Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Obama’s "Mitt Romney" speech (updated)
Posted by: McQ on Monday, March 17, 2008

According to Ben Smith at Politico, he plans to address race in this campaign:
Barack Obama will give a major speech on "the larger issue of race in this campaign," he told reporters in Monaca, PA just now.

He was pressed there, as he has been at recent appearances, on statements by his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

"I am going to be talking about not just Reverend Wright, but the larger issue of race in this campaign," he said.

He added that he would "talk about how some of these issues are perceived from within the black church issue for example," he said.

He also briefly defended Wright from the image that has come through in a handful of repeatedly televised clips from recent Wright sermons.

"The caricature that’s being painted of him is not accurate," he said.
Caricature? Things I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears rarely end up as 'caricatures' of something.

While I accept the fact that there may be more to Rev. Wright than what I saw on those videos, I've heard the same said about Jerry Falwell by those who knew him well. But I still know what Falwell said about gays and 9/11 and still found it repulsive and something to be condemned.

If Obama intends to pursue the argument that what Americans have seen and heard from Wright aren't relevant in the big picture of Rev. Wright's accomplishments as he sees them, he's going to bomb big time.

That horse is out of the barn. Both Falwell and Robertson can be defended in precisely the same way Obama is implying he'll defend Wright. But those who heard their offensive remarks in the aftermath of 9/11 were never convinced what developed about those two were "caricatures" of them. Instead, what most concluded was despite their good works, their remarks revealed some deep-held beliefs most citizens found inappropriate, repulsive and hateful.

That is how most reasonable people view Wright's remarks - and all the alleged good he's done in his Southside Chicago neighborhood doesn't change the impact of his hate-filled words one tiny bit.

UPDATE: Marc Ambinder says:
He is expected to recount, in detail, how he came to know Rev. Wright, how he came to admire Rev. Wright, the history and meaning of the Trinity church, and address the controversial remarks attributed to Wright.

He is also worried that Wright and church will get caricatured unfairly.

Politically, Obama wants lead his defense, believing that surrogates might either inflame the controversy by defending Rev. Wright or describe imprecisely Obama's view of race relations.
Obama's talking about a defense like this:
The eruption of outrage, shock and fear that is flowing over Barack Obama’s campaign like hot lava because his pastor has preached some strident sermons tells us one thing for certain: Many white people don’t know black people at all.
Ummm but many white people know hateful speech when they see and hear it. Of course the paragraph above is followed by:
It seems they were also clueless that, when race, racism and discrimination do invade the pulpit, it is not always in the context of forgiveness and humility. Much of black America is resentful, angry and distrustful — rightly so, some of us would say. Did the uninitiated honestly believe that slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, white resistance and flight, economic and educational duality, hyper-incarceration and yawning disparities in wealth, health and longevity have had no lasting effects; that all of that is really no big deal — something we can kick off as easily as our Sunday shoes?

Surprise.
Most whites not only know about, acknowledge and condemn that history but have worked very hard to rectify it as well. Apparently what some blacks - such as the author of this article - don't know about whites is most also realize there's a purpose outside of "racial equality" at work here - creation of the culture of the victim. And its purpose is as old as man - a way of attaining power over others. Ironically the "others" in this case are very people it claims to want to liberate.

Surprise.

UPDATE II: It now appears Obama was in Chicago on July 22nd (the date specified in a NewsMax article claiming he attended one of Wright's controversial sermons) according to the Washinton Post's "Campaign Tracker". No time is given and it is listed as an "Appearance".

Huffington Post says the campaign staff has confirmed he was in Chicago that morning but continue to deny he went to church.

As noted earlier, NewsMax has also put out their own clarification:
Clarification: The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama's church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. Central time. While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. Mr. Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama's attendance. Mr. Davis' story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator's attendance and Rev. Wright's comments during his sermon. The Senator's office declined to comment.
________

Linked by JasonPye.com, Stop the ACLU, American Daughter, Outside the Beltway and Sister Toldjah - Thanks!
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Caricature? Things I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears rarely end up as ’caricatures’ of something.
heh.
How DARE you judge them by what they actually SAY?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
What odds we getting that Obama portrays himself as a victim?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
To make him a "Caricature", we would have to recast Obama in the role the OJ originally performed in the SNL skit "Samurai Nigh Fever".

The Samurai’s brother (a parody of Tony’s ex-priest brother Frank) decides that he wants to be ex-black saying "I don’t want to be black any more .. it was cool in the 60’s .. but .."
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
What are the odds that his speech makes more people pay attention to the statements of Rev. Wright ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
That is how most reasonable people view Wright’s remarks - and all the alleged good he’s done in his Southside Chicago neighborhood doesn’t change the impact of his hate-filled words one tiny bit.

Judged as a man who wants to improve the lives of blacks in Chicago’s South Side, Wright is a great success.

As a racial reconciliator and bridge-builder, not so much.

However, Barack is not running as the man who fixed the South Side.
 
Written By: Tom Maguire
URL: http://
All that goes to show that race still matters and there is a lot of misunderstanding. I’m willing to give Wright the benefit of a doubt, and expect Blacks give skeptical whites the benefit of a doubt. I’ll still probably vote for Nader though.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Gee Scott .. vote for Nader .. how white of you.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I see how Dr Erb is...he can vote for Nader and throw his vote away or actually vote for REAL Progressive Change? His choice, vote for the white guy....I see how you are. You talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk. If there’s a Black POTUS before you know it "those people" will move into the neighborhood and Pooof there goes the housing values and one might ask your daughter out. Just what I thought, another Crypto-$lanner in the good US of A.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
There seems a judgement call here to question, as well.
Nader more trustworthy than Obama, Erb?

(snort!)



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
I trust Nader more that I trust Obama....I mean nader has no reason to hide his moonbattiness, he’s going to get about 0.2% of the vote. More than the LP candidate...but being insignificant, he can be honest, whereas Obama needs to obfuscate his very liberal track record.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Did the uninitiated honestly believe that slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, white resistance and flight, economic and educational duality, hyper-incarceration and yawning disparities in wealth, health and longevity have had no lasting effects

Those in the black community who believe this nonsense must get the chip off of their shoulder. Besides the fact that a large portion of the U.S. population wasn’t here when slavery and institutional oppression were the rule, many of our families went through the same difficulties.

My Czech great grandmother was sold to an American family at age 11 to be a servant (aka slave) until she was 21. At adulthood, her family was dirt poor and only able to live in the industrial parts of Pittsburg. My grandfather - her only boy out of 11 children - had to hitch trains to Montana at age 13 and work several years on a sheep ranch to provide money for the family. Don’t give me a guilt trip from some bling-wearing ghetto rapper, mansion-living mega church minister, or affluent, elite private school educated presidential candidate.

Most of our family came through hardship. It’s the right of passage to citizenship for many. But unlike many in the black community, our family valued education, financial sacrifice and long work hours to make things better for our children. Several generations later, we still keep pursue these values.

No minority group will ever achieve success as long as it blames others for their problems. Latin Americans, Vietnamese, Thai, Koreans and countless other more recent immigrants have shown the capacity to succeed and thrive through the same practice. It’s a shame that Obama supports and practices in a church that wishes to continue the myth of institutional and societal oppression, which is only useful in keeping more people chained to the liberal plantation.


 
Written By: redherkey
URL: http://
To add to Redherkey’s comment:

On my mother’s side of the family, her great great gandparents came to America as convicts - they were given the alternative in England of the gallows or transportation. It is unknown to this day what their transgression was in the old country. (Note: Many do not realize that the gallows was a far more popular choice in those days, circa 1740.) Upon arrival in the Americas they were indentured to land grants in the new world and had to work off their sentence as indentured servants.

On my father’s side of the family, My great great grand parents came to this country as indentured servants. Slaves by any other name. They had been sold into this status because of debt in the old country. Companies sought workers in the old country - by hook or crook - and sold their rights to mine and land owners. Many of the workers on the various railroads that crisscrossed the country were bought as indentured servants. The legality of the process was the contract signed by the worker in return for commutation of sentence or debt in the old country or even to pay the ship’s fare for the crossing. And this was after the Civil War and the 14ht Amendment - approximatley 1878.

 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
If Obama intends to pursue the argument that what Americans have seen and heard from Wright aren’t relevant in the big picture of Rev. Wright’s accomplishments as he sees them, he’s going to bomb big time.

Why don’t you wait and hear what he has to say before you mischaracterize him.
 
Written By: swampcracker
URL: http://ecophotos.blogspot.com
The "Wright has been caricatured by the media" defense will not get Obama anywhere, except to his next try at a defense.

And, the fact that the church itself sells CDs of these sermons should tip even the media off that this is just another turn of the con.

"No, no, don’t look at that, this man is much bigger than that, why, he’s an important theologian. Did you hear what I said, he’s a theo-lo-gian, a theologian, and that’s very big, and black folks know how to understand that, you see. But I’ve got to distance myself from him because the white people don’t understand black people."

Wretchard (of The Belmont Club) was right the other day that the con artist requires the greed of the mark to work the con.

This con is just about over. The marks are walking away. Nobody, but the wicked and the depraved, are greedy for racism.

After the speech, as the lid is lifted on the pot they keep Wright’s "black theology" in, Obama will look even worse. This thing is a bottomless well.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
"Did the uninitiated honestly believe that slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, white resistance and flight, economic and educational duality, hyper-incarceration and yawning disparities in wealth, health and longevity have had no lasting effects"

I don’t know. Ask the Jews, or the Irish.


"All that goes to show that race still matters"

To who?

"I’m willing to give Wright the benefit of a doubt, and expect Blacks give skeptical whites the benefit of a doubt"

Right. I agree, I don’t believe your perception of reality either.


"To add to Redherkey’s comment:"

I myself, being the whitest of white, am descended from filthy rich royalty and have never had to lift a finger in my life, much like my parents and their parents before them. Why you peasants revel in your squalid family (assuming, of course, you actually know who you are descended from) histories is beyond me. C’est tres gauche.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
swampcracker:
Why don’t you wait and hear what he has to say before you mischaracterize him.
If Obama was going to explain why he left this church fifteen years ago, there wouldn’t be anything to see here.

Do you understand that this is a racist church? And that Obama has been a member of it for 20 years? And that even if Obama quit the church tomorrow it wouldn’t make any difference?

The black liberation theology that is embodied in the "Christian" teaching of that church is thorough, unmitigated racism, the black equivalent of the Klan or a white Christian Identiy church.

There is no way that Obama can talk his way out of that now.

"Understand that my attendance at those Klan rallies does not mean that I subscribe to everything the Grand Imperial Wizard has said. I went for the message of Jesus and the things the Klan does in the community. The Wizard does an attractive teaching of the social gospel, he doesn’t just set the crosses on fire. You see, white folks have a different understanding of the Klan, something black folks don’t understand."

There is no explanation that explains how someone running for President of the United States as a racial reconciliationist belongs for twenty years to a racist church run by a racist preacher."

There is no benefit of the doubt to be given in a situation like that.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
First "Black President" falling in the polls.

This is humour .. black humour.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Why Are Reverend Wright Videos Disappearing from YouTube?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
SShiel,

Some thoughts on your comments:

As a general rule English courts more often than not tried their best to avoid the execution of those who were convicted of crimes, particularly since a hanging could be meted for the most minor of offenses. Indeed, because the American War of Independence disrupted the transport of convicts prison hulks came into greater popularity as a stop-gap measure until that some other place could be found to transport prisoners to.

An indentured servant is not a slave because their end of service does have a potential to end. Also I don’t think their offspring were the property of those they were indentured to.
 
Written By: Marcion
URL: http://
Yesterday in a speech Obama harkened back to RFK’s speech after the assassination of Martin Luther King, as though his current problems with his preacher’s vicious is an assassination, which is the same tack his church is taking.

So Obama maps to RFK and Wright maps to MLK. And apparently those of us unhappy with Wright’s vicious sermons and Obama’s complicity map to Jame Earl Ray, the racist assassin of MLK.

Well, why not? According to the Trinity website, even when blacks murder blacks it’s not their fault, but that of the racist captor society, America.
But I noticed over the last several weeks that the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again. And I’m not here to cast blame or point fingers because everybody, you know, senses that there’s been this shift...

We’ve got a lot of pent-up anger and bitterness and misunderstanding. But what I continue to believe in is that this country wants to move beyond these kinds of divisions. That this country wants something different. And so –

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGB8BL
Sen. Barack Obama’s church staged a strong defense of its senior pastor Sunday, comparing criticism of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/846305,CST-EDT-trinity17.article
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://

I see how Dr Erb is...he can vote for Nader and throw his vote away or actually vote for REAL Progressive Change? His choice, vote for the white guy....I see how you are. You talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk. If there’s a Black POTUS before you know it "those people" will move into the neighborhood and Pooof there goes the housing values and one might ask your daughter out. Just what I thought, another Crypto-$lanner in the good US of A.
No, I just trust Nader more than Obama, McCain, or Clinton. And when I vote, I vote for whomever I think most trustworthy. I rarely vote for a mainstream candidate for President. I don’t care about race, that’s irrelevant in deciding something like this. Though I do like Political Scientists, so I could see voting for Rice ;-)
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
No, I just trust Nader more than Obama, McCain, or Clinton.
Which just about sums it all up, doesn’t it?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Over at HuffPo, Frank Schaeffer, son of famous Evangelist Francis Schaeffer brings the hypocrisy and racism of this issue to light.
When Senator Obama’s preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father — Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer — denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.
He comments about harsh anti-government rhetoric made by his father, including calling America is complicit in murder.
Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father’s footsteps) rail against America’s sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama’s minister’s shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.
And incitement to violence...
Consider a few passages from my father’s immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies.

Here’s Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:
If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.blockquote>

And of course the comparison to Nazi Germany...
Then this:
There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler’s Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God’s law it abrogates it’s authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...
The money quote
Take Dad’s words and put them in the mouth of Obama’s preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words "godly" and "prophetic" and a "call to repentance."
It’s called righteous anger, and it’s used in churches, white and black, across America. Some rail against social inequity, some against abortion, some against war, some against all three and more.

The point is that this is church people speaking on behalf of others that they feel have been oppressed or victimized in some way. There can be no doubt that Wright has done well in America, so he is not casting himself as the victim. He is speaking on behalf of the millions of black Americans who still suffer the effects of repression. You may feel this arguable, and what isn’t, but the fact that his point of view can be argued does not eliminate his point of view.

Righteous anger in the pulpit is by nature divisive and it is by nature fiery and often repugnant to those who are the object of the righteous anger. It’s not my style, nor is exclusionary religion in general, but how different is this from YOUR pastor telling you and the rest of the congregation you belong to that people outside of the walls deserve to go hell and suffer infinite torture?

I am not so much defending Wright, though he has as much right to denounce America as other religious figures (who are embraced) do, but rather to defend Obama as this issue is quickly becoming the new way to discriminate.

Until someone can show me where Obama has espoused these views, I will continue to believe that the ONLY reason this narrative is being exploited is for pure partisan political damage, and this exploitation is pure hypocrisy.

I think Obama is an amazing person, though I am not sure he is ready to be President, I persoanlly favored Joe Biden, but if these attacks are successful, they won’t just destroy a person, they will set America back 50 years in race relations.

You keep inserting Wright’s comments as reasons to disqualify Obama, but yet you cannot point to any comments my by Obama, in two books, and thousands of speeches, that align him with the rhetoric that you don’t like from Wright.

You may say shame on Reverend Wright, and I may agree, but as this being in an attempt to destroy Obama, I say shame on you. Maybe Wright has not risen above it, but from every word and action, it appears that Obama has.

But you can’t allow that, can you?





 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Is that the best you can do? "But Johnny does it tooooo. *whine*"

You also forgot to include the part where these white preachers put the blame on someone because of their color and not because of their beliefs.

As for comparing this unsourced quote from Schaeffer (whoever he is) to Wright, I am a little confuse. Are you saying that Schaeffer’s statement that Christians had a duty to resist the Nazis is equivalent to Wright’s comment that the US is run by rich white folks? Is it your point that Wright is justified in his remarks?

"It’s called righteous anger, and it’s used in churches, white and black, across America. Some rail against social inequity, some against abortion, some against war, some against all three and more."

Evidently you believe that railing against whitey is equivalent to railing against abortion, etc.



"denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr."


Somehow I doubt that Schaeffer was invited to the White House by three Republican Presidents because he advocated the violent overthrow of the government. Got proof?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
You may say shame on Reverend Wright, and I may agree, but as this being in an attempt to destroy Obama, I say shame on you. Maybe Wright has not risen above it, but from every word and action, it appears that Obama has.

But you can’t allow that, can you?
Nope.

Same as nobody on the right is ever allowed to "rise above" any perceived slight the left thinks they can use for political gain.

Sorry, but the rules of politics still apply to Senator Jesus.

Toodles!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
As for comparing this unsourced quote from Schaeffer
Unsourced?

You don’t know what HuffPo is?

I did forget to link to the post, but that hardly makes it unsourced, I named the author and the site it is on, your two clicks away instead of one.
Is that the best you can do? "But Johnny does it tooooo. *whine*"
No, more like, Johnny did it and you cuddled up to him and now hypocritically find this kind of rhetoric distasteful because you don’t like the issue on which he is basing his call for treason. And yes Schaeffer DID call for violence, unlike Wright who has not.
The next chapter in Schaeffer’s book is entitled, "The Use of Civil Disobedience" and in it he discusses the use of force. He writes (emphasis mine):

When discussing force it is important to keep an axiom in mind: always before protest or force is used, we must work for reconstruction. In other words, we should attempt to correct and rebuild society before we advocate tearing it down or disrupting it. (p. 106)
Evidently you believe that railing against whitey is equivalent to railing against abortion, etc.
I could rank my opinions on righteous anger, but that’s irrelevant.

Evidently you think that railing against abortion is equivelant to railing against 400 years of repression and murder? But that’s irrelvant too.

I do however think there is a difference between calling for violence (Schaffer - Republican hero) and yelling about social unjustice and encouraging people to fix it without violence (Wright).
Somehow I doubt that Schaeffer was invited to the White House by three Republican Presidents because he advocated the violent overthrow of the government. Got proof?
I doubt the White House press release would have indicated that the reason for his invitation was his incitement of violent overthrow of the US government, more likely they invited him for delivering votes. But it’s easy enough to learn for yourself whether these meetings occurred.
Sorry, but the rules of politics still apply to Senator Jesus.
I am glad you admit that this is nothing but politics to you, so what if the hypocritical meme you support sets race relations back 50 years. A good political smear cannot be ignored.

So cavalier about a meme you are supporting the consequences of which you have not even considered.






 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Sorry, the minister’s words do not compare to your father’s. The minister vociferously damns America, where your father warned of America being damned, a difference, I think.
Hey Captin, the first poster on at HuffPo pretty well sums where you, and Schaeffer, get it wrong.
No, more like, Johnny did it and you cuddled up to him and now hypocritically find this kind of rhetoric distasteful because you don’t like the issue on which he is basing his call for treason. And yes Schaeffer DID call for violence, unlike Wright who has not.
Here you get it wrong as well. Schaeffer’s "call for violence" was in regards to protecting human life, that is, from abortion. Wright is calling for damnation of white men because of...hate, as best as I can tell. He doesn’t want to heal anything, he doesn’t want fix anything, he doesn’t want protect human life - he just wants to call whites, Jews, the rich - whomever - evil, murderer’s or whatever. Too what end? What is the purpose? Christian love? Forgiveness? How so? He just sounds angry and racist to me.

If you were to read further, you would also know that Schaeffer espoused civil disobedience as a last resort. But that’s somewhat inconvenient for you, isn’t it?

Tell me Captin, what exactly is it that Wright wants? Reparations? A separate state? How is it that anything he says to his congragation brings a closure to this 400 years of "repression and murdering" as you say we whites did? I wasn’t around. Neither were you. One half my family wasn’t even here until the 1870’s, and the other half was so dirt poor that they hunted most of their meat until my fathers generation. Do they "owe" Wright and his haters?

See, just like the racists on the extreme right, the racists on the left are the same. They solve nothing, they heal nothing. They keep festering wounds that could possibly heal, open. They all just need to give it up. And you and your ilk need to stop covering for them, just as I won’t cover for the Robertson’s and Falwell’s of the world.
 
Written By: Warrior Needs Food Badly
URL: http://
See, just like the racists on the extreme right, the racists on the left are the same. They solve nothing, they heal nothing. They keep festering wounds that could possibly heal, open. They all just need to give it up. And you and your ilk need to stop covering for them, just as I won’t cover for the Robertson’s and Falwell’s of the world.
well said
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
So the questions for Senator Obama, who certainly as not only a member but a prominent member could get the kind of attention from the UCC leadership that would bring change, would be these:

* Do you agree with the UCC’s position on FALN? Do you agree with the Reverend Paul Sherry, the then-President of the UCC, that these terrorists should have been granted clemency?

* How about the honoring by the UCC of your Chicago constituent Alejandrina Torres? Should a maker of bombs, caught on a surveillance tape, be honored by our mutual church in any form or fashion? Do you or your wife Michelle share with the Reverend Linda Jaramillo an admiration for Ms. Torres as a "role model"?

* Do you or your wife know Ms. Torres, have you met her or had any contact with her in any form? Has she or her husband or any of their associates been supporters of your campaigns for state senator, Congress, the United States Senate or the presidency?

* Have you ever met Ms. Torres’s husband and worshiped in the UCC church where he was a pastor?

* Have you ever at any time led or participated in a movement within the UCC to change the policies of the national leadership on FALN or, for that matter, anything else?

* Do you think President Clinton did the right thing pardoning these people? (Hmmm, come to think of it, there may be another candidate in this race who has some insight on the Clinton administration and FALN pardons. As a matter of fact...no, never mind. Ms. Burlingame’s piece on the subject covers that ground.)

* Would you, as president of the United States, pardon those terrorists still behind bars?

It is very safe to say that the United Church of Christ is going to prove to be a veritable field of political landmines for Obama.

Stay tuned.
How many rocks are there to turn over ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I am glad you admit that this is nothing but politics to you
,

Actually, it’s more than politics. At this point, it’s about teaching people like you a lesson.

so what if the hypocritical meme you support sets race relations back 50 years.


Don’t ever talk hypocracy to me. You play with racial politics, you’ll get burned. And you’r being Dresden firebombed now baby, and you STILL double down on the racial politics, somehow trying to meme that the ones pushing this are racist. That’s why you have to be taught a lesson. Only way you’re going to learn. And if you don’t learn, maybe someone else on your side will. As for "setting race relations back" don’t make me laugh, not in a world where Sharpton is allowed to be a respected and influential member of the Democrat party. Don’t even go there.
A good political smear cannot be ignored.
Nope. Deal with it.
So cavalier about a meme you are supporting the consequences of which you have not even considered.
I sure have considered the consequences. It will expose Obama for the racist he really is. Seems win-win to me.

I’ll continue to treat black people like adults responsible for their choices and actions. You continue to treat them as poor dears who don’t know any better and have to have allowances made for them. Who the real racist is will come out in the wash I suppose, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t me.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Warrior hits the nail on the head. I’ve had discussions with my Co-Workers and Friends about this issue, and this is what we hear when we listen to Wright’s sermons that are being broadcast:

This will never be forgiven, this will never be forgotten. If you are white, you are evil, racist, and an oppressor. No amount of reparations, affirmative action, takeaways or giveaways will help. We will hold this over your head forever, and one way or another, you will be punished. Nothing you can do will change that, regardless of when you came here, what you’ve done, and what you believe. You are the reason our lives are not what we think they should be.

Does Obama think this way? Well, we’ve never heard him say it, but over 20 years of attending this church, and referring to this man as his mentor and spiritual adviser, well, sorry, but that just doesn’t compute. The shadow of doubt begins to creep in.

It’s quite sad really. Just when you think things are improving, something ridiculous like this happens, and your belief in “hope” and “change” gets flushed down the old commode of reality. Makes me wonder sometimes who really is setting back race relations 50 years.
 
Written By: autot
URL: http://
Prediction: After the Obama’s "Mitt Romney" speech, Ezra Klein/progressives will declare it one of the greatest speeches of our time.
 
Written By: Paul L
URL: http://kingdomofidiots.blogspot.com/
"You don’t know what HuffPo is?"

Sorry about that. I meant to edit it out but forgot.

"No, more like, Johnny did it and you cuddled up to him"

Sorry, but I don’t find folks like that even a little cuddly. (That is assuming, which I do not, that you have characterized him acurately). You have mistaken me, and probably a lot of others, for some caricature you have created.


." And yes Schaeffer DID call for violence, unlike Wright who has not."

So what? If I recall correctly, so does the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, can you not find an actual quote of this guy Schaeffer saying so, instead of some guy quoting Schaeffer’s quoting of some guy named Knox? A bit indirect for my taste.

"I do however think there is a difference between calling for violence"

Again, a bit oversimplified.

" But it’s easy enough to learn for yourself whether these meetings occurred."

Very slippery. First the assertion that he indeed called for the unconditional and immediate violent overthrow of the government, then the implication that this was known and approved of by three Republican Presidents. Then the implication that I dispute whether these ’meetings’ (a conspiracy?) occured.

Speaking of irrelevancy, this whole business about Schaeffer is irrelevant. When he runs for public office or has a close mentoring relationship with a candidate for public office, let us know. This kind of reminds me of the thread a few months back with pictures of Ron Paul talking to a Nazi.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I have felt that the intense scrutiny over personal assocation, presidential candidate or not, was and is too high. Given who the candidate in question is, and more importantly, his background, our nation’s history, the kind of association he had with Rev Wright was seemingly unavoidable. Obama might be somewhat jaded, but I suppose that if I were in his shoes, living his early life, I just might be jaded. In fact, if he wasn’t I would not only be surprised, but a little concerned.

It is said that you are only as good as the company you keep. Quite often true, but throughout each of lives, we’ll often encounter and build association with people from many walks of life, we’ll cross paths with people with different values and motivations and direction than our own. Sometimes they are ethically or morally or economically stronger than us, and for some reason we enthusiastically pursue the relationship, under a multitude of possible motivations. Sometimes they are not ethically, morally, or economically as strong as we presently were; yet we pursue and maintain the relationship. The reason we choose to associate with those who are less strong in the guidance and direction or less accomplished than we are sometimes means there is another unmentioned common denominator. Sometimes it is because we admire their zeal, their energy, their unapologitic frankness; others it is their eclectic nature, their patience, or their humility and humbleness. Sometimes the association is ultimately uncontrollable, sometiems the genes prevent disassociation.

The standard of rhetoric exercised in Obama’s speech this morning again gives me hope that we can converge on a point of reconcilliation. While I have privately been critical of the platitudes he spoke of, long before it became the point of current commentary. Nevertheless, the skill and composure exhibited continue to give me pause with this in mind: this candidate is prepared. He is well-balanced: despite the scrutiny and crticism to his long term and intimate association with Rev Wright, he is able to stand up and calmly do and say what needs to be said at the right moment.

Guilt by association might be effective when applied to the right circumstances, but pulpit politics isn’t one I would, literally and figuratively, put much faith in. If there is criticism or debate to be made of or by the candidate, it is legitimatgely over the agenda for the economic direction, foreign policy initiatives, technological investment. This presumptive chicken-little dance going on, is not. It is bad form. This is from someone who has no say in travesty that the Democrat[ic Party] nomination process has become.
 
Written By: JustinC
URL: http://
It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made ..
This is the best line that I found in the speech.

Funny how I got this image in my mind while I was reading it of many, many members of the Democratic Party believing the same thing.

If you didn’t .. reading it again and think "surge".
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Gotta admit, I think he did a good job with the speech.
I understand why people can get caught up by his style.

If you don’t like him and/or don’t trust him, you ought to be very grateful he doesn’t have MORE experience on his resume.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
JustinC,

If twenty years of sermons, and calling Wright his mentor don’t add up to more than association, then I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

It’s just not the same as McCain and Hagee. McCain is not, as far as I know, a member of Hagee’s church. His failure to immediately denounce Hagee’s anti-Catholicism was to me, indicative of McCain’s tone deafness on certain issues. (Hint: First Amendment, illegal immigrations) I don’t think McCain is a bigot.

I can’t say that about Obama. The most charitable way to take this whole association with Wright is to assume Obama doesn’t believe it, but is willing to use the church of perpetual grievance to further his political ambitions.

No sale here.

 
Written By: MarkD
URL: http://
"jad·ed (jdd)
adj.
1. Worn out; wearied: "My father’s words had left me jaded and depressed" William Styron.
2. Dulled by surfeit; sated: "the sickeningly sweet life of the amoral, jaded, bored upper classes" John Simon.
3. Cynically or pretentiously callous."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jaded
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider