderate agenda. I think they would need to simply put that on the table squarely and run on it. The problem with this approach is that such a candidate would not get nominated because the vast majority of the creative energy in the democratic party is liberal.

So in the end, Obama looks like a traditional democrat whose polling numbers are probably at the peak and will begin to fall.

Wright is simply the first of many.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 21, 2008 9:20 AM
Comment #248751

googl

They only like religion when it is practiced in a good white church in a good conservative format. And lets face it, anyone who does not follow that format are nothing better than devil worshiping heathen swine not worthy of claiming American heritage.

You are correct it is laughable and at the same time it is sickening. It more than exemplifies why religion and matters of the state should have no impact upon the other. It shows just how inflammatory, unreasonable, and self serving people can be when trying to use theology as a tool to further an agenda.

Posted by: RickIL at March 21, 2008 9:34 AM
Comment #248752

On the free air time for speeches, I thought that was a little odd too, but I don’t think all the networks covered it live. My understanding is that equal time is over, and I don’t think Hillary or McCain would want it.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 21, 2008 9:37 AM
Comment #248756

Craig Holmes-
The Harris Poll indicates that even at the height of power, there are more self-identifying Democrats than Republicans, and have been since they started the poll

Additional polling indicates that on most issues, the Democrats are better trusted and are perceived to have interests closer to that of the average person.

This man points out something interesting when they don’t have a choice to consider themselves moderate, just about half of people identify themselves as liberal. Additionally, a significant portion of those who identify as conservative may be operationally liberal, taking non-conservative stances on many issue.

Or to put it another way, conservatives have succeeded in making “Liberal” a dirty word, but not in making Liberal policies unfavored. The broad use of the comparatively neutral term progressive. The biggest advantage the Republicans have had was convincing Democrats and the media that it was political poison to be a self-identified Liberal Democrat. In this article, the author shares the view that the Democratic Party has hidden strength and hidden power than remains untapped for that very reason

Which leads me to the following conclusion: Barack Obama is such a popular and promising candidate not because he transcends liberalism, but because he embodies it with no shame, such that people who really think that way gravitate to him. People who might not want to identify as liberal for cultural reasons, are given permission by his openness and call for more unified politics to follow a candidate who is essentially and obviously liberal in his attitudes. He represents, in a way, the redemption of the liberal brand.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2008 10:33 AM
Comment #248758

Ron Brown-
The question is whether he continually made bigotted statements. Most parishioners asked about the now retired minister commented that the media perception that this was his typical fare said this was a distortion. He could be controversial, confrontational for other reasons, but given the typical high energy services that many pastors in his tradition give, this would not be a deal breaker.

You’re assuming wrongly this was the norm, then, based on the error making a further mistake by assuming that Obama should have left.

As for McCain? He’s getting a free pass on so much. Where are the nice friendly people to vet him with the Kitchen sink? Or did he get his proper baptism in the crap of presidential politics when the Bush administration unleashed Rove on him?

Why hasn’t he, the straight-talk maverick guy, been made by the media to justify his ties with lobbyists, his voluntarily sought ties to anti-Catholic and Anti-Islamic bigots, especially those who have made views similar to Wright’s, which blamed America for its misfortunes. I guess since they’re saying Americans brought this on themselves by displeasing God, it’s better than if they said it was brown and black people we pissed off to put ourselves in this situation.

Liberals and Democrats, it seems get held to a higher standard for their associations. Question is, when are you going to apply such standards to McCain as you’ve applied (needlessly) to Obama?

Stephen-
Let’s dispense with the obvious. Shockingly enough, Wright’s not a Republican. That may be far left to you automatically, but in the real world, there’s a range. A recent set of interviews done in Chicago even found those who support Hillary, who’s the candidate of appeal to more conservative Democrats. Point is, you don’t know his politics in any great detail. You’re just guessing.

Obama has admitted hearing things from the pulpit that could be controversial. That’s not mutually exclusive of being out of the church when the offending sermons were preached, especially if you believe your own claim of this kind of harsh rhetoric being a regular occurence. In that case he could miss hundreds of sermons and land on a controversial one by sheer dumb luck.

He has said that if all he knew of Wright was what was in the videos, of course he’d wonder why he stayed. His message is that Wright was not like this on a regular basis, but that he was a preacher who challenged his audience and wasn’t precisely politically correct at all times.

Your third point falls apart if what Barack Obama says is true. If it wasn’t a regular occurence, then staying doesn’t mark a failure of any kind, much less leadership. If all that tended to happen was the occasional political disagreement and a modicum of political incorrectness, then the notion that he was sitting still for a bunch of venomous, anti-American, racist rants falls apart.

Meanwhile, folks like yourself plug away, demonizing some and terrifying others to suit your political prejudices.

Come down from cloud nine: Obama isn’t the radioactive speciment or the nuclear threat you’re portraying him as.

SE-
The WU members in question have long reformed and renounced the violence of their earlier days. You want to go back to discussing the unrepentant bigotry and belligerence towards America displayed by your Candidate’s supporters?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2008 11:24 AM
Comment #248759

Stephen:

We are talking past each other. I am talking about Liberal verses Conservative and you are talking about Democrat verses Republican.

Which leads me to the following conclusion: Barack Obama is such a popular and promising candidate not because he transcends liberalism, but because he embodies it with no shame, such that people who really think that way gravitate to him.

Your conclusing I believe is totally false. Obama is running a typical liberal campaign. He is diverting from the issues to a word “Change”. When “change” gets turned in to typical old style liberal positions, (although well argued), we is going to fall.

Obama is from the far left not just liberal. It is hard to rally the country from either extreme.

That is exactly why I think Obama is at his peak. One shoe has fallen. People clearly want change and Obama has well exposed that. Here ocmes the other foot. “I want change, and I am far more liberal than the rest of the country”.

McCain is very close to where Americans are in terms of Liberal verses Conservative. He is by far closer to the center. He is also a known quantity. The chances of McCain falling are far less than Obama.

Obama’s free pass is over, McCain has already been vetted many times. Obama’s popularity has peaked. Since they are basically tied now, McCain wins.

I do think a liberal can win in America in a three way race.

I also think many african americans need to learn how to talk different about race. Obama used too many stereotypes in discussing is grandmother.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 21, 2008 11:44 AM
Comment #248760

This is from The Rev. John H. Thomas, UCC general minister and president:

“Many of us would prefer to avoid the stark and startling language Pastor Wright used in these clips. But what was his real crime? He is condemned for using a mild “obscenity” in reference to the United States. This week we mark the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war conceived in deception and prosecuted in foolish arrogance. Nearly four thousand cherished Americans have been killed, countless more wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered. Where is the real obscenity here? True patriotism requires a degree of self-criticism, even self-judgment that may not always be easy or genteel. Pastor Wright’s judgment may be starker and more sweeping than many of us are prepared to accept. But is the soul of our nation served any better by the polite prayers and gentle admonitions that have gone without a real hearing for these five years while the dying and destruction continues?”

from:
http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html

Posted by: ohrealy at March 21, 2008 11:46 AM
Comment #248768

Stephen
From What I’ve seen Wright has continually made racist remarks.
I’ve noticed in my mere 61 years on this earth that folks tend to run with folks that think like them. Homosexuals run with homosexuals, drug addicts with drug addicts, bigots with bigot. Obama has kept company with bigots. And your known by the company you keep.
I wish McCain would have to answer some tough questions. In fact I wish all the candidates would get asked some tough questions. But so far none of them have. It’s been the usual pansy questions of past elections.
None of have any idea where any of the candidate stand on the problems this country faces.

Questions I’d like to see all three candidates asked.
Where do you stand on deficit spending?
What do you plan to do about it?
What’s your plan to solve the problem?
Where do you stand on border security?
What do you plan to do about it?
What’s your plan to solve the problem?
Where do you stand on the national debt?
What do you plan to do about it?
What’s your plan to solve the problem?
Where do you stand on education?
What do you plan to do about it?
What’s your plan to solve the problem?
Where do your stand on ethics in government?
What do you plan to do about the lack of ethics in government?
What’s your plan to solve the problem?

How many of the candidate could answer these questions satisfactory to enough voters to get elected?

Posted by: Ron Brown at March 21, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #248770

The Chickens Have Come Home to Roost Sermon In context: a quotation of a white ambassador.

CNN Contributor Roland Martin dug this up, and I think this helps throw light on the Right’s distorting influence on this media frenzy. But the context and the sermon do not end there. Martin sums up:

He went on to describe seeing the photos of the aftermath of 9/11 because he was in Newark, N.J., when the planes struck. After turning on the TV and seeing the second plane slam into one of the twin towers, he spoke passionately about what if you never got a chance to say hello to your family again.

“What is the state of your family?” he asked.

And then he told his congregation that he loved them and asked the church to tell each other they loved themselves.

His sermon thesis:

1. This is a time for self-examination of ourselves and our families.

2. This is a time for social transformation (then he went on to say they won’t put me on PBS or national cable for what I’m about to say. Talk about prophetic!)

“We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,” he said.

Wright then said we can’t stop messing over people and thinking they can’t touch us. He said we may need to declare war on racism, injustice, and greed, instead of war on other countries.

“Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation’s healthcare system that leaves the nation’s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.”

3. This is time to tell God thank you for all that he has provided and that he gave him and others another chance to do His will.

He’s certainly a liberal, from the sound of it, but if he is, then he shares some sentiments with the rest of us.

The distortion also extends to the Right’s willing ignorance of this man’s service to his country, hell his service to his President

Did Wright say some inflammatory, terrible things? Yes. They are hard to explain, and even harder to excuse. But some of the things he said have been misinterpreted, and some attitudes have been attributed to him that are not necessarily his. The Right, in its quickness to condemn and attack is presenting a picture that doesn’t do justice to its subject.

If their picture is a distortion, it stands to reason that their call for Obama to throw his pastor under the bus, in addition to their claim that his failure to rebuke the Pastor shows poor character are both, while perhaps logically valid, are factually unfounded. If, as Obama said, the controversial aspects of his pastor are not those he knows best, nor those that his pastor demonstrated on a regular basis, then such calls amount to simple political theatre and should be disregarded as such.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2008 1:05 PM
Comment #248771

I’m sorry: the part past the third point are my words, the rest up to the quote are Martin’s. The blockquote previewed better than it came out.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2008 1:06 PM
Comment #248773

Trinity UCC is to some extent the black version of Willow Creek. Their website emphasizes over and over again that this is a Black church. It is also, apparently, the largest UCC congregation in the country. To give you some idea of the geography involved, Obama lives across the street from the oldest Jewish congregation in Chicago, on East Hyde Park Blvd(51st street), with many other historic churches closer than Trinity, besides the Rockefeller chapel at the U. of Chicago. The church he chooses to attend is on west 95th street, 8 miles south and 2 miles west of where he lives, in a neighborhood that was integrated but trending black when I was growing up, but is now predominantly black.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 21, 2008 1:35 PM
Comment #248787
Ron Brown wrote: I wish McCain would have to answer some tough questions. In fact I wish all the candidates would get asked some tough questions. But so far none of them have…

Questions I’d like to see all three candidates asked:

  • [1] Where do you stand on deficit spending? { No worries, mate. We can create all the money we need out of thin air. Screw the U.S. Dollar. Cha Ching! Who cares if you need a wheel barrow full of currency to buy a loaf of bread?}

  • What do you plan to do about it? { Print, borrow, and spend more money; what else can we do? }

  • What’s your plan to solve the problem?

  • [2] Where do you stand on border security? { none of the candidates have credibility in this area; all three get “D” and “D-” grades at BetterImmigration.com; McCain voted for the first SHAMNESTY in 1986 that has now quadrupled the problem}

  • What do you plan to do about it? { probably nuthin’ ; that’s what we do best; that’s why they call it do-nothin’ Congress!}

  • What’s your plan to solve the problem? { We will build half of a fence, pass another SHAMNESTY (like the SHAMNESTY of 1986), turn 20 million illegal aliens into good little Democrat voters, and make some more laws that will be ignored. }

  • [3] Where do you stand on the national debt? { neither Obama or Hillary have any credibility in this area, and McCain admits that economics is his weak suit }

  • What do you plan to do about it? { Print, borrow, and spend more money; what else can we do? }

  • What’s your plan to solve the problem?

  • [4] Where do you stand on education?
  • { Edumakashun? whut’s dat? How many zeros is thare in 53 Trillion?}
  • What do you plan to do about it? { Whutever ya do, don’t teach monetary system theory and don’t tell noboby that the Federal Reserve is a pyramid scheme! The won’t believe you anyway.}

  • What’s your plan to solve the problem?

  • [5] Where do your stand on ethics in government?
  • { Ethics? what’s that? Is that like Ethanol?}
  • What do you plan to do about the lack of ethics in government? { We will do what we always do. We will make more laws that will be ignored }

  • What’s your plan to solve the problem? { probably nothin, since votes seem happy, based on Congress’ 93%-to-99% re-election rates }

  • How many of the candidates could answer these questions satisfactorily to enough voters to get elected?

Yes, how about those questions?

While race relations are important, and Obama should have parted ways and distanced himself from Wright a long time ago, it doe it prove Obama is a racist?
Also, race relations is one thing that has been improving a little in the U.S. for several decades (even though there is MUCH room for improvement).

However, race relations ain’t likely to get better if all of those other problems above get worse.

I’d like to add 1 question to your list (with regard to debt) that no body seems to be able to answer.

WHERE will the money come from to pay the INTEREST on the $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt (almost 4 times the $13.9 Trillion GDP), when:

  • that money does NOT yet exist?

  • ther tax system is regressive?

  • the U.S. Dollar is already falling drastically since year 1999 against all major international currencies (one-simple-idea.com/USD_Falling.htm) ?

  • jobs are leaving the nation in droves, and massive illegal immigration is growing and costing Americans citizens an estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion an annual net losses (which includes all taxes collected, profit, costs, etc., except for the untold cost of crime, displaced jobs, and wage suppression)?

  • energy costs are rising ?

  • there are still 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ?

  • health care is increasingly dangerous, unreliable, unaffordable (unaffordable may be a good thing, since 195,000 people in the U.S. die to potentially preventable medical mistakes per year)?

  • 80% of the U.S. population owns only 17% of all wealth in the U.S. (one of several trends that have been worsening for decades due to these continued abuses)?

… just to name a few … WHERE will the money come from ?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 21, 2008 2:33 PM
Comment #248794

“the Federal Reserve is a pyramid scheme!”
Please provide a link, I have always thought that we should go back to having a Bank of The United States. Also if a Swiss Franc is worth more than a US dollar, isn’t all the money going to migrate offshore?

Posted by: ohrealy at March 21, 2008 3:02 PM
Comment #248801

The Democrats should nominate both Clinton and Obama, and both should run in the general election, to “stimulate debate.” Isn’t that the reason the Democrats gave in 1992 in supporting Ross Perot’s run?

Posted by: Dave at March 21, 2008 3:52 PM
Comment #248802


If he claimed to simply attend the church then racist comments would be irrelevant and just a part of the things you have to ignore or just not agree with in any church. This wasn’t the case. I think he overcompensated toward his Islam separation image work. It was a costly mistake because he crossed over to Wright mentorship from simply attending his church.

A person who has a mentor is considered dependant or a subordinate to him. Who is chosen for this input level speaks to your own maturity level.


Posted by: Kruser at March 21, 2008 3:58 PM
Comment #248803

Ron Brown, good questions all. That is one of my chief complaints about the Obama campaign, that concrete details about how he is going to attempt to answer those issues if elected can only be gleaned by interpretation prone to many assumptions. However, I must hasten to add, no other candidate is offering up concrete detailed plans either to be torn asunder by ‘Swiftboaters’ by false arguments and assumptions based on opposition to their candidacy in the first place.

Our politics and system are buggered, big time. But, then democracy it was warned at the beginning would be neither easy nor efficient.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 21, 2008 3:59 PM
Comment #248807
Ohrealy wrote:
    “the Federal Reserve is a pyramid scheme!” Please provide a link, …
  • Link # 1 (watch the 47 minute video)
  • Link # 2
  • Perhaps the best evidence of it is:

    • (1) Nation wide debt is $53 Trillion, and has grown larger every year for 62 years; growing in magnitude and as a percentage of GDP (i.e. from 167% ($5.0T/$3.0T) in year 1956 to 381% ($53T/$13.8T) in year 2007).

    • (2) We have had positive, non-zero, incessant inflation since year 1956.

    • (3) No one can yet tell us WHERE the money to pay the INTEREST on $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt will come from, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL debt of $53 Trillion (and prevent the debt from growing ever larger), when that money does not yet exist?

    • (4) Debt and inflation appear to be inherent properties of the current monetary system, as evidenced by the debt growing ever larger than the nation’s income, and the incessant positive inflation since year 1956. In addition, there are many abuses and manifestations of unchecked greed, such as usurious credit cards rates as high as 39%, predatory lending practices, adjustable rate mortgages where rates are raised quickly and significantly in periods when foreclosures are already at record high levels, etc. And what is a usurious INTEREST rate? It begs the question, if a lot of usury is bad, how is a little usury good? Likewise with the issue of inflation.

    • (5) Aside from the moral issue of usury, predatory lending, fraud, the system has a mathematical flaw. It is not possible to satisfy the DEBT=PRINCIPAL+INTEREST when the INTEREST does not yet exist. And the attempt to satisfy that equation only brings the system closer to the final mathematical result: collapse. It will collapse when the people no longer have a capacity for any more debt; a number we are getting closer to every day). As the debt grows ever larger, savings rates turn negative (since year 2005), home equities decline (now below 50%, the lowest level since year 1945), and foreclosures soar.

    • (6) Problems facing the Federal Reserve are getting worse; not better. It is going to take a lot of new money (from somewhere) to pay the INTEREST on $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt. Does any one find it odd in a way that the solution to a credit crunch is to make it easier to increase the debt larger? That smacks of a pyramid scheme in trouble.

    • (7) The Federal Reserve stopped reporting M3 Money Supply in year 2006. M3 Money Supply increased by a factor of 75.2 between year 1950 ($135 Billion) and year 2005 ($10.15 Trillion). That is a lot of new money. We did not all become 75.2 times wealthier. Especially since the population also doubled since year 1950.

    • (8) How is it that most people that work, invent, design, build, create, service, and produce are all in debt to the Federal Reserve banks that create and earn INTEREST on money out of thin air (up to 90% of every Federal Reserve loan is new money)?
    Some regard all that about the monetary system as Chicken Little/Cult-Like rhetoric, but those are good questions. Especially the question: where will the money come from, when it doesn’t yet exist? That alone should be a dead give-away.

    Wouldn’t you love to ask the candidates those questions?

    Ohrealy wrote: I have always thought that we should go back to having a Bank of The United States.
    The system we have certainly isn’t working. It is more like playing the game of Monopoply in which one person (the bank) can print all the money they want. Before long, the bank owns everything, and everyone else is broke or deep in debt. How can everyone that works and produces be in debt to banks that create money out of thin air, and charge interest on money created out of thin air?
    Ohrealy wrote: Also if a Swiss Franc is worth more than a US dollar, …
    The U.S. Dollar has fallen against the Swiss Frank and other major international currencies since year 1999. And remember, those other currencies have inflation too!
    Ohrealy wrote: … isn’t all the money going to migrate offshore?
    Money (U.S. currency? Or other currencies?)?

    Not necessarily.
    With high inflation, people everywhere with U.S. Dollars will want to get rid of them (i.e. spend them, or exchange them for something else (other currencies, gold, stocks, commodities, etc.)).
    Inflation will make U.S. exports more attractive (a common Pollyanna excuse) to foreign nations, but it is only temporary, and the negatives out-weigh the positives.
    Inflation hurts people with cash, wages that are not rising with inflation, people on fixed incomes, and people receiving entitlements that are not rising with inflation.
    With so much debt ($53 Trillion nation-wide), niflation is likely to get much worse, because the money to pay the INTEREST does not yet exist.
    The M3 Money Supply in 2005 was $10.15 Trillion.
    Most money is not in the form of bills and coins.
    It’s in the Federal Reserve’s computers, and most of it exists as DEBT.
    Thus, the question no one (much less the candidates for Presidente) dares to tackle
    WHERE will the money come from to pay the INTEREST on the $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt (almost 4 times the $13.9 Trillion GDP), when that money does NOT yet exist, and 80% of the U.S. population only owns 17% of all wealth (a trend that has been worsening since year 1978))?

    This is one issue that few candidates will seriously address. Why? Perhaps they are afraid ?

    • “Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when the speak in condemnation of it.” - Woodrow Wilson, President of the U.S. 1913-1921.

    • In 1913, the struggle for a better monetary system was lost when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, giving the privately owned international banking cartel the power to create the United States money. Later, Woodrow Wilson stated: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. - Woodrow Wilson, President of the U.S. 1913-1921.

    • More quotes: one-simple-idea.com/DebtAndMoney.htm#Quotes
    Despite the far reaching effects of the monetary system on the economy, what are the candidates talking about! ?

    McCain focuses on staying in Iraq because he says it is making us safer (and he already admits enconomics is his weak suit), and Hillary and Barack Obama are talking about some racist statements by Wright, and another huge health care system that is unlikely to be administered any better than Medicare and Social Security, of which $12.8 Trillion was borrowed from it, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching (13,175 new entitlements recipients per day, with the worker/recipient ratio falling every for many years to come).

    David R. Remer wrote: Our politics and system are buggered, big time. But, then democracy it was warned at the beginning would be neither easy nor efficient.
    True. Incumbent politicians in Congress will simply grow more corrupt, incompetent, and irresponsible as long as voters repeatedly reward the incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

    Congress isn’t like a bunch of kids loose in a candy store.

    They are more like a bunch of nasty, spoiled rotten, dishonest, FOR-SALE, back-stabbing, criminals loose in D.C., and it needs a good flush.

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 21, 2008 4:39 PM
    Comment #248808

    “Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, giving the privately owned international banking cartel the power to create the United States money. “

    The POTUS appoints the Federal Reserve Chairman, but who are the private owners? In Florida, I know that every working day, after the banks close, some very valuable securities were sent up to the main bank in Jacksonville, but there is no currency with a Jacksonville Federal Reserve Bank on it.

    Posted by: ohrealy at March 21, 2008 5:06 PM
    Comment #248812

    Stephen:

    Why are you defending a man who uses hate speech?

    Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 21, 2008 5:58 PM
    Comment #248813

    “kctim, that’s funny! Susan Eisenhauer (R) and Lincoln Chaffee (R) were both on Hardball today endorsing Sen. Obama for president. Care to name Democratic names endorsing McCain? HaH!”
    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 20, 2008 06:44 PM

    David, that’s an interesting comment. I don’t know of a single prominent Democrat endorsing McCain either. I am not surprised however as all the Democrats are marching in lock-step to the MoveOn.Org crowd and afraid to voice their views. Wow, isn’t that a grand party that has no dissenters or thinkers.

    Republicans feel free to endorse whomever they agree with and don’t have to fear recriminations. The Donkey Dems would do well to emulate the GOP in that regard.

    The Dem convention in August will nominate Hillary as Obama is unelectable as President. His popularity is falling rapidly and will accelerate as we find out more about this man. The Dem Party elders will swallow hard and nominate Hillary even though nearly half of eligible voters have indicated they would never vote for her. Add to her negative numbers the discontent over the nominating process which will cost her 30 to 40% of the black vote and president-elect McCain will take the oath of office in January 2009.

    Posted by: Jim M at March 21, 2008 6:32 PM
    Comment #248817

    Craig Holmes-
    I’m not defending the controversial statements, nor their sentiments, but I’m pointing out that this picture of an irredeemable bigot is a distortion of who he is, and as a result any assertion that depends upon that distortion must be called into question on the merits.

    If Wright was not constantly making such statements, if even some of the statements in this controversy were less horrible in their full context, then the reasoning that implies that to fully reject those objectionable views that Obama should have left his church long ago loses its steam. But of course, there are plenty who want to stoke the furnaces of outrage regardless of whether good clean fuel exists for it.

    The real question is, do I defend a man who habitually uses such rhetoric? No. Do I defend a person I might think is being unfairly tarred as an unredeemable racist? Yes.

    Jim M-
    Fantasy from the Right Wing. McCain is poorly supported because the ill-will generated by years of the Bush administration has made most Democratic Party voters in a less than indulgent mood in regards to crossing over. Few see the upside of voting for McCain.

    Republicans, meanwhile, really don’t like their candidates, and the ultraconservatives are weak in their support. That’s why Republicans crossover. That, and the Bush administration’s utterly disillusioned them.

    This BS about unelectability is a circular argument where in the statements about unelectability become the premise for not nominating him. Obama will very likely be the next president.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 21, 2008 7:15 PM
    Comment #248821

    Kruser:

    A person who has a mentor is considered dependant or a subordinate to him. Who is chosen for this input level speaks to your own maturity level.

    Read a dictionary lately? I have seen no definition that indicates your interpretation. And it could possibly be that he is his religious mentor? Please.

    Posted by: womanmarine at March 21, 2008 7:31 PM
    Comment #248823

    Jim M said: “Wow, isn’t that a grand party that has no dissenters or thinkers.”

    Couldn’t tell for a second if you were referring to the GOP or Dem. Party, their supporters are so much alike when in so many loyalist non-thinking ways.

    “Republicans feel free to endorse whomever they agree with and don’t have to fear recriminations.”

    Except for the recriminations of the last 7.5 years which cost them the Congress and will cost them the White House in November. Seems nearly all voting Republicans now agree with McCain as their candidate. Looks like herd behavior to me.

    “The Dem convention in August will nominate Hillary as Obama is unelectable as President.”

    You state this pure conjecture as historical fact. Very illogical statement to make, unless preceded by the phrases “I suspect…” or, “I hope…”.

    “The Dem Party elders will swallow hard and nominate Hillary”

    That is certainly Rush Limbaugh’s hope and prayer you are mimicking there.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 21, 2008 7:59 PM
    Comment #248824

    David:

    This is a huge mess. Wow have the Dem’s blown it. After all the pain caused by 2000 and florida, here we are at 2008 and Florida is once again in the forefront.

    I don’t see a win out of this for the party. There are some pretty big issues out there. Preventing race riots should be one of them.

    Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 21, 2008 8:11 PM
    Comment #248825

    Kruser, my experience is that churches are filled with social folks seeking entertainment, redemption, or to role model church going for their children.

    Most church goers I have known have learned little from church going as evidenced by their relatively habituated lives of comfort, greed, and self-centered preoccupation, hardly the hallmarks of Christ’s teachings.

    In American universities, one often finds graduate students and Ph.D professors mentoring each other without any demarcation of subordination except in title. Often it is the graduate students innovating research under guidance of a professor, the professor’s dogmatic education and thesis now acting as barriers to his own innovation. Good thing there are more graduate students than Ph.D.s for the sake of American research and innovation, too.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 21, 2008 8:12 PM
    Comment #248826

    d.a.n. said: “They are more like a bunch of nasty, spoiled rotten, dishonest, FOR-SALE, back-stabbing, criminals loose in D.C., and it needs a good flush.”

    Dang, don’t you find such reserve in one’s opinion a trifle stifling. Let yourself go, d.a.n, stop holding back. :-) Thanks for the levity, even if not intended as such.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 21, 2008 8:17 PM
    Comment #248827

    Well, I might get banned if I did. : )

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 21, 2008 9:01 PM
    Comment #248831

    Craig,
    It would be more exciting for the media and for us if there was still a real horse race between Obama and Hillary, or significant uncertainty about the outcome, but really, there is not. Obama has an almost insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. Obama will be the candidate. And Obama will almost certainly win the presidency. That’s just realism.

    McCain is a terrible candidate. He’s not the man he was in 2000. Maybe he’s going senile. I don’t know. To his credit, he seems intent on conducting an honorable campaign. But he keeps making embarrassing gaffes, and he’s caught on the wrong side of the Iraq issue. Whether he wants to represent a third term of Bush or not, he’s stuck with the baggage. It was the price for obtaining the Republican nomination, and it will also be the price for losing the general election.

    The good news is that Obama is arguably the most promising candidate most of us have seen in our lifetimes. He might not merely be ok, or good; he might be great. He has that kind of potential. Most of us have become so callous, we have adjusted our expectations for presidents way down; our expectations are pretty low.

    Our expectations are so low, they don’t even register anymore. When a president reads a speech off a teleprompter, written by some one else, we accept it without even bothering to notice.

    So it’s quite a shock to the public when someone like Obama appears on the scene. Make no mistake, Obama presents a message of unity and reconciliation which is poisonous to the voices of divisiveness. This faux issue with Wright is a perfect example. You’ll see a lot of venom spit his way. Ignore it, and concentrate on Obama, who is the candidate, not irrelevant distractions.

    Posted by: phx8 at March 21, 2008 10:30 PM
    Comment #248837
    Ohrealy wrote: The POTUS appoints the Federal Reserve Chairman,
    That’s right.
      Chairman: The Chairman of the Board of Governors is the head of the Board of Governors and thus the head of the Federal Reserve System as well. The Chairman is one of the most powerful, if not THE most powerful individuals in the economy. The Chairman directs monetary policy and sets the course the Federal Reserve activities. When the Chairman speaks business leaders, political leaders, and the public take notice. The Chairman is appointed to a 4-year term, using the Presidential appointment, Senate confirmation process. While the 4-year term of the Chairman is the same length of the 4-year presidential term, most presidents tend to inherit the Chairman appointed by a predecessor. The Chairman is also one of the 7 governors serving a regular 14-year term. When the Federal Reserve System was created, the Chairman was little more than a figure head, who presided over Board meetings. The actual power rested with the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. However, the Chairman is now one of the most powerful economic positions in the United States and even the world. The wishes and policies of the Chairman need not be approved by the rest of the Board.
    Ohrealy wrote: … but who are the private owners?
    Very good question, and you would think it would be easy to find out, eh?

    But it isn’t.

    The Federal Reserve is a quasi-government controlled / privately owned bank (as was ruled in Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)).

    - - - - - - - - - - / -\ - - - - - - - - -
    - - FOMC- - - - /Chair \ - - FAC - - - -
    - - - - - - - - / -Person- \ - - - - - - -
    - - - - - - - / & 7 Board- - \ - - - - - -
    - - - - - - / of Governors- - -\ - - - - -
    - - - - - / - - - - - - - - - - - - \ - - - -
    - - - - /37 Federal Reserve Banks-- - -
    - - - / (12 Districts, 25 Branches)- \ - -
    - - / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\
    - / 20K Member Banks-& other banks- - -\
    | _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PUBLIC_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|

    Some people have produced lists of owners, but they are difficult to verify.
    Here is a list of owners owners were in 1976.

    Some people say the Federal Reserve System owns itself. It is a corporation (sort of) owned by itself.
    Since the Federal Reserve was created on December 23, 1913, the system has been made up of 12 regional Federal Reserve Bank districts (with ), which are structured like corporations –- but with a few differences. The Federal Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to “member banks” that are part of the larger banking system that the Federal Reserve is charged with regulating. But that stock can’t be sold or traded, and dividends are set by law at 6 percent a year.

    And, supposedly, unlike most corporations, the Federal Reserve System is not supposed to generate profits. The fact is, the Federal Reserve does generate income from interest on debt that it buys and sells in the open market, and up to 90% of every loan is money created out of thin air. The Federal Reserve also makes money on foreign loans, and interest from your bank.

    At any rate, regardless of ownership, the Federal Reserve’s primary job is to keep the financial system humming along nicely.
    The Federal Reserve is obviously doing a very bad job of it, as evidenced by incessant positive inflation since year 1956, and massive nation-wide debt of $53 Trillion.
    Also, the 9-to-1 fractional banking system is a system in which new money is created as debt, and up to 90% of each new loan from the Federal Reserve bank is new money created out of thin air.

    The obvious mathematical flaw in this system is that since LOAN = PRINCIPAL + INTEREST
    … each new LOAN starts out as PRINCIPAL only.
    Where does the INTEREST come from, when it does not yet exist?

    It would be interesting if someone would ask the candidates for Presidente (Obama, McCain, Hillary, Nader, etc.), or better yet, Congress persons:

      WHERE will the money come from to pay the INTEREST on the $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt (almost 4 times the $13.9 Trillion GDP), when:
      • that money does NOT yet exist?

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 21, 2008 11:36 PM
    Comment #248840

    Dan-
    Quick point, so don’t dump a load of figures to answer me on this, but what does this have to do with the subject at hand?

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2008 12:23 AM
    Comment #248841

    d.a.n. Unfortunately your answers to my question, while humorous, are also very sadly true.

    David
    If all three candidates had to answer the question I asked and put some real substance in their answers I don’t think any one of them could get elected dog catcher.
    They come up with these so called ‘debates’ and handle the candidates with kid gloves. They ask questions that can be answered with vague answers that have absolutely no substance to them. And the sad thing is the voters keep falling for these phony debates. They’re just contests where each candidate to tries to out lie the other.
    I just wish they’d let me ask all the questions at just one debate.

    Posted by: Ron Brown at March 22, 2008 12:32 AM
    Comment #248842

    Webster:
    mentor,
    1capitalized : a friend of Odysseus entrusted with the education of Odysseus’ son Telemachus
    2 a: a trusted counselor or guide b: tutor, coach.

    Wright: mentor
    Obama: student, disciple

    Wright’s sermons and obama’s relation to them is what we are debating.

    sermon:
    1 : a religious discourse delivered in public usually by a clergyman as a part of a worship service
    2 : a speech on conduct or duty

    We obviously see what the mentor teachs is the duty and conduct for his disciples.

    This is the impression the general public gets no matter what excuses he or any blogger can come up with.

    I get the impression he is plastic and has no set beliefs except that he should be president.



    Posted by: Kruser at March 22, 2008 12:36 AM
    Comment #248843

    d.a.n. said: They are more like a bunch of nasty, spoiled rotten, dishonest, FOR-SALE, back-stabbing, criminals loose in D.C., and it needs a good flush.

    Can I pull the handle? Can I? Can I? Can I?

    Posted by: Ron Brown at March 22, 2008 12:37 AM
    Comment #248844

    d.a.n., I’m done reading for tonight, but there’s something about 1956 that I’m not understanding. What exactly happened? There was a recession in 1958, after a post war economic slowdown. William F. Buckley Jr. always bragged that his father WFBuckley Sr, saved Ford Motor Company, which was basically bankrupt, about that time, but all I can find out about him is that he was in the oil business in Mexico and Venezuala. I always thought he was talking about a banking connection. Monday?

    Posted by: ohrealy at March 22, 2008 12:41 AM
    Comment #248847

    ohrealy & googlumpus please contact me

    Posted by: marie at March 22, 2008 1:51 AM
    Comment #248848

    so much for doing it that way

    bugcrazy@hotmail.com

    Posted by: marie at March 22, 2008 1:54 AM
    Comment #248849

    Where are we in American history when a Marine that has served his country honorably cannot speak his mind using the same rights he put his life on the line to defend. If this was coming from a regular civilian then yes we should all be up in ARMS. But this was a marine for christ sake… A Marine. How can anyone accuse that man of being unpatriotic?
    If you read or listen to the entire sermon and not just the sound bites the clinton’s placed on youtube, you get the full picture of the sermon and there is nothing racist in it. There is nothing derogatory against white men and the “G D America” line was taking completely out of context, he is not wishing fire and brimstone on america, he is condemning actions against her own children. We really have to fall back a little on this patriotism accusations that are the new witch hunt. We might as well start re-writing the history books to say that women always had the right to vote from day one and blacks came to America on a cruise ship vacation.
    The sermon is historically accurate and spews NO HATE AT ALL. As a republican I hate seeing this type of desperation used against a great politician that is willing to be a republican ally and whose following we could tap into for fresh talent. In the long run this desperate action of the clintons will hurt american politics.

    Posted by: Andrew Stone at March 22, 2008 2:08 AM
    Comment #248851

    If Obama was white he would not have been still running after all of that scandal with his “uncle” pastor. We, the “white people”, cannot use the word “black” in public, only African-American; while on the other side, a person that attends an African-American racist church every Sunday and listens to the bias of anti-white preaching, can still be running for president!!! Do you really think Wright has preached that kind of preaching just that one time?
    Obama said “the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning”. I don’t think so! I never ever heard of any white priest preaching from the altar such racist ideas against blacks, or any other segments of the American population. Probably that is happening in Obama’s neck of the wood…
    Well, if lefties (Kerry & Co.) succeed in hijacking the Democratic Party leadership, I can see that a lot of Hillary supporters would vote for McCain. Obama’s candidacy has been artificially blown out of all proportion. Does he really believe that he stands a chance to win the General Election? Everyone I know would vote Republican this time if Hillary is not going to be the nominee…
    Obamatics forget that the majority of the US are not lefties. Bill Clinton knew this very well. That’s why he was able to build a centrist oriented coalition & won both elections.
    Also, it was in Obama’s interest for Florida & Michigan not to rerun their primaries. Do not forget the majority of the voters in both of these states voted for Hillary. That’s why lefties are not interested in finding a solution. He knew full well he would lose both of them. So, how he is going to win without Florida & Michigan?
    What a sad joke!!!

    Posted by: ARBEN Camaj at March 22, 2008 4:55 AM
    Comment #248857

    Arben said: “We, the “white people”, cannot use the word “black” in public,”

    You just did. This is a public forum. The rest of your argument makes no more sense or logic, either.

    What Obama’s barber, plumber, pastor think about race or America has NO bearing on what Obama has worked on and for, and what Obama has said to the people of his state are his principles, which got him elected to both his State Congress and then U.S. Congress.

    If guilt were by association as your argument sanctions, we would all be in prison and the Chinese, Saudis, and Japanese would own the keys.

    Obamatics? Is that like “teacher’s pet” or some schoolyard boy’s attack on another calling him “girl lover”? Yep, it sure is. That old tried and true double standard. There are McCain supporters, and HillBilly’s and Obamatics.

    Childlike name calling really is all some Republican supporters have to offer their Party and nation today, isn’t it? That is so sad.

    There is much I respect and admire about traditional conservative thought and economic values. Too bad so many GOP supporters and voters have corrupted the GOP’s ability to elect such leaders into government.

    When the GOP decided it needed to be a majority party and invited everyone into it, they ruined the whole Party. Yes, they got elected to the Majority, but, they didn’t have a clue as to how to hold onto it.

    The GOP became increasingly known for their growing ranks of immature, nutcases, uneducated, educated opportunists like Rush and the Blonde Twiggylike lady (forget her name on purpose everytime), and lobbyists for corporations who came to the GOP like welfare recipients to the Democrats.

    The likes of these above came to stand along side the GOP’s great thinkers and statesmen like John Warner, Lindsay Graham, and Susan Collins. When the GOP chose the likes of Dick Cheney, GW Bush, and those intellectual harlots Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, to lead the Party instead, the GOP obtained the nails to their political coffin. And it only took 6 years for the GOP’s leadership to hammer those nails into the coffin, shutting the GOP out of power for a very long time.

    And it is a very huge damn shame. For our nation absolutely needs traditional conservative fiscal values to govern if America is to meet the economic challenges now facing it. America needs desperately the Ike Eisenhauer conservatives who knew that it was a cardinal sin of conservative values to ever allow the military industrial complex to dictate and shape American economic and foreign policy of the civilian government, as Dick Cheney and GW Bush have.

    To end on an optimistic note, however, one can look at this whole last 14 years of increasing GOP governance as the GOP’s adolescence and growing pains in finding their way back to their parent’s strengths and core values as a minority Party in government.

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 22, 2008 6:19 AM
    Comment #248867

    ARBEN-
    You fling around accusations rather easily. Based on probably just a few sermons, not even in their complete form, you make broad assumptions about his church, his pastor, and his values.

    I could name offhand quite a few white pastors and congregations that preached hateful things. Yours may not likely be included, but you should stop for a moment and consider, that could something your people are doing or not doing be hurting, not helping the situation? If you are a churchgoer, do you not follow the teachings of forgiveness and love for your enemies, of blessing those who do curse you, of walking a mile in another’s shoes?

    Do you not understand that part of what creates this environment of hypersensitivity is the way politicians and their followers look for reasons to disregard this teaching, in hopes of pushing back against those they would judge?

    You have to see it in terms of motivations. This is one of the psychological keys to the doctrine of forgiveness which Jesus calls his followers to: respect and compassion for those who oppose you, forgiveness of others the way you want to be forgiven all help to bleed tensions that would otherwise persist.

    To attack Rev. Wright may be as satisfying to you as his most offensive comments might have been to him, a release of the tension inside, but that release of hard feelings doesn’t do away with that tension, it just puts it somewhere else, into somebody else, who then looks to stick it with you or somebody else.

    This is not what Barack Obama has engaged in on this issue. He doesn’t say “blame whitey”. He did not throw his grandmother under the bus, any more than he threw his pastor under the bus. He reached out in understanding to both sides, and became one of the first politicians to confront the historical feelings and tensions of both side openly and frankly. He is as far from having a racist attitude towards Whites as you can get.

    He has extended an olive branch to us, and only those interested in continuing to hypercritically examine every inch of his life for contamination by racists attitudes will continue to allege that his time with Rev. Wright has made a bigot out of him. In other words, one has to defy Christ’s teachings in order to have serious problems with him, given what he has said.

    Jesus preached to all kinds of different people. He didn’t hold real or perceived sins against people. He even chose a man to spread his Gospel who had persecuted and led members of his church to their death. He didn’t hold people’s backgrounds against them. He told them to reform their actions, and they often did.

    Barack Obama, whatever prejudices could be found in his church or his pastor, seems to have come out of it with one of the most accomodating, most forgiving, yet starkly realistic views on race that any politician in this nation’s history has ever had. He didn’t make one side or the other the martyrs or the bad guys. He had stern words and kind words for both. If this is what he learned from Rev. Wright, or decided on his own, then I think fears of your kind are not only unfounded, but rather uncharitable.

    As for the last part, Hillary signed and followed a pledge stating that she would not campaign there. These contests weren’t serious and everybody knew it; without such competition, you don’t have a real election on that part of the ticket. If so, then excluding those results isn’t undemocratic, but the opposite. Rules are rules. The Democratic party, in controlling its internal affairs, doesn’t do itself much good if it does not enforce its rules consistently.

    There should have been an earlier push for revotes, before months had passed and the chance to do this right passed us up. It’s a problematic issue, but who knows what will come of it.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2008 9:03 AM
    Comment #248869
    Ron Brown wrote: Can I pull the handle? Can I? Can I? Can I?
    Yes. Please do. If only it was that easy.

    If only there was “Irresponsible Incumbent Lever” on the voting machines, it would be so much easier, eh? : )

    Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- Quick point, … but what does this [Fed ownership] have to do with the subject at hand?
    I was answering Ron Brown’s list of questions about the nation’s more pressing problems, which he argues are should be more important than all the distracting partisan warfare about Pastor Wright. That led to a question subsequent question from Ohrealy about the Fed, Swiss Franc, inflation, and the falling U.S. Dollar.

    To be honest, I can not think of much else to say about this Obama / Pastor Wright nonsense, because none of it proves that Obama is a racist.

    And the weakly supported attempts to portray Obama as a racist is just more fueling and wallowing in the distracting, time-wasting, destructive, divisive partisan warfare (bordering on racism by those trying to fuel it). It might be wise (based on worsening poll numbers for Obama) to undermine and ignore tactics to fuel the distracting partisan warfare?

    David R. Remer wrote: And it is a very huge damn shame. For our nation absolutely needs traditional conservative fiscal values to govern if America is to meet the economic challenges now facing it.
    Yes, it is. While (as Ron Brown also pointed out), the nation is facing HUGE challenges, and this Obama / Pastor Wright issue is dirty trick to fuel the partisan warfare, and supporters of Obama might be doing Obama (based on polls) and themselves a favor to not be tricked into wallowing in the partisan warfare (bordering on racism by those trying to fuel it).
    Ohrealy wrote: d.a.n., I’m done reading for tonight, but there’s something about 1956 that I’m not understanding. What exactly happened?
    1956 was the first year (see chart of inflation rates 1780 to 2007) that incessant inflation went positive, and remained positive (double-digit in the late 1970s and early 1980s), but the real problem is positive (non-zero) inflation year after year, which is actually exponential (like reverse compound interest), which is why the Consumer Price Index is so steep (i.e. exponential). But, that’s a good question. The real problem didn’t start exactly in 1956. The seeds were sown much earlier in 1913, which was one of several contributing reasons (bad monetary policies) for the Great Depression. The problem is still with us, as evidenced by massive $53 Trillion nation-wide debt, incessant (positive) inflation (both inherent properties of monetary policy), no one can say where the money will come from to pay the interest on the $53 Trillion of debt since it doesn’t already exist, the Fed stopped reporting M3 Money Supply in 2006, and the nation-wide debt has been growing both in magnitude and a percentage of GDP since before 1956.
  • Posted by: d.a.n at March 22, 2008 9:49 AM
    Comment #248870

    This is a good example of using religion to perpetuate fallacies.
    The speech Obama gave although flowery (he should have run as wright’s replacement)was full of race and religion based fallacies.

    Just a couple examples,

    I attended a few majority white churchs that had both races in attendance. White racist speech is non existant even in the large southern churches.They can’t talk political without losing non profit status. This law isn’t applied to black churches obviously.

    Racism has nothing to do with health care. It has nothing to do even with education. I was born in Detroit and we fled along with half of its population in the sixties. Our northern school recieves about half the funding of a school in Detroit. The failed liberal solutions he rehashes as what we are to come together on are the cause of the poverty and a distraction from the real problems there.
    Since unemployment is low nationally, where did the jobs and corporations in Michigan go? To states in the US that had a cooperative attitude toward business. I own one of them. No matter what the race, taking working money from business causes a loss in jobs even when competing inside the US with other states.
    He uses sympathy toward a manufactured struggle as a justifier for falacious statements.


    Posted by: Kruser at March 22, 2008 10:23 AM
    Comment #248873

    Did I hear Obama correctly in his recent speech when he said, “My Grandmother was a typical white woman”. Sure wish I knew what exactly he meant by that. If Hillary said my neighbor or best friend was a “typical black man” what would many interpret that to mean? Do I smell an odor of racism in Obama’s statement or am I reading to much into this? Thanks!

    Posted by: Jim M at March 22, 2008 11:44 AM
    Comment #248874

    Kruser-
    You attend a few churches, and suddenly you’re an expert on what all Majority White Churches say, but…

    Never mind.

    You folks relied on Evangelical churches to help prop up Bush in the last election, churches where they handed out voting guides, but…

    Never mind.

    Outsourcing was the craze du jour during the last three decades, but… Well…

    Never mind.

    And never mind, of course, that one of Obama’s key points is that racial tiffs have become a distraction from all those real issues, as you folks use welfare and other entitlements as the reason for our sagging economy, diverting attention from growth at all cost policies which now have us in this precarious position, the Economic elites having absorbed much of the economic growth at the expense of the lower classes.

    Now you say, why not have them doing that, if it grows the economy? Well, the trouble is, many of their policies grew the economy by putting people and this country in greater debt. Savings were reduced, inflation has risen, and jobless claims are rising. Starved for real positive gains among the lower economic classes, the consumer economy has people mortgaging their future to sustain their present, and steadily, this is catchin up to us and our economy.

    The deregulation hasn’t helped, making it harder for investors to determine what the value of corporations and securities are. Already, we’re seeing a back-up in giving out of credit. The banks are having problems getting their own finances straight, so they’re loaning less. We’re suffering from economic artherosclerosis.

    Think all the happy thoughts you want to. Beat up on a guy for what his preacher said, and insinuate that he listened to the same sort of thing every sunday without any evidence of such.

    And then sit right back and watch the economy go in the tank while you’re so merrily distracted.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2008 11:56 AM
    Comment #248876

    Jim M-
    I don’t know. Do you?

    Are you looking for reasons to consider him racist, even though the very point of what he was saying was that his Grandmother wasn’t one, that it’s been a cultural fear?

    When I took journalism classes at Baylor as part of my degree, the professor told me that about every tenth person we see on TV is affected by crime. In reality, it’s maybe one in a hundred. Republicans were talking about violence in inner cities being like that of Baghdad, but even in a city like New York there were only 494 murders in a city of 8 million. That’s one in 16,000. Yet how many New York murders do we see in the media? probably many more than that, given all the episodes of Law and Order repeated every day!

    Inner City degradation and the racism that let the Whites out and kept the blacks in city after city helped put blacks in middle of some of the more desperate circumstances, and our media graciously put them in the roles of gang-bangers and crooks on a regular basis. Even now, Gangsta music dominates the airwaves, glorifying crime and the criminal life.

    So what’s the typical white person’s response? It’s a generational thing, to be sure. For those who grew up around folks of different race, the typical response will be like Obama’s. For those who’ve felt the pains and resentments of forced integration and forced segregation, the responses will be less accommodating on both sides. This is a reality we have to deal with. These people will not simply go away. We and they have to learn to live with the new way of things.

    What’s ironic here, Jim M, is that you’re getting all politically correct on Barack Obama, in an effort to undermine the message that he sent with his speech. More ironically, you’re playing the same kind of game that he said you would play, trying to distract from the real issues by injecting race into the argument.

    Not to be too vulgar about it, but if you’re smelling racism here, this may be a case of “he who smelt it, dealt it.” If you’re ready to admit that Barack Obama isn’t likely a racist, after the speech he gave, and that trying to discern this from poor word choices is a deeply silly proposition, then you’ll have made some progress in getting beyond these inane distractions

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2008 12:14 PM
    Comment #248877

    Stephen, we shall see in the coming weeks and months if Obama has more explaining to do. I am keeping an open mind on this. I do know that the left is very fond of talking about “hidden messages” and “hints” of “actual meaning” when they disagree with conservatives. I am just using the same sensors when I listen to The Obama.

    If I were an Obama backer I would be dreading the next big revelation as this man is just beginning to have his life, words and actions minutely examined as is appropriate for a serious presidential candidate.

    Posted by: Jim M at March 22, 2008 12:58 PM
    Comment #248878

    I’ve have been very dissatisfied with the way the media has handled this. I feel so fooled and dumb to have believed the sound bites I heard on TV. After viewing the new video postings on YouTube and I see the entire sermon. Pastor wright was actually quoting Edward Peck a former US Ambassador who is white as saying “America’s chickens are coming home” A white guy said this, not the pastor.
    The type of character assassination that has been dealt to this man is beyond words. Fox news and other news networks owes America, Pastor Wright and Mr. Obama a serious apology. Someone needs to get fired over this, I FEEL SO BETRAYED BY MY OWN TELEVISION.

    The “Typical White Person” line if you listen to the entire sentence and not just edit it off there like the media has done. States, “The typical white persons reaction to race if often taken the wrong way”
    Is that not true?

    There is nothing derogatory in that statement. Everyone is fishing for something on this guy, when they couldn’t find something they make something up. This is why many more Republicans will vote for him in the fall.

    Stop it already and lets get back on track.

    Posted by: Andrew Stone at March 22, 2008 1:53 PM
    Comment #248881

    Jim M-
    Let me ask you a question: why are you justifying what you do with what you consider to be an error? If you consider it, like I do, a mistake to hyperanylyze language without good reason to do so, then why do you want to persist in this?

    Personally, I don’t dread the next revelation. I would rather fall flat on my face having supported somebody with that kind of potential, than watch as we struggle for the lack of the same, having forsaken him for the saken of what I don’t know and can’t know.

    I mean, I’ve got pride as a college educated liberal. To be so cowardly as to buy an argument that appeals to what I don’t know and can’t know when what I do know and have seen about Barack Obama so impresses me, would have me hang my head in shame.

    It would be a gift to those whose own candidates are so weak in comparison that they have no hope of winning unless he’s cut down to size. It would require me to ignore the astonishing degree to which Obama has already recovered from the kitchen sinks thrown at him.

    You may be grinning in triumph over the way he’s been sunk in the polls. Grin no more.

    The poll shows 69% of registered voters saying Obama did a good job of addressing race relations, and 71% said he did a good job explaining his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. The poll also showed 63% saying they agree with Obama on race relations.

    Among voters who have followed the Wright controversy, only 14% said they were less likely to vote for Obama as a result — with an equal 14% saying they were more likely to vote for him, and 70% saying it would make no difference.

    That’s right: by landslide margins, people believe him, agree with diagnosis of race affairs in Ameria, and think he’s explained himself well. He’s taken a rather strong hit in people’s estimation of whether he could unite the country, but I’d say on that count, we’ll see. We’ll see what happens when he no longer has to split his attention two ways, when he can campaign as our nominee. I think that’s a number he can raise, if people hear enough out of him, enough of his great rhetoric.

    And having seen this kind of strength, this kind of ability to maturely and independently handle both political problems and problems with the media, I find myself easily putting aside anxieties about whether the other shoe is about to drop. I think it would be rather cowardly of me to live in fear of that with the kind of candidate I have in front of me. If I take that risk and fall flat on my face, I can blame the failure on him. If, however, I let all your hypercritical, circular rhetoric on electability get to me, then I will only have myself to blame if my party goes to defeat in November. I would rather take a chance on greatness than cocoon myself in needless mediocrity.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2008 2:19 PM
    Comment #248885

    Andrew Stone…..I’d just like to thank you for your open-minded approach to all of this. That, and your willingness to go beyond the superficial BS being thrown around by so many.
    Hope to see your continued posts here for a long time !

    Posted by: janedoe at March 22, 2008 3:25 PM
    Comment #248886

    Stephen:

    Well, Obama’s negatives are getting pretty close to that of Hillary’s. Both are over 50% disapproval according to Rasmussen.

    I do believe there is more to come. It’s hard to unite the country from the fringe when you have little experience.

    I think there will be a steady diet of these things for a while. Everyone else has gone through them.

    Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 22, 2008 3:40 PM
    Comment #248895

    Craig Holmes-
    Hillary came into the campaign with the high negatives. Barack has been pummelled by continuous negative coverage all month.

    But look at that speech, and look at how quickly he recovered. Hillary’s problem isn’t gaining negatives, it’s keeping them. Obama, though, seems to have quite a lot of skill in recovering from bad news.

    But as for fringe? Good heavens. You can talk about fringe, but if you look at the positions people are taking, Obama’s less fringe than you, and a lot better at getting crossovers than either of the other candidates.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2008 5:32 PM
    Comment #248920

    Stephen:

    He recovered? The numbers you quote above are only for those who read or viewed the speech. So all of the Stephen Daugherty’s of the world watched the speech and liked what they saw.

    However if you look here:

    http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/overall_favorable_ratings_for_presidential_candidates

    This data is much broader than yours and shows that as of now Obama is just about as unpopular nationwide as Hillary.

    What should worry you is that just about all of the negative that can possibly be dug up about hillary is already there. (Actually that is probably true for McCain as well). But Obama is a furtile field. There is 20 years of information to look at.

    This is very early. There are 4 months until your party meets. It seems to be that there is a good chance that as more information is forthcoming that Obama will continue to slide in the popularity polls.

    What is predictable is that favorablity is declining for both Obama and Clinton and increasing for McCain. As your party fights it’s civil war, I would think this trend will continue.

    Every day your odds of winning would appear to be diminished by this fight.

    Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 22, 2008 8:04 PM
    Comment #248929

    Craig Holmes-
    According to poll results, things seem not to have affected his favorability ratings. Most Democrats, Republicans, and Independents will vote the way they did before by margins of about seventy percent or more. Eleven percent of independents and twenty-two percent of Democrats felt even more willing to give him their vote than before. Most of the damage to his reputation, oddly enough, came about among the Republicans. Which Republicans will be the question.

    When asked about Matchups with McCain, those who had supported him against McCain also overwhelmingly still backed him, including twenty-three percent who were even more dedicated to him than before.

    The way I see it, we’ve got a big soak factor at work here: those who who get sent and shown this speech, which has become the most watched political speech on Youtube in its history will more likely than not rave about it, and when people take a look at it, they’ll spread the word as well.

    McCain and Obama are in a statistical dead heat, despite everything that’s happened over the last few weeks, despite being the presumptive nominee, despite being a person that Obama’s had no chance to run against him as the presumptive nominee.

    If you want to count on some “forthcoming information” (in other words, crap that hasn’t been found out or made up yet), go ahead and do that. That’s the Clinton Campaign strategy, and it’s currently working wonders for her. The best she can do is change poll numbers, and those are dynamic, easy-come, easy-go achievements. Barack is already back on top in the new polling, and the trendline’s going up.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 22, 2008 10:11 PM
    Comment #248932

    Stephen:

    McCain is now a bit ahead of both hillary and Barak in many polls.

    I am comfortable counting on “forthcoming information” or crap as you call it. It’s not some sneaky plot or something. It’s simply that Obama and his campaign have done a fantastic job of selling and packaging. (ie putting forth the positive crap). Obama is a mixture of positive and negative crap like the rest of us. Since the candidate is eager to put out the positive crap (I like your term), the negative crap comes out later.

    I obviously don’t know any negative crap except that I can read history and see it as a normal part of how we elect presidents, good or bad.

    My assumption because of Obama being a exteme liberal is that he will have many contacts to explain who are interesting on the left.

    I also think you will be spending a great deal of time on the defensive, defending him.

    this isn’t a left verses right thing either. Remember “Rathergate?”. As the new guy on the block there is more potential new crap.

    Take a look at the polling data for Obama as compared to Democrats of the last 30 years. When you look at Obama being even close to McCain, you cannot at all be confident. Republicans usually improve over time where as Democrats fade in the polls as the general election approaches. (Gore is an exception). Obama should be way way out there right now for the millions he has spent. All that money and you guys are only tied? And with the mess Bush has made of things?

    A great deal can happen between now and November but republicans have every reason to be encouraged right now. It looks much brighter than our wildest dreams a year ago. (or even six months ago).

    Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 22, 2008 11:41 PM
    Comment #248933

    Gee, You mean Republicans won’t vote for Obama? Given the rate that Republicans are leaving the party, I doubt that’s really an issue.

    Obama is turning out new voters.
    It’ll likely be a Repiblican bloodbath.

    Posted by: googlumpus at March 23, 2008 12:05 AM
    Comment #248934

    Craig Holmes-
    A bird in hand is worth two in the Bush, as far as information goes. You can talk about upcoming revelations, but until you have them, and until they prove to be perfectly devastating, there’s not much to talk about.

    The same goes for polls. At a statistical dead heat in national polls, the race is more or less three way at this point.

    If you only pay attention to polls. If you paid attention to delegates, Hillary’s far behind. Her three victories netted her little relief from her problems.

    Meanwhile, McCain has to deal with a bitterly divided party for whom rallying against Democrats is about all the real motivation they have. He has to sell people on a war they don’t like, and on economic/fiscal policy.

    It’s more the same, voters don’ want that.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 23, 2008 12:06 AM
    Comment #248961
    He [McCain] has to sell people on a war they don’t like, and on economic/fiscal policy.
    McCain already admits he is weak on economics.

    One would think after 26 years in Congress, a Congress person would have learned more about economics? ! ?

    Especially when the economy is supposedly ISSUE # 1 .

    McCain said “don’t raise taxes”. That’s not good enough. The tax system is regressive. If government does not want to raise taxes on the wealthy, then taxes should be lowered for everyone else such that we pay the same effective tax rate as Warren Buffet, who paid 17.7% in federal taxes on $46 Million in 2006, while and his secretary paid 30% in federal taxes on $60K (tusb.stanford.edu/2007/07/warren_buffet_has_a_lower_tax.html). The system will continue to be regressive and abused as long as there are so many exceptions and tax loop holes.

    And who wants to occupy Iraq for another 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100 years?
    It’s not fair to the U.S. troops.
    Our troops should not be risking life and limb for nation-building (especially for 5, 10, 20, 50, or 100 or more years).

    The nation needs someone (including Congress persons) that is serious about addressing these 10 abuses which are making the following economic problems worse:

    • Savings rates are below a negative 0.5% (lowest rate since year 1933).

    • Home equities are below 50% (lowest level since year 1945).

    • The gap between the wealthiest 1% and the remaining 99% is 40% (up from 20% in 1976; the largest gap since year 1930).

    • 80% of Americans own only 17% of all wealth.

    • Federal debt ($22 Trillion, including the $9.4 Trillion National Debt and including the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security; leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching), has never been larger in magnitude or a percentage of GDP ($22T / $13.9T = 158% which is higher than 116% after World War II).

    • Real median household incomes have been falling for 30+ years (since year 1978), when you also consider the fact that there are more workers per household, more regressive taxation, and the disappearing 40-hour work-week.

    • The delinquency rate for all mortgages climbed to the highest levels in over 23 years (the highest levels since year 1985)

    • Illegal immigration is depressing wages, and costing tax payers net losses of an estimated $70 Billion to $338 per year, H-1B Visa and H-2B Visa abuses are displacing jobs, some law firms are teaching corporations how to avoid hiring Americans, and politicians are despicably pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes.

    • While positive inflation has been with us for 62 years, the U.S. Dollar has been falling fast against all major international currencies since year 1999 ( one-simple-idea.com/USD_Falling.gif ).

    • Nation-wide debt is $53 Trillion (381% of GDP, which has never been worse; ever). Yet the ratio keeps growing larger every year, as it has for 62 years. How much longer can that last? How is it that most people that work, invent, design, build, create, service, and produce are all in debt to the Federal Reserve banks that create and earn INTEREST on money out of thin air (up to 90% of every Federal Reserve loan is new money)?

    • Please tell us where the money will come from to pay the interest on the ever growing $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the principal on $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt (almost 4 times the $13.9 Trillion GDP!), when that money does not yet exist?

    • … more …
    The problem isn’t that we don’t have good ideas and solutions. The problem is that the federal government is where good ideas and solutions go to die. And it ain’t likely to improve as long as too many voters repeatedly reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

    Posted by: d.a.n at March 23, 2008 5:22 PM
    Comment #248964

    To those who say if Wright were white this would be different. Well, that’s true. White folks didn’t experience slavery, Jim Crow, the 1960’s in any of the same ways blacks did. Those shames affected black folks and it’s going to take more that 50 years for those wounds to heal.

    Posted by: Shelly at March 23, 2008 6:01 PM
    Comment #248966

    “White folks didn’t experience slavery, Jim Crow, the 1960’s in any of the same ways blacks did. Those shames affected black folks and it’s going to take more that 50 years for those wounds to heal.”

    I agree Shelly that I didn’t experience those things the way black folks did. Now, let me ask you.

    How long and what will it take to heal these wounds… FOR YOU?

    Posted by: BOHICA at March 23, 2008 6:20 PM
    Comment #248979

    I am a white woman, but I understand the difficulty and the nuances of this conversation. It’s not so black and white. I don’t feel any collective guilt but I also have no way of understanding what many of
    those that do feel disaffected live through. My father in law is a racist to the nth degree. He is 75 years old. This argument will end when he dies and my generation, who has no real concept of black v white, will be the future.

    Posted by: shelly at March 24, 2008 1:42 AM
    Comment #248982

    So Shelly, I guess I can assume that you didn’t experience slavery, Jim Crow, the 1960’s in any of the same ways blacks did either. So, how do you know it will take over 50 years to heal the wounds?

    Posted by: BOHICA at March 24, 2008 5:24 AM
    Comment #248987

    I think Jesus was a liberal judging from his actions!!!!!

    His constant attempts to help the poor, the sick, the impaired and the oppressed would gain him the title of a bleeding heart liberal by today’s standards. Jesus was a simple middle class carpenter, he was not a part of the military industrial complex!!!!!!!
    He was often called the prince of peace!!!!!!

    I don’t think Jesus would agree with the bush war god!!!!!! I know bush has a strong faith, but you must have faith when you have sold your soul to your war god!!!!!!

    I don’t feel ashamed when I am referred to as a Liberal!!!!!! I don’t think Jesus would be ashamed of being called a liberal!!!!!! I don’t think most people who have liberal views feel ashamed when they are referred to as Liberals!!!!! Only people who have sold their soul to the war god would be ashamed to be called a Liberal!!!!

    I think if Jesus was here today he would be ridiculed, crucified or assassinated like others that have had liberal views!!!!!!

    Posted by: Outraged at March 24, 2008 10:19 AM
    Comment #248990

    To quote Kris Kristofferson:

    Jesus was a Capricorn, he ate organic foods.
    He believed in love and peace and never wore no shoes.
    Long hair, beard and sandals and a funky bunch of friends.
    Reckon they’d just nail him up if He come down again.

    ‘Cos everybody’s got to have somebody to look down on.
    Who they can feel better than at anytime they please.
    Someone doin’ somethin’ dirty, decent folks can frown on.
    If you can’t find nobody else, then help yourself to me.

    Egg Head’s cousin Red Neck’s cussin’ hippies for their hair.
    Others laugh at straights who laugh at freaks who laugh at squares.
    Some folks hate the whites who hate the blacks who hate the clan.
    Most of us hate anything that we don’t understand.

    Posted by: womanmarine at March 24, 2008 10:52 AM
    Comment #248991

    I feel no guilt over slavery at all. It has been more than six generations since anyone in my family line owned a slave. I was raised to believe blacks were people no less than I am a person regardless of the color of the wrapper in which they entered the world.

    My mother, who was part of a protest of segregation of public facilities in Rayville, La. in the early 1950s (way before that sort of thing was “cool”, and probably hastening the Methodist Church moving my grandfather to another congregation…), told me proudly how my father had, in his early twenties, written a spirited defense of the Republican Party in the South to her Democrat father because the Republicans would at least let the blacks vote. The whole family, even Democrats, were committed to equal rights, but at least the Republicans could stand alongside blacks in the voting booth while they took up their own cause.

    The Jeremiah Wright issue is a sad occasion for race relations in this country because it makes everyone who touches it look calculating.
    Absolutely everyone.

    Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 24, 2008 10:56 AM
    Comment #248994

    Lee Jamison, this speech by W H Taft in 1908 might interest you:
    http://manybooks.net/pages/taftwill1981219812/0.html
    and this article on Obama’s background and schooling in Hawaii:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17003563/
    People keep forgetting that Obama does not have southern roots like most black Americans.

    Posted by: ohrealy at March 24, 2008 11:33 AM
    Comment #249001

    ohrealy,

    I have read some of the Taft speech and can only say “Amen!”. The solid South contributed nothing to the political vitality of the nation as a whole and only piled ignorance on top of the collected emnity of a defeated nation simmering in its own self-pity.

    Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 24, 2008 12:53 PM
    Comment #249019

    Outraged says that Jesus would be a liberal…..and that may be, but the difference between Jesus and the liberals of today…is that Jesus expected you to help your fellow man….liberals today expect the Government to do it with others peoples money…

    Posted by: David at March 24, 2008 3:07 PM
    Comment #249047

    David-
    The Republicans are constantly imploring Democrats and everybody else not to leave the poor Iraqis in the lurch. They are doing this with the tax dollars of Republican and Democratic Party members a like, not to mention those of the independents. They don’t seem to care that most of us don’t want this, it’s just got to be done.

    But as you were saying, only Liberals want to help others, with other people’s money, right?

    Unfortunately, due to the incompetence of this administration, the war we got into really wasn’t that helpful to America’s agreed-upon cause, nor ended as promised on time. Additionally due to the failure of the Republicans to budget and tax properly, we’re not only seeing the Republicans run this war on other American’s money, we’re seeing them do this on other Country’s money! Which by the way, everybody will have to pay back.

    Let me define a liberal for you: a person who believes that this government should be helpful to all of it citizens, rich and poor alike. Sometimes that means intervention, sometimes that means keeping its nose out of things. Liberalism isn’t about piling government on top of the people, it’s about fostering a healthy relationship between the two.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2008 7:25 PM
    Comment #249089
    Liberalism isn’t about piling government on top of the people, it’s about fostering a healthy relationship between the two.

    That’s a great notion, Stephen, unfortunately it doesn’t ring true in practice…

    We are already over loaded with government as it is and the Democratic Party wants to hoist more upon us. Never mind it if it doesn’t work, it still must be employed. Take the Department of Education for example. Every year, since the department’s creation, our educational spending has gone up and the test scores of our children has gone down. And any time someone tries to do something to solve the problem, the Teacher’s Union steps in and lobbies the Democrats and prevents it from occuring.

    That’s the real problem with government ‘doing’ something instead of ‘regulating’ something, they can’t not effectively police themselves and the fact that they work through the use of force, we are turning more and more people into criminals just because they disagree with the intrusion.

    Posted by: Rhinehold at March 25, 2008 12:51 AM
    Comment #249110

    David,
    Jesus expected us to do good and get our own hands dirty in the process. Modern-day euphemized liberalism depends on us to want good to be done without us getting our hands dirty. That professionalizing of servanthood is what is unchristian about nominal liberalism today.

    Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 25, 2008 10:15 AM
    Comment #249128

    “Let me define a liberal for you: a person who believes that this government should be helpful to all of it citizens, rich and poor alike. Sometimes that means intervention, sometimes that means keeping its nose out of things. Liberalism isn’t about piling government on top of the people, it’s about fostering a healthy relationship between the two.”
    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 24, 2008 07:25 PM

    Democrats are directly responsible for piling government on the people as witnessed by the IRS and payroll deductions, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid along with many other God-awful intrusions in our life.

    The liberals are extremely fond of using my money to salve their conscious. I refuse to subsidize liberal guilt and largess.

    Posted by: Jim M at March 25, 2008 12:18 PM
    Comment #249156

    Jim M:

    Obama and his lovely wife gave less than 1% of their income to charity the last several years according to recently releast tax returns.

    Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 25, 2008 5:34 PM
    Comment #249162

    Marie,

    I sent two emails to the address you gave, but did not get a reply

    Posted by: googlumpus at March 25, 2008 6:03 PM
    Comment #249175

    Jim M partisanly said: “Democrats are directly responsible for piling government on the people as witnessed by the IRS and payroll deductions, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid along with many other God-awful intrusions in our life.”

    You mean in the same fashion a Republican Congress and President expanded the Medicare program with the Rx drug provisions, and the largest corporate subsidies to corporations like Exxon/Mobil at a time when those corporations were recording the highest profits on record?

    You mean like Republicans backloading 3.5 trillion dollars of new taxes on the next generation through the largest increases in national debt in an 8 year period ever in our history?

    You mean like going to war so ill prepared as to make the cost of a little war in a little podunk country called Iraq exceed the cost of any war ever in our history per enemy country engaged, to include the theft, misappropriation, and plain losing sight of 10’s of billions of U.S. tax dollars in Iraq, which Republicans never gave a second thought of accountability or responsibility for?

    Jim, you really need to update your history. You know, history does not stop with high school graduation. :-)

    Posted by: David R. Remer at March 25, 2008 8:40 PM
    Comment #249211

    Rhinehold-
    We’re always overloaded with government, and government always gets in the way with your point of view.

    In practice, though, a lack of proper regulation has been a problem. Proper does not necessarily mean greater. It has been in fact suggested that fewer regulatory agencies and more concise sets of regulations would be a better idea. But proper does mean capable of interfering when necessary. Regulators without teeth are a waste of taxpayer dollars.

    The Republicans have backed the destruction of laws that kept banks that financed debt from having integrated divisions that sold ownership in these companies. Those laws prevented conflicts of interests where those trying to sell pieces of company and those trying to keep the companies afloat to pay off their debts would collude to preserve a company that wasn’t healthy.

    The Republicans backed destruction of accounting standards, and trading regulations which kept companies and investment firms from building up huge bubbles of false wealth which imploded when people took a closer look at them.

    And they backed speculative and credit markets which essentially built economic growth in sectors and the general economy on wishful thinking and artificial market manipulation.

    proper regulation of our markets is critical to keeping corporation’s eye on the ball of being genuinely productive. You see, the trouble is, the human impulse in business is to get something for nothing. That’s maximum profit. Of course, people won’t hand money to people for nothing, so the tendency, as markets become more complex and less naturally transparent is for people to engage in complex schemes in one way or another to get something for nothing.

    Proper regulation reduces this non-productive behavior, reduces speculation, double-dealing, fraud. Without it, the market is more like a casino that benefits the ruthless and the economic elites than it is an engine for economic productivity.

    This has been the shape of our economy. We need to change things.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2008 10:15 AM
    Comment #249215

    As for being the most Liberal Senator…

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2008 10:41 AM
    Comment #249216

    Sorry, here’s the link.

    A plus sign where an equals should be.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2008 10:49 AM
    Comment #249221

    I have a question that is being overlooked by both sides of the Barack HUSSEIN Obama controversy.

    Why is it, according to Barry Lynn and his Liberal leftist organization, OK for black churches and their pastors to practice politics and raise money for politicians INSIDE THEIR CHURCHES DURING SERVICES but not ok for white conservative churches and their pastors to do the same? And you Liberals say Republican conservatives are hypocrites? Liberal double standards at work, plain as day.

    And David H. there is a HUGE difference between Barack HUSSEIN Obama being held to higher standards than you and your relatives. Are you ready for this? You and Your relatives, thank God, are not running for the office of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

    Barack HUSSEIN Obama, President of the United States is repugnant because of his Black/Middle East Extremist Muslim philosophy of “GOD SHOULD KILL WHITEY OR WE SHOULD KILL GOD! teachings of young blacks and Arabs engrained in Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his wife by his “spiritual Advisor” who inspired Obama’s book and well hidden extremist black muslim political philosophy.

    Posted by: Terry Evers at March 26, 2008 12:11 PM
    Comment #249222

    And they say that Americans wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them on the ass.

    So much for the education system in this country.

    Posted by: Rocky at March 26, 2008 12:20 PM
    Comment #249228

    Terry Evers-
    I don’t think you’re asking these questions out of some discontent with religious involvement in politics.

    I think you write what you do because your candidates are so weak that they have to feed this kind of race-baiting, religion-baiting BS in order to scare them out of rational thought.

    You can’t call him a bad Christian and an evil Muslim at the same time, but yet you try. It’s easy to get confused when you’re reacting from fear. It’s easy to say somebody’s secretly this or that, and it makes it unnecessary to prove anything genuinely hair-raising about the candidate, which should be what we would really base our doubts on, not insinuation.

    I will vote for Barack Obama because he reflects what I consider the best interests, both strategy and issue-wise, of my party, and I would rather be on my side, trying to prove proudly that my country is better than the prejudice some would divide it with, than bear the shame and the disgust that belongs to those who would divide this country along lines of race and religion to win an election.

    Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 26, 2008 1:28 PM
    Comment #249316

    Comment #249019
    Outraged says that Jesus would be a liberal…..and that may be, but the difference between Jesus and the liberals of today…is that Jesus expected you to help your fellow man….liberals today expect the Government to do it with others peoples money…
    Posted by: David at March 24, 2008 03:07 PM

    Yes we do need accountability!!!!!!!!
    As for the waste of our money see the link below for the biggest offenders!!!!!
    I think Jesus would ask us why we must spend so much money to murder innocent men, women and children, steal their resources and lie about it!!!!!!!!!

    I think I would like to see my tax money put to a better use!!!!!!!

    http://i27.tinypic.com/120m447.jpg

    Posted by: Outraged at March 27, 2008 10:34 AM
    Post a comment