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

 
Oh please, Mr. Obama ...
Posted by: McQ on Friday, March 28, 2008

Anyone else tired of being treated like an idiot by Obama?
In a clip posted by ABC, Obama says: 'Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country — for all its flaws — then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church."
Of course what you have to accept is the premise he continues to try to sell, that is he was totally unaware of this type of activity from his pastor. That requires you to believe that Wright only spoke this way recently and not at any other time in the 23 years Obama was a member of the church. Finally, you have to ignore the Wright/Farakahn relationship and all of what that brings with it.

Last, you also have to ignore this:
"If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me," Wright told The New York Times with a shrug. "I said it to Barack personally, and he said 'yeah, that might have to happen.'"
That from an August 2007 article.

Question - why would he feel the necessity to distance himself from Wright without a reason for that possibility? Any guess what that reason would be? So excuse me if I consider this just another politician trying to spin himself out of trouble.

Michael Rameriez again sums the point up rather well:

 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
From the link:
Barbara Walters: “We were saying just before you came out — maybe we shouldn’t say this. But we thought you were VERY sexy looking.” (Applause.)
Ladies, ladies, if you think that he looked good in that business suit, then you need to see him in uniform!
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
The funny thing about all this is that all Hillary had to do was keep her mouth shut.

Just be low-key, and let the guy go off the rails.

But no, she had to turn an afternoon trip to Bosnia into a mission to lead an assault on a fortified stronghold to rescue hostages.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country
Perhaps my memory is fading with the advance of old age, but I don’t seem to recall the Reverend Wright ever acknowleding any such thing.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
It’s sad that you’ve hitched your wagon to this meme Q.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
My wife (who follows politics almost not at all) noticed a story about McCain getting a huge jump in the polls over the last several weeks. Her question:

"How bad do the Democrats have to suck to be losing to a guy I haven’t heard anything about or from in a month?"
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://

But no, she had to turn an afternoon trip to Bosnia into a mission to lead an assault on a fortified stronghold to rescue hostages.
I seem to remember the Bosnia thing first erupting before Obama’s Wright troubles. That this is actually the second go-round, which limits her control over the timing.
 
Written By: Aaron Pollock
URL: http://
It’s sad that you’ve hitched your wagon to this meme Q.
Not as sad as your studious ignoring of the problem.

Neither his character or judgment fare well in this relationship which lasted in 23 years (and now, suddenly, is only worth throwing under the bus).
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Did anyone else notice that he didn’t refer simply to "the greatness of this country," but that he just had to throw in that qualifier, "for all its flaws"?
 
Written By: Diffus
URL: http://
Diffus, that was for Michelle, since she’s only recently been proud of the country.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Did anyone else notice that he didn’t refer simply to "the greatness of this country," but that he just had to throw in that qualifier, "for all its flaws"?


If you are running on platform of change, it’s kind of important that something needs changing.

Is America great, yes, is America perfect, don’t be ridiculous.
Not as sad as your studious ignoring of the problem.
You’re half right (which is an awesome improvement lately), I have studied the issue. My conclusion is that Wright’s comments were style more than susbstance and reflect the kind of fiery rhetoric you could hear OCCASIONALLY in any black Christian church in America. More importantly, is that fiery rhetoric as well as everything else taught in these churches TODAY underscores a call to civic activism WITHIN the system. Moreover, Obama’s rhetoric and actions for the last 25 years clearly indicate that whatever he took from Wright’s sermons, it was not racial separatism.

McPhillips likes to say if you don’t think that Obama is a black separatist, you are failing to believe your eyes, but this requires that one studiously ignores the man himself.

So I say to you, not as sad as your studious ignoring of the man.

I sincerely hope that on your part, this is just partisan politics, and not an actual breakdown in your capacity for objective thought.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
You’re half right (which is an awesome improvement lately), I have studied the issue. My conclusion is that Wright’s comments were style more than susbstance and reflect the kind of fiery rhetoric you could hear OCCASIONALLY in any black Christian church in America.
And that completely ignores the basic theology in operation at the church, and that was my point.

When James Cone points to Obama’s church as the most typical example of his hateful theology, you have to willingly ignore those implications in order to defend Obama’s continued presence there. And to borrow a phrase from Hillary Clinton, you have to willingly suspend disbelief to accept Obama’s claim he was completely unaware of any of this going on in the church for 23 years (but now, by God, if he was still the pastor, well, he’d leave!).

You may find those rather poor arguments to be convincing. I don’t.
I sincerely hope that on your part, this is just partisan politics, and not an actual breakdown in your capacity for objective thought.
Funny - that reflects exactly my thoughts about your rather lame defense of the church, the pastor and Obama these last days.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
On November 24, 2005, Duke visited Damascus, Syria, addressing a rally which was broadcast on Syrian television, and later giving an interview.[73] During the rally, he referred to Israel as a "war-mongering country", adding that "Washington, New York and London and many other capitals of the world" are "occupied by the Zionists."
After speaking to the Syrian people, Duke was interviewed, where he said that Israel "makes the Nazi state look very, very moderate." Syrian parliament member Muhammad Habash replied that Duke’s visit gave Syrians a "new and very positive view of the average American."
My conclusion is that Duke’s comments were style more than susbstance and reflect the kind of fiery rhetoric you could hear OCCASIONALLY in any white separatist meeting in America. More importantly, is that fiery rhetoric as well as everything else taught in these meetings TODAY underscores a call to civic activism WITHIN the system.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
Funny - that reflects exactly my thoughts about your rather lame defense of the church, the pastor and Obama these last days.
I think my arguments have been well founded and well presented, that you disagree is fine, but lame defense? Never.

Have you considered the following possibilities:

1. James Cone’s theology as written decades ago is not precisely what has been taught for the last 20 years in this church?

2. That the fiery rhetoric was occasional, and in the context of hundreds of Sunday’s appeared to be one-off rants from a man who lived through enough to forgive the occasional rant?

3. That Obama was not actually in church all that often to hear much of this? (He is a Democrat, after all)

4. That Obama, not having been to church much before he joined TUCC had no idea that this was how all churches were?

5. That Obama took the actual religious teachings and ignored the rest?

It appears that you have considered only ONE argument, the one that makes Obama a perfect adherence to the precise words of James Cone.

And you think I am not being objective?

I’m laughing now.



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
It could be a new game - "Nutjob or ’Obama’ Mentor" - the game host provides quotes with the actual race references bleeped and you have to determine who said them - David Duke, the local Imam, infamous German leader from 1940, Hugo Chavez, Louis Farrakan or Jerimiah Wright
 
Written By: BIllS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com
btw, Captain Sarcastic - try you list in the game - start with those who worked for the infamous german leader, they didn’t follow exactly what he taught? the fiery rhetoric was ocassional and in the context of hundreds of public events? They didn’t go to that many events - they human after all? They had no idea this wasn’t how leaders were supposed to speak? They took the nationalistic pride and ignored the ’rest’?.... where I come from it’s all hate and those that preach it and follow it for years should be excluded from power - there are no arguments to justify it.

but unlike you - I’m crying now...
 
Written By: BIllS
URL: http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com
Yep, so CS just chooses to ignore it...
"If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me," Wright told The New York Times with a shrug. "I said it to Barack personally, and he said ’yeah, that might have to happen.’"
Obviously, both the Pastor and Obama thought there might be a problem with their association. But, Obama went ahead and made him a spiritual adviser to the campaign anyway.

I don’t see great judgment in this.

Well, I might have to disavow you later, but till then I will put you in a prominent place in my campaign.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
I think my arguments have been well founded and well presented...
Of course you do. I, otoh, have seen exactly what I’ve described.
1. James Cone’s theology as written decades ago is not precisely what has been taught for the last 20 years in this church?
Did you miss this March 20th article?
Today, Cone, a professor at Union Theological Seminary in New York, stands by that view, but also makes clear that he doesn’t believe that whites individually are the Antichrist.

In an interview, Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, "I would point to that church (Trinity) first." Cone also said he thought that Wright’s successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition.
You know, maybe it’s just me, but that’s pretty hard to ignore and it flat contradicts your "well founded" argument doesn’t it? It also lays waste to your other 4 points. That article was referenced here and yet you studiously avoided its obvious implications.

So you laugh all you wish, but given the above, no, I don’t believe you’re being objective. You are, to the very best of your ability, attempting to ignore the real implications of Obama’s continued membership in a church of which the founder of a racist theology pointed to as his prototype church a week ago.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
James Cone’s theology as written decades ago is not precisely what has been taught for the last 20 years in this church?
Then why was Wright demanding that Hannity read Cone in order to understand his church one year ago?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country — for all its flaws —
So this is another Barack lie.....jeeze.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Then why was Wright demanding that Hannity read Cone in order to understand his church one year ago?
JGW, you miss the obvious point: they are not precisely the same. Over 20 years, there has to be some difference; and to the "meaning of is"/"I did not inhale"/"I didn’t swallow" crowd, that’s key.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
WRIGHT: How many of Cone’s books have you read? How many of Cone’s book have you read?
If we are to go by Wright, then we should be reading Cone to figure out black liberation theology.

It appears that Martin is leading the way on that, at lest among us Q&O types . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
It appears that you have considered only ONE argument, the one that makes Obama a perfect adherence to the precise words of James Cone.
CS, that’s stupid.

You are the one considering only one argument, and it’s really an argument worked backwards from your favored conclusion.

Obama doesn’t have to have "perfect adherence" and the words of Cone don’t have to be precise. If there is just some general agreement, that’s sufficient to determine that Obama is a rotten choice.

The reality is that people often work together based upon a general alignment, but they still disagree on the details. Me and my fellow gun nuts often disagree as to particulars: should felons have guns? Do we have a right to machine guns? Do we have a right to carry? I can go on and on. But we all agree in general terms on several key points.

Obama can disagree with Wright and Cone on all kinds of details, yet have alignment on key ideals. In fact, I don’t see anyone who is saying that this exactly defines Obama’s views, the problem is that it is unclear what Obama’s views are, and we have good reason to think they are radical and un-American. And Obama, for all his verbal skills, seems to have trouble making a clear statement that clears this up.


 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Best embodied does not mean it has not evolved, nor does it mean that James Cone has not evolved.

Does your church hold to the original words and intent of their founders and leaders, or did they evolve?

John Calvin

Martin Luther

Numerous Popes

Do I really need to pull out quotes from these guys calling for the murder and torture of Jews and others?

Has the way your church applies the words of the founders and leaders evolved since then? Of course it has.

You are really dangerously clueless about this theology, and picking out quotes and posting them as "evidence" doesn’t make you any less clueless, it just spreads ignorance. It’s not because you are white, because anyone can read and understand the reasons why this theology exists, how it came to be, and how it has evolved, qand why it has been a positive force among a lot of negative forces. You simply choose not to, because it’s not of any interest to you to understand, only to tear down over one guy that never even said anything to indicate that he espouses the ideology of this theology.

So how far do you think this can go before churches start burning again?

Where do you think this will lead?

Stormfront is way out ahead of you on this, for obviously different reasons (no, I don’t think for a second that you are racist), but they are loving this, the conservative mainstream is finally saying what they have been saying all along, that it’s all about ungrateful blacks hating whites.

The sad thing here is that although this issue has peaked as a negative for Obama, it has not peaked as new anger point for people inclined to be angry at black people anyway, and the direction this will take is new license to aggravate racial tensions after they have been moveing in the right direction for a long time. Black people have a reason to be angry, the great thing is that a lot of this anger has been vented outside of the public eye, and the venting of this anger in the black Christian church has been both cathartic and used towards positive ends.

You can’t hurt Obama with this stuff anymore, that ship has sailed, but you can be part of a whole new thing, that after years of having discussions with you, I do not believe you would want to be a part of.

Perhaps I’ll link you to some of the white supremacist sites on this topic so you can see who’s salivating more than Hillary over this, but not from this computer.



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Does your church hold to the original words and intent of their founders and leaders, or did they evolve?
Uhh, I suspect in most cases the founders are long dead. When did Martin Luther die again?
You are really dangerously clueless about this theology, and picking out quotes and posting them as "evidence" doesn’t make you any less clueless, it just spreads ignorance.
Usually what one side does is provides quotes, than the other side provides context. Context for the specific quote, that is. Your context is too much of a leap for reasonalbe poeple (i.e., that radical anti-American ravings are OK when they are said in a black church).
Stormfront is way out ahead of you on this,
And in WW2, Stalin was shooting in the right direction too, at least most of the time. We sometimes have common interest with the bad guys.
The sad thing here is that although this issue has peaked as a negative for Obama, it has not peaked as new anger point for people inclined to be angry at black people anyway,
Now you are sounding paranoid. This is about Obama, Wright, and liberation theology. Even lilly white Thomas Sowell takes issue with Obama on this. Frankly, this isn’t a black thing, it is about anti-American wack jobs, and their influence upon the man who wanted to be president.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
1. James Cone’s theology as written decades ago is not precisely what has been taught for the last 20 years in this church?
How precisely? To what degree of precision are you going to claim would be relevant? What could be written off, as you seem to be wanting to do? 10% of the teachings? How do you quantify it? Lastly, are you crazy?
2. That the fiery rhetoric was occasional, and in the context of hundreds of Sunday’s appeared to be one-off rants from a man who lived through enough to forgive the occasional rant?
Is there a meter that lights up before the rant to let everyone know that "the next 10 minutes are filler and not to be taken seriously. The Reverend will now be channeling Farrakhan and Miss Cleo. Please take the children out of the sanctuary." If my pastor took the occasional break from reality behind the pulpit, I’m probably not gonna stick around too long. I suppose my litmus test is too stringent when I look for my pastor, as my spiritual mentor, to be consistently Biblically-based and not blame other races for our problems. And I’m talking about the Holy Bible, in case there’s some other "Bible" I don’t know about.
And you think I am not being objective?
That you have considered a number of ridiculous possibilities does not mean you’re being objective. More like Nth level obfuscation.
 
Written By: rob
URL: http://
Best embodied does not mean it has not evolved, nor does it mean that James Cone has not evolved.
Good lord ... how can anyone have a conversation with someone who continually has to stretch credulity to excuse something which both Cone and Wright embrace?

Wright, on March 2nd, went after Sean Hannity because he knew nothing about Cone’s seminal work, "Black Theology and Black Power" or any of his other works:
WRIGHT: If you’re not going to talk about theology in context, if you’re not going to talk about liberation theology that came out of the ‘60s, (INAUDIBLE) black liberation theology, that started with Jim Cone in 1968, and the writings of Cone, and the writings of Dwight Hopkins, and the writings of womanist theologians, and Asian theologians, and Hispanic theologians...

HANNITY: Reverend, I’ve got to get this in.

WRIGHT: Then you can’t talk about the black value system.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: I’m going to tell you this. Listen...

WRIGHT: Do you know liberation theology, sir? Do you know liberation theology?

HANNITY: I studied theology; I went to a seminary. And I studied Latin.

WRIGHT: Do you know black liberation theology?

HANNITY: I’m very aware of what you’re calling black liberation, but let me get my question out.

(CROSSTALK)

WRIGHT: I said, do you know black theology?

HANNITY: Reverend, I’m going to give you a chance to answer my question.

WRIGHT: How many of Cone’s books have you read? How many of Cone’s book have you read?

HANNITY: Reverend, Reverend?

(CROSSTALK)

WRIGHT: How many books of Cone’s have you read?
Sound like a guy who is talking "evolution" in his thinking? Sounds to me like someone who is claiming that he believes what James Cone has written.

And what has Cone written that Rev. Wright wants Hannity to read and understand?

Well things like this:
"Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God’s love." [A Black Theology of Liberation, p. 70]
And this:

"It is important to make a further distinction here among black hatred, black racism, and Black Power. Black hatred is the black man’s strong aversion to white society. No black man living in white America can escape it...But the charge of black racism cannot be reconciled with the facts. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. Racism, according to Webster, is ’the assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another, which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its rights to dominance over others.’ Where are the examples among blacks in which they sought to assert their right to dominance over others because of a belief in black superiority?...Black Power is an affirmation of the humanity of blacks in spite of white racism. It says that only blacks really know the extent of white oppression, and thus only blacks are prepared to risk all to be free." [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 14-16]
And this:

"For the gospel proclaims that God is with us now, actively fighting the forces which would make man captive. And it is the task of theology and the Church to know where God is at work so that we can join him in this fight against evil. In America we know where the evil is. We know that men are shot and lynched. We know that men are crammed into ghettos...There is a constant battle between Christ and Satan, and it is going on now. If we make this message contemporaneous with our own life situation, what does Christ’s defeat of Satan mean for us?...The demonic forces of racism are real for the black man. Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil." The white structure of this American society, personified in every racist, must be at least part of what the New Testament meant by the demonic forces." [Black Theology and Black Power, pp. 39-41]
This:
"All white men are responsible for white oppression. It is much too easy to say, "Racism is not my fault," or "I am not responsible for the country’s inhumanity to the black man...But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic and social structures, their churches, and in every other aspect of American life, they are directly responsible for racism...Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty. Karl Jaspers’ description of metaphysical guilt is pertinent here. ’There exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant.’ " [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 24]
And this:
"To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!" [Black Theology and Black Power, pp. 139-140].
So we have Wright defending Cone’s writings at the beginning of March. We have Cone saying that Wrights church is the embodiment of his theology, and you want to argue they may have evolved.

That, of course is an argument grounded in conjecture. What I’ve laid out above is grounded in fact. Quotes from the principles of the argument. So again, tell me how your argument is anything more than a suggestion of what might be, without a single scintilla of fact to back it up, and mine is grounded in written and spoken words from the two pastors who essentially reject what you’re contending?

And you really go off the rails with this little beauty:
You are really dangerously clueless about this theology, and picking out quotes and posting them as "evidence" doesn’t make you any less clueless, it just spreads ignorance.
You, sir, have become an Erb. You provide nothing but the cyber equivalent of hot air, and tons of it, and think that stomping around and claiming others are "ignorant" in the face of common sense and facts - which argue strongly against your claim on all fronts - somehow qualifies as a "well founded and well presented" argument?

I mean you know who has lost the argument when they have to resort to this sort of "objective" argument":
Stormfront is way out ahead of you on this ...
Your "argument", such that it is (I contend that in reality it is merely a collection of poorly but forcefully made assertions) lays in tatters and your defense is I’m ignorant and a closet racist. How Erbesque can one get?

You are so in the partisan bag for Obama you can’t be objective and you’ve demonstrated that in this thread to a point of embarrassment for yourself.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
and their influence upon the man who wanted to be president.
So, show me, in Obama’s words or actions, one scintilla of evidence of this influence.

He has written 2 books, he has 10 years of history in the Illinois state legislature, and another couple of years in the Senate, in all, his actions, and the hundreds of thousands of words illustrating his positions.

So among all that, tell me that you can do better than quote SOMEONE else to establish what Obama believes.

Do you people really think that he is Harlem version of the Manchurian Candidate, a pure invention designed to put a black nationalist racist into the White House, so on inauguration day he can take the oath and turn into Superfly and sprout a fro and put all you white folk in shackles have the ATF run some race reverse lynchings?

He would have a tough enough time not getting assasinated just being who he is.

This church, nor any of the thousands of black liberation churches are racist white hating bastions of radical thought. They are definitely liberal, they are definitely focused on social justice, and definitely accusatory of the power structure, and they make a point of remembering slavery, Jim Crow laws, and lynchings, and continuing discrimination because it is a part of who they are. Most importantly, the entire focus of the theology is to overcome the adversity, not to wallow in victimhood, and not to lash out in violence.

This entire meme dies the moment people realize that black, in America, is an ehtnicity, not a race. It is an ethnicity created when blacks in Africa were kidnapped from their tribal homes (often by other Africans or Arabs) and sold into slavery, forced into close relationships with Africans who spoke different languages and had different cultures, and they had to communicate, develop new cultures, and new identities, as slaves. The ethnicity continued when slavery ended and the Jim Crow began, and it continues to this day. It is a commonality of experience that Irish, Polish, Italian are able to joyfully exclaim their pride, just as blacks, also as an ethnicity are welcome to do in the eyes of anyone who recognizes black American as an ethnicity.

For those that refuse to acknowledge this fact, and attempt to replace the word black with white to show that black pride is racism, is to be intellectual dishonest. Understand this, when the word black is used, it is as an ethnicity, like Irish or Polish, but when the word white is is put in it’s place, it represents ONLY exclusion of blacks, and is racist by it’s very nature.

It is laughably sad that as a nation or culture we created this ethnicity, and now want to call it racist for behaving as an ethnicity, and then try to tear it down by claiming this ethnicity is racist because it has ethnic pride.

Obama was not born into an ethnic black American family, his father was Kenyan, his mother a white woman from Kansas, so he did not spend his childhood in this ethnic black experience, and only came to it as an adult in his 20’s. I have no doubt that there were elements that shocked him, but I also have no doubt that he was convinced that this church, one the of largest in the country, was solidly mainstream in the black community. He could have walked away from the church, but there was no place to walk to, unless he wanted to walk away from the black community.

Which brings us to the point that Obama is a black man, who spent a portion of his life immersed in black culture, and it is that black culture that is beiing used to disqualify him, as if that is diferent from being disqualified because he is black.

I guess we can rationalize anything, can’t we.




 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Best embodied does not mean it has not evolved, nor does it mean that James Cone has not evolved.

Does your church hold to the original words and intent of their founders and leaders, or did they evolve?

John Calvin

Martin Luther

Numerous Popes
And which American congregation have any of these leaders have recently stated best embodies his theology?

This is a red herring, Cap, and you know it. It’s utterly shameful of you to pull this out of your hindquarters.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
So, show me, in Obama’s words or actions, one scintilla of evidence of this influence.
Holy balderdash, Batman!

Are you trying to tell us that after spending 23 years in this church, after being married by the Reverend Wright, after calling Wright is spiritual advisor, after saying that Wright is the man who brought him to Christianity, that Wright has had absolutely no influence on Obama?

Are you stupid, or do you think we’re not paying attention?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
So, show me, in Obama’s words or actions, one scintilla of evidence of this influence.
His 2006 tax return shows approximately $22,500 in tithe (charitable contribution) to the church. If that is not buying into the church, and its theology, I do not know what is.
Do you people really think that he is Harlem version of the Manchurian Candidate. . .
No. The Manchurian Candidate would never have entered such a church. But he recovered well, throwing Reverend Wright under the bus by recently stating if Wright were still the minister, he would leave that church.
It is laughably sad that as a nation or culture we created this ethnicity, and now want to call it racist for behaving as an ethnicity, and then try to tear it down by claiming this ethnicity is racist because it has ethnic pride.
No, Trinity’s Black Liberation theology could be the poster child for the Webster’s definition of racism - right up there with the KKK. I have nothing against "I’m black and I’m Proud! Many of my friends (Black, by the way) tell me that to this day. I do have a problem being equated with the Anti-Christ because I am white.
I also have no doubt that he was convinced that this church, one the of largest in the country, was solidly mainstream in the black community.
What do you use to assume this point? How many churches did Obama attend before he chose this one. You want to show something to support such an assumption.
He could have walked away from the church, but there was no place to walk to, unless he wanted to walk away from the black community.
You think Trinity is the only Black Christian congregation in Chicago? You want to check on a map and see how many there are within a 5 mile radius of Trinity? It took me about 5 minutes with google and mapquest to find approximatley 12 congregations (approximately because those were the ones I found - I may have missed a few).
I guess we can rationalize anything, can’t we.
You sure have!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Which brings us to the point that Obama is a black man, who spent a portion of his life immersed in black culture, and it is that black culture that is beiing used to disqualify him, as if that is diferent from being disqualified because he is black.
If you thought of this earlier, maybe you could have disqualified Clairance Thomas or Condi Rice.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Your "argument", such that it is (I contend that in reality it is merely a collection of poorly but forcefully made assertions) lays in tatters


I guess that analysis would depend on what you are arguing.

I am arguing that there is no evidence from Obama’s behavior, words, or actions, that indicate that as a result of attending this church (or by other influence) he is black separatist, black nationalist, or any of the radical monikers you choose to apply.

Your ENTIRE argument requires that you ignore everything Obama has ever said or done, except attend church.

Further, since you cannot find a single racialist word or deed from Obama, the only way you can even add a word count to your argument is by using the words of Wright and Cone and assign them to Obama.

That my friend, is a weak argument.

I could have stopped at simply stating this case, but I also tried to have the discussion about why black churches are historically and currently, what they are. Obviously that’s a discussion that you aren’t interested in, since it does nothing bolster the smear campaign.


 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I could have stopped at simply stating this case, but I also tried to have the discussion about why black churches are historically and currently, what they are. Obviously that’s a discussion that you aren’t interested in, since it does nothing bolster the smear campaign.
A smear campaign that it seems Obama himself is perpetrating. His words today on "The View" are telling. Referring to Reverend Wright:
"The statements that he made were rightly offensive. They were less offensive in terms of race than in terms of their view of the country."
And this exchange later:
Barbara Walters: "Had the reverend not retired would you have left the church?"

Obama: "Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying at the church."
For me that tells me about a man that came to a revelation - 20 years too late. And had it not become an issue, one that was derailing his chances in the current campaign, would Wright’s picture still be displayed on the front page of Obama’s Web Site? As it was until the middle of last week.

Smear, Schmeer. Obama has answered his critics to your satisfaction - Good. Maybe some of us have higher standards. Go figure!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Why is it that this Obama story continues to read like a chapter from "Invisible Man" ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
CS wrote:
Which brings us to the point that Obama is a black man, who spent a portion of his life immersed in black culture, and it is that black culture that is beiing used to disqualify him, as if that is diferent from being disqualified because he is black.
The obvious counterargument to this is that most whites and a fair number of blacks in America do not accept the premise that the particular black culture that Obama chose to immerse himself in is really by definition a true microcosm of black culture in general (as Don pointed out, conservative blacks seem perfectly capable of rejecting that portion of black America without feeling that they are renouncing their heritage.) It’s actually a pernicious, race-baiting portion of black culture that Obama felt he needed to immerse himself in, to gain credibility with the people who are from that segment of black American culture. The fact that he felt the need to do so speaks volumes about exactly how successful he can actually be as a ’postracial’ candidate. It doesn’t matter at all whether he agrees with the theology and political philosophy at TUCC, what matters is that he apparently felt it necessary to kowtow to the people who do believe those things.

 
Written By: C Stanley
URL: http://
Your ENTIRE argument requires that you ignore everything Obama has ever said or done, except attend church.
Uh, no.

It has to do with his dissembling about what went on in the church and his claims that he never heard or knew that what Wright was preaching was, in fact, the theology of the church.

That’s a character issue.

And if he did know, that’s a judgment issue..

The fact that you keep trying to change the subject and ignore those points is a partisan issue and disqualifies you from objective argument.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
As I read along in Cone’s books, the overriding message is perpetual grievance. Slavery was not just a historical wrong, a historical dead end, from which blacks and whites both need to recover, it is the final definition, the meaning of the world itself, and the meaning of Christ and Christianity. Slavery can’t be recovered from because it is the very path of redemption, and what redemption means is the abolition of "whiteness" and the triumph of "blackness."

God is, in fact, black and blacks are his Chosen People.

This "abolition" of whiteness is preferably achieved by the submission of whites, to rid themselves of the Satanic evil of their whiteness, to blacks and blackness. That is the only path to redemption for whites.

The alternative is to bring violence against whites for their whiteness, because any revolution ipso facto accepts violence as its necessary means. Violence isn’t a question. Rather, it inheres in the necessity for the revolution itself. It is only a matter as to when violence will need to be applied. (Hence the need to portray white America as the violent party, even to the point of accusing it of inventing and spreading the AIDS virus to kill blacks.)

Now, Obama has tried very hard to impress the American people as a very intelligent and thoughtful man, but he also wants to tell them — he will eventually have to tell them this, in fact — either that he did not know that he belonged to a black supremacist cult or that he knew of these "strange teachings" and just held them aside while he pursued the Gospel of Christ.

The problem is that when black supremacy via "black theology" is the basis for the cult’s interpretation of the Gospel of Christ, you can find no bottom to this dilemma and no bottom to Obama’s deception.

Another problem is that this sort of thing is so alien to most Americans, so hard to believe, that they will not be willing to see it unless it is carefully and explicitly shown to them.

Even if I were to conclude that Obama is innocent, by some twisted logic which exempts him from common sense, he cannot be considered a legitimate candidate for President of the United States.

But I’m not inclined to find him innocent, because there can be no legitimate benefit of the doubt in a circumstance like this for a presidential candidate. I have to assume that Obama’s messianic populism is rooted in this cult’s definition of blackness and in this cult’s definition of America and in this cult’s definition of whiteness, and that Obama’s notion of racial "reconciliation" is reconciliation as defined in "black theology," which is whites renouncing their whiteness and submitting to blackness.

Now of course that’s not how he is going to describe it on the stump as a candidate, but that is in fact the teaching that he has ipso facto associated himself with as a member of Wright’s "black theology" cult.

I return to a conclusion that I reached a while back and redouble its significance: Obama is running an historic con. He accepts the feedings of white liberal guilt into that con. He hopes to find enough marks among whites who will never pay enough attention to hear these facts about his church. He will now keep seeking fallback positions in a search for equilibrium with public opinion. And if he is not chased back to the ideology underlying the cult to which he has belonged for 20 years, and has used as his springboard into politics, he will be allowed to work the con to its successful conclusion.

That would make him commander-in-chief of the U.S. military and put him in control of an immense national security apparatus, not to mention the domestic and foreign policy of the U.S. government. How does that suggest that he be given the benefit of the doubt about his membership in Wright’s cult?
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I would argue that something parallel to this has developed over decades in the U.S. regarding American blacks. Some might think that what we have here is a subset of political correctness, but I think those of us old enough know that it might be better described as the forerunner of political correctness.

Threats of violence? Well, the Crown Heights riot in New York City and the Rodney King riots in LA suggest that a tinder box is available in the right circumstances. But will that now develop in another direction, toward threats against individuals who "transgress"?

Looking back at the Imus incident, there’s a suggestion that enforcement was tightened running into this election cycle (and, of course, Imus was an easy target, even though he had for a few years, at least, been promoting Harold Ford Jr. as a presidential candidate — Ford dumped Imus as the "Ho" comment controversy developed, by the way). I’d always thought that because Imus could not stand Hillary Clinton that that was the reason the PC enforcers came for him. But I’d be willing to consider the potential impact that his unrestrained candor might have had in the Wright matter, despite Imus’s relentless a**kissing of media and political types.

Remember that Imus was about what was interesting on MSNBC, and the reason a lot of people tuned that dog of a cable network in in the morning. He’s a crank fool but he could be amusing. Since the demise of Imus MSNBC has become the Obamatron (analagous to the Orgasmatron of Woody Allen’s film Sleeper), with Chris Matthews going off in his pants on air.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Martin — Thanks for the updates on your Cone readings. Which books are you reading and which do you recommend, beyond your summaries, as worth reading?

I’m also curious as to your take on how much of black theology does Obama buy into and how much is Obama’s conscious strategy as politician?
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
huxley,

A Black Theology of Liberation, Black Theology and Black Power, and as editor, with Gayraud S. Wilmore, Black Theology: A Documentary History, 1966-1979.

The books have pretty repetitive themes, but the one that seems most determined to set itself apart is Black Theology and Black Power.

Cone is a vicious, hare-brained, racist crank, and the line from his work to Wright’s sermons is straight, short, and not dotted.

I don’t know how much "black theology" Obama buys into, but since he’s hiding the truth about this cult he has belonged to, which is based on it, and he’s running for President of the United States, I’ll start with the assumption that he buys into 100% of it.

Oddly enough, if you accept the fact that he had to remove the actual distinct artifacts of the ideology from his campaign rhetoric, there’s very little of what I’ve hear from Obama that would be incompatible with "black theology." I said a long time ago that it seemed to me that he was talking over the heads of his white supporters to the black nation, and by now I think that’s pretty apparent.

That a lot of his rhetoric dovetails with the Left is no accident, but you can see him trying to deny that aspect of it. There is a lot of dovetailing between what the Left wants and believes with "black theology," and in that respect they share socialism and anti-Americanism.

Obama has extra stuff for the masses, however.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
As I read along in Cone’s books,
As I read along in Obama’s books, the overriding message is one of hope, a rejection of victimhood, a recognition of the failures of the welfare state, and racial reconciliation.

But hey, why take his word for it when you can assign Cone’s words to Obama?

The rebound is nearly complete, by the way.
The latest nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted March 19-22 among 1,503 adults, finds that Obama maintains a 49% to 39% advantage over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, which is virtually unchanged from than the 49% to 40% lead he held among Democrats in late February. Obama and Clinton continue to enjoy slight advantages over John McCain in general election matchups among all registered voters.
You went into the gutter, and failed, but keep it up, from now on, anytime this is brought in the MSM, it will work in Obama’s favor.


 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
You went into the gutter, and failed, but keep it up, from now on, anytime this is brought in the MSM, it will work in Obama’s favor.
There is nothing that will make this work in Obama’s favor, pal.

If you think that you’re going to get a replay of the "it’s just about sex" phenomenon, you’re even more witless than you seem.

This is not "just about sex."
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
You went into the gutter, and failed, but keep it up, from now on, anytime this is brought in the MSM, it will work in Obama’s favor.
And you know this - how? By means of a crystal ball? Or another one of your three wishes from the Obama Genie.

You criticize us for seizing on this supposed smear of Reverend Wright and you wonder why? Could it be that Obama is an empty page? What is it we have to go on with this man. You yourself can only point to his two books and his speeches. His time in the Senate has been spent running for President. And his time in the Illinouis legislature is highlighted by 130 votes of "Present".

So, if his legislative experience contains no real insight into the man - what of his writings. John F. Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for another man’s authorship of Profiles of Courage. And the later of the Obama books was written with full klnowledge of his anticipated run for the Presidency. So can you really rely on anything written of the man’s actions or history? Not really. Nothing I can take to the bank. (Althought I do not know where you may be banking - Bear Sterns?)

So we have to rely on other aspects of the man. His relationships and the people he relies upon over the years. And what do we find?

The Reverend Wright: Mentor and Spiritual Leader - ’nuff said.

Tony Rezco: From and article in the NY TImes (June 2007):
Mr. Obama says he never did any favors for Mr. Rezko, who raised about $150,000 for his campaigns over the years and was once one of the most powerful men in Illinois. There is no sign that Mr. Obama, who declined to be interviewed for this article, did anything improper.

Mr. Obama has portrayed Mr. Rezko as a one-time fund-raiser whom he had occasionally seen socially. But interviews with more than a dozen political and business associates suggest that the two men were closer than the senator has indicated.

When Mr. Obama first fielded questions about Mr. Rezko last fall, he said they had had lunch once or twice a year and had socialized with their wives "two to four times."
But more recently (March 2008):
Trying to put his past with Antoin “Tony” Rezko behind him, presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday said he never thought the now indicted Chicago businessman would try to take advantage of him because his old friend had never asked for a political favor.

But in a 90-minute interview with Tribune reporters and editors, Obama disclosed that Rezko had raised more for Obama’s earlier political campaigns than previously known, gathering as much as $250,000 for the first three offices he sought.

Rezko helped bankroll all of Obama’s subsequent campaigns except his presidential bid. Rezko was on Obama’s campaign committee in his failed run against U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush and gathered between $50,000 and $75,000 of the estimated $600,000 raised in that race, Obama said.

Rezko also was on the finance committee for Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate run. “My best assessment is that he raised $160,000 during my U.S. Senate primary,” he said, adding that those funds had been given to charity.
Additionally, there are still unanswered questions regarding Rezko’s assistnace to Obama for the purchase of his home. And with his relationship to Rezko still questionable, Rezko is indicted for a myriad of money laundering and racketeering charges.

And then there is William Ayers: Rick Moran’s comments from "Rightwing Nuthouse" are to the point:
Former Weather Underground member and unrepentant terrorist bomber William Ayers was one of Obama’s earliest political supporters. Neither Obama or Ayers will comment on the extent of their relationship but it is clear that they have had contact several times over many years. They have participated in several forums at the University of Chicago together where Ayers is a professor and even served on the same Board of Directors overseeing the far left Woods Fund.

“Guilt by association?” Some enterprising journalist might want to ask Obama what he was doing paling around with an unreconstructed radical who spent 10 years on the run from the FBI and whose views on America or so out of the mainstream as to make him a pariah even among liberals. He must have found something attractive about Ayers to continue what was described by a friend of both men as a “friendship.” He may disavow the tactics used by Ayers but how about his ideology?

A politician can grow and change their views on a variety of subjects. This may be what happened to Obama over the years as his radicalism may have been tempered by both the reality of running for office and a sincere re-examination of his worldview. But shouldn’t his long term relationship with this despicable character call into question at the very least Obama’s judgment?

When decent folk would never dream of associating in any way with such a man as Bill Ayers, what does that say about the candidate? He could have refused appearing in the same forums with him. He could have turned down the spot on the board of the Woods Fund. But he didn’t. And so far, no explanation has been given by the campaign beyond “guilt by association.”
So, this empty page called Obama comes up with a myriad of questionable alliances. My grandfather always warned me of relationships that could harm me. His words were "You are who you run around with." His grammar may not have been the best but his point was rock solid.

 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
The best I can say for Obama is give him another eight years in the national spotlight and a good stint of answering the hard questions about who he is and what he thinks and I’ll listen. Maybe he has grown through all these experiences to some new synthesis.

But right now, given that Obama has almost no record, no experience, a host of dodgy connections, and a decades long membership in a black power church that he is lying about, I consider voting for Obama on par with voting for the Pied Piper.

Apologies to any Obama supporters reading this, but I consider your support for this candidate flat-out irresponsible.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
And you know this - how? By means of a crystal ball? Or another one of your three wishes from the Obama Genie.
Because it has been brought up, played up as large as it could be, so now, when someone tries to resurrect this meme, it will be seen as playing the card, and will work in Obama’s favor.

54% of Americans have seen this story, there was a dip, and a rebound in the polls.

Y’all did better with the Obama is a Muslim meme, 25% of Democrats STILL believe that one.

I could go to some lefty site and find tales about McCain that sound really bad, I’m just not interested in that kind of politics, never have been.
Apologies to any Obama supporters reading this, but I consider your support for this candidate flat-out irresponsible.
I am not sure if I could vote for Obama for President, he was not in my top 5 in the primaries, but my participation in this discussion is based on my disgust of the possibility that he could be destroyed over a nothing meme like this.

I tend to agree with you on the experience issue, but the rest, the "skeletons", are something every pol has, because most of them are just characterizing fairly innocuous situations in the most damning way possible.

Obama is something special, he has the potential to transcend socioeconomic status, race, ideology. Maybe as President, maybe not, and I am not suggesting that he not be vetted, but this particular meme was just gutter politics and I am glad that’s over, and that it failed.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
At least Rev. Wright did not say Let’s nuke Foggy Bottom, and Jesus drew back the curtain of protection because of Liberals and Homosexuals in America. That would have made him mainstream I suppose.

It is sad that so many Americans act like junkyard dogs whenever they are thrown a piece of some Democratic flesh - black or white.

The formula for that is to instill an emotion of anger against your intended victim. This generally turns off rational thought processes in the object of the propaganda, and what we witness are humans acting like trained, Pavlovian animals.

 
Written By: John Stanley
URL: http://
huxley:
Apologies to any Obama supporters reading this, but I consider your support for this candidate flat-out irresponsible.
The great dilemma is that more than half of Democrats suddenly discovered that they can’t stand Hillary Clinton, something that would have been helpful for them to come to grips with about ten years ago.

Then suddenly their chosen replacement, Obama, comes up looking worse than she does.

Then there is speculation of a last minute switch to Gore!

Why not, instead of offering the country ruin, go to the convention and broker a deal for a ticket that includes, say, Evan Bayh and Harold Ford Jr.

You get young, fresh faces, liberal to centrist policies. Where with Clinton or Obama you get the creeps. With Gore you get a silly old lady.

And the preferences of the primary voters will just have to be overridden this time, because the process produced candidates who under no circumstances should become President of the United States. That’s the Party’s problem for not properly vetting them, and the Party can restore itself by saying "No, we can’t let this happen," and yanking this away from Clinton and Obama.

For once a backroom deal would look good.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Of course, the leaders of the current Democratic backroom are Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Carter, Kennedy, and Murtha. No hope there.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
huxley:
Of course, the leaders of the current Democratic backroom are Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Carter, Kennedy, and Murtha. No hope there.
Well, there’s a lot of money out there, too. With some serious non-Clinton arm-twisting and a little imagination, who knows what could happen.

If something like a Bayh/Ford ticket came about, I wouldn’t necessarily vote for them, but I might not vote for McCain. What I’m saying is that a lot of people could indulge their desire to take a pass on McCain if neither Hillary nor Obama could become president.

But you’re probably right. While the Republicans remain the "stupid party," the Democrats have gone from being the "evil party" to the "evil and stupid party."
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I’m still a registered Democrat. I sometimes wonder if the party has always been this crazy, but no I don’t think it has. Something happened in the sixties—the JFK assassination, the Vietnam war—and the Democrats began turning against America as a good country

Now we have two graduates of the Saul Alinsky school of radical organizing as Democratic presidential candidates, who believe that American must be fundamentally transformed into some leftist vision before America can be OK.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
I am not sure if I could vote for Obama for President, he was not in my top 5 in the primaries, but my participation in this discussion is based on my disgust of the possibility that he could be destroyed over a nothing meme like this.
And this "nothing meme" would not have happened had Obama had anything to run on besides his "soaring oratory". How do you judge a blank sheet of paper? You check it’s weight, processing, all of the component parts to determine if it is good paper. Nothing is written on it, no geat ideas to judge the quality of the paper, nothing at all to suggest it has the wherewithal to be even good card stock. So how are we to judge this empty page - Obama?

For want of a shoe . . .
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
And this "nothing meme" would not have happened had Obama had anything to run on besides his "soaring oratory".
That’s funny!

Do you really believe, that had Obama had a Fortune 500 CEO stint in his past, maybe a few more years in the Senate as well, that people would not have been clawing overthemselves to get this meme in the MSM?

Obama has 20 years of a very public life. Compare this to GWB, who had a VERY private life up until he became a governor in a state where the governor has little responsibility, and even less power, combined with nebulous, mostly failed business ventures, culminating in being given the option to purchase ownership in a baseball team that made him a multimillionaire virtually overnight.

I don’t agree with the blank slate analogy, but as I said, I do question his exective experience.

On that score however, I question the executive experience of all the candidates.

McQ made a good case regarding McCain’s time as a squadron commander, and although I have had more people under my direction (am I qualified to be President?) McCain gets the nod in this department.


As to your assertion that none of this would have come up if things were different, Al Gore was different, and there dozens of mostly false stories pushed to the MSM about him in 2000, that had nothing to with his rather full slate of experience.

Love Canal
Love Story
Invented the Internet
and I think there were about 18 more.

It’s just dirty politics, you can stay clean, stay away, or wallow in it.

What have you chosen?
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
What have you chosen?
I have chosen to continue questioning the qualifications of a man so many are so willing to fall on their sword to protect. And for what?

I am not condemning the man, I just tell you of my perception. And when I see nothing but this blank slate, regardless of what you see, then these tiresome little asides such as his minister and his other associations begin to take on a greater level of importance.

You can cite Goreacle and Kerry experiences all you want. They don’t carry weight here with me in the here and now. You tell me Obama has 20 years in public service. Great. Then he must have a memorable list of accomplishments for all of these years of effort. Care to fill in the slate and list these memorable "accomplishments"? By the way, 130 votes of "Present" from his days in the Illinois Legislature don’t count much for accomplishment.

Note - I come from a family far further down the economic ladder than Obama ever did, so his pulling himself up by his bootstraps meme, ala Lincoln studying by firelight, as an accomplishment don’t cut it with me. My climb would make Obama’s look like a baby step - even if he were to win the Presidency.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Care to fill in the slate and list these memorable "accomplishments"? By the way, 130 votes of "Present" from his days in the Illinois Legislature don’t count much for accomplishment.

These are just legislative accomplishments...

10 years (including 8 in Illinois Senate, 2 in U.S. Senate): wrote 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096

Overall by Category (Illinois and U.S. Senate)

233 regarding healthcare reform

125 on poverty and public assistance

112 crime fighting bills

97 economic bills

60 human rights and anti-discrimination

21 ethics reform

6 veterans affairs

Key U.S. Senate Bills (authored or co-sponsored)

1. the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law)

2. The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act (became law)

3. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (passed in the Senate)

4. The 2007 Government Ethics Bill (became law)

5. The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill




 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
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