March 20, 2008
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 03-14-08I 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.
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 04:53 AMNo 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 07:20 AMDavid 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 07:27 AMSicilia 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
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 08:24 AM‘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.
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 08:33 AMApparently, 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 09:06 AMDavid 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 09:41 AMSo 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? AbsolutelyThe 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 09:47 AMThe 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 AMFace 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‘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.
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 AMDawn’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 AMStephen
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 AMObama 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 AMSE, 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
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“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 PMObama 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.
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.
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.
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 PMWatchblog Editor
I don’t know what happend. It seems that my comments got posted 3 times. Can you correct it?Sorry.
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 PMDavid 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“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 01:06 PMSE-
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 01:18 PMSicilianEagle,
“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.
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 01:29 PMRev. 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?
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.
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!!!!!!!!!
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 02:37 PMStephen
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….
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 02:53 PMkctim,
“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 02:58 PMYes 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.
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 03:27 PMBierut 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 03:36 PMWhat 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 04:05 PMWhat 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?
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 04:58 PMStephen:
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 05:19 PMDifference 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 05:33 PMStephen:
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 05:36 PMNews 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.
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?
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.
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.
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 06:37 PMkctim, 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!
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.
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 06:57 PMkctim-
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 07:15 PMIf this is the worst damage the Wright affair does…
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 20, 2008 07:35 PMsicilian 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 08:09 PMduane-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 08:16 PMNo 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 08:23 PMSicilian 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 08:25 PMStephen:
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.
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 09:33 PMThe 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.
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 09:52 PMStephen:
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 09:54 PMThe 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 PMCraig 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.
“And oftentimes excusing of a fault doth make the fault the worse by the excuse.”
William Shakespeare
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 PMStephen
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.
“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.
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 04:07 AMDavid 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 06:04 AMYou 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.
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 08:40 AMThis is hilareous. You guys should get a show on TV.
The followers of the fruitcakes in the religious right wing-nuts faction don