Ah Said, the Sheriff is a Ni-[DING!]

David Weigel | March 19, 2008

Guh. You don't need to be an Barack Obama partisan to find this Jonathan Martin enterprise story in The Politico sort of disturbing. The basics: Republican consultants are hopeful that the Jeremiah Wright episode will hammer home the meme that Obama is a black radical who hates his country.

If Michelle Obama’s gaffe caused some ripples in the right-wing pond, the Wright videos have detonated the equivalent of a daisy cutter on the conservative landscape, awakening an otherwise dispirited party base.

“I usually get three or four emails a week on Obama,” said Michigan Republican chairman Saul Anuzis Monday. “Today I received more than 10 – all of them on his minister.”

Among the e-mails Anuzis received was a link to a mash-up video splicing together Wright’s most extreme comments, Michelle Obama’s statement, footage of Obama not putting his hand over his heart during the anthem at a political event and images of Malcolm X and the two black Olympians in 1968 who raised their fists in the “black power” salute set to the iconic rap song by Public Enemy “Fight the Power.”

Very subtle. I've heard grumbling about Obama not saluting the flag for a while on the campaign trail. The day of the New Hampshire primary, some Republican activists (assuming Obama would win) said McCain would clobber him over that issue alone. The evolution of that meme into this one has been fascinating to watch.

“It’s harder for people to say it’s taken out of context because these are Wright’s own words,” noted Chris LaCivita, the Republican strategist who helped craft the Swift Boat commercials against Kerry that employed the use of their target’s own language when he returned from Vietnam and returned his medals. “You let people draw their own conclusions.”

“You don’t have to say that he’s unpatriotic, you don’t question his patriotism,” he added. “Because I guaran-damn-tee you that with that footage you don’t have to say it.”

I don't know. I'm uncomfortable with this. Obama's own "anti-America" moments in this chain have been limited to not wearing a flag pin and not putting his hand on his heart while singing the the national anthem. (The photos that circulate over e-mail claim this was actually during the Pledge, which isn't true.) The dynamite evidence in United States v. Obama (2008) is the rhetoric of Obama's wife and his pastor. We've had presidential candidates' wives attacked before (1992 comes to mind), but his pastor? This is new territory for a presidential campaign, I think. Left playing Mr. Nice Guy on this Mike Huckabee, who said this on Joe Scarborough's morning show.

Obama made the point, and I think it's a valid one, that you can't hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can't. Whether it's me, whether it's Obama...anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements.

Now, the second story. It's interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say "Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that."

And Huckabee has, you know, given some sermons. Has the left been playing dirty pool by pulling statements out of Jerry Falwell sermons, though? Sometimes, maybe, although the most controversial thing Falwell said in his final decade (blaming the ACLU and abortionists for 9/11) was actually during a CNN appearence. The implication of the Wright-Obama attack, though, is not that Wright is crazy, but that Obama is a secret racist and America-hater, and that the truth of this is only revealed by the statements of his wife and his pastor.

Headline explained here.

Comments

highnumber|3.19.08 @ 9:10AM|#

"It's harder for people to say it's taken out of context because these are Wright's own words,"

That doesn't make sense.

Reverend Cleophus James|3.19.08 @ 9:13AM|#

"And now, people...and now, people...when I woke up this morning, I heard a disturbing sound. I said, when I woke up this morning, I heard a disturbing sound. What I heard was the jingle-jangle of a thousand lost souls. And I'm talking about the soul of mortal men and women, departed from this life. Wait a minute, those lost, anguished souls roamin' unseen over the earth, seekin' the divine light they'll not find. Because it's too late...too late, yeah, too late...for them to ever see again, the light they once chose not to follow! Alright, alright, don't be lost when the time comes. For the day of the Lord cometh, as a thief in the night. Amen. DO YOU SEE THE LIGHT?"

|3.19.08 @ 9:13AM|#

"You don't have to say that he's unpatriotic, you don't question his patriotism," he added. "Because I guaran-damn-tee you that with that footage you don't have to say it."

You don't need to use any logic or arguments; you can just use imagery to make people have strong feelings, in order to short-circuit logic.

What Barack Obama had to say yesterday about race relations didn't insult my intelligence. The people going after him for Jeremiah Wright's conspiracy theories do.

|3.19.08 @ 9:29AM|#

Obama/Huckabee '08

The Likability Ticket

|3.19.08 @ 9:32AM|#

Check it out, I was accidently cc'ed on an email.

To: Barack Obama
From: Bob Shrum
Re: Reverend Wright
Date: 03/11/08

Barack,

I am outraged about the attacks being launched at you, but the most important thing to remember is that you can't over-react.

Seriously, you shoud just ignore this. People are going to see these smears for what they are. You don't want to stoop to the level of your opponents.

Don't dignify them with a response. I'm telling you, it'll blow over if you just don't make a big deal about it!

Remember: it's only a story if you make it one. If you give a response, it will just be stooping to their level.

Whoops, sounds like Cokie needs another drinkie. C-ya.

|3.19.08 @ 9:34AM|#

Most of us have friends or relatives who have opinions with which we disagree. I have a friend who has become steadily more libertarian over the years, but still harbors prejudice against Mexicans after working there (and speaking fluent Spanish). Everytime he begins to spout off, I chide him and argue against him. I hope you do to with your Archie Bunker uncle, or whatever.
And that's what disappoints me about Mr. Obama.
His "hope and change" campaign leads us to believe, to channel Ms. Clinton, that the skies will open, the light will come down, and celestial choirs will sing. In other words, he is going to sit down with a sharply divided America, with strongly partisan political foes, and using his charm and convincing rhetorical skills, get all sides to compromise and make nice. What I didn't hear from his race relations speech, which was beautifully crafted, was an assertion that he had spent twenty years trying to get Rev. Wright to change his views and divisive rhetoric. I would have welcomed a statement that he - as a prominent member of the congregation - "met with Rev. Wright every time he learned of the views he now condemns and counseled him, regretably to no avail." So, is there any evidence he even tried? If so,
was he even partially successful? If not, then how can we expect him to 1) even attempt to reconcile left and right and 2)be successful if he even tries?

Until further evidence is presented, I must conclude that Mr. Obama never called Rev. Wright on his views and only now deplores and condemns them when they become a campaign issue.

|3.19.08 @ 9:35AM|#

and not putting his hand on his heart while signing the the national anthem

This was too beautiful of a typo to overlook. If he's signing the national anthem, won't his hands be busy?

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 9:36AM|#

the Republican strategist who helped craft the Swift Boat commercials against Kerry that employed the use of their target's own language when he returned from Vietnam and returned his medals.

The person who wrote that missed a few important details:

1. Senator Kerry's medals, that are normally awarded only one time and are not generally available for purchase, are in a shadow box in his Senate office.

2. He tossed a bunch of ribbons, that could be purchased by anybody, during a protest.

3. He was asked about his story, perpetuated for years and years, about throwing his medals by someone seeing the shadowbox in his office. He then said that he threw his ribbons, those of others and threw some medals too, that others ahd given him.

4. I do not recall his ever claiming to have "returned" his medals, would appreciate a link if someone has come across that claim by Senator Kerry.

Fluffy|3.19.08 @ 9:38AM|#

I'm going to repost my last post in the topic below, since that thread appears to be dead and it actually fits better here, I think:

People who refuse to buy into notion that leftist policies and ideas such as socialized medicine have anything to do with "healing, progress and understanding".

Actually, this is a perfectly valid reason to oppose Obama.

Unless you're supporting McCain, from whom the stench of the big government looter rises just as sharply as it does from Obama. Maybe more, since he continually trumpets his greater "experience" at the matter.

What's not really cool is to sincerely oppose Obama because of his likely expansion of government, but to put on a lying air of faux outrage about his pastor's comments as your tactic for opposing him.

Anyone who is willing to pretend to believe the absurd ["Obama is a black supremacist!"] because they do not think the public will support their real reasons for opposing Obama ["Obama will expand government!" or "Obama will end an unpopular war that I am desperate to see continue!"] is a dishonest douchebag.

It's the sheer shameless disingenuousness of it all which is so offensive.

BTW, Mike Huckabee can kiss my ass. As far as I am concerned, "God damn America for the war on drugs!" and "God damn America for letting women work outside the home!" aren't statements about which the speakers should feel equally uncomfortable.

Other Matt|3.19.08 @ 9:40AM|#

What Barack Obama had to say yesterday about race relations didn't insult my intelligence.

Ha ha! You're funny joe, like we really thought you had intelligence to insult.

I'm looking forward to your rushing to defend anyone, regardless of color, who gets accused of anything based on people they've generally associated with for any time period under twenty some odd years. Surely your new rules after his speech will apply evenly across the board, not like your other rules which change quicker than Spitzer's hookers on the way out the door.

Right, good then. Have a fun day with your cutsie pie emails.

|3.19.08 @ 9:46AM|#

Saul Anuzis. I remember that dickweed from when he was getting his panties all in a bunch about Ron Paul having the gall to say glaringly obvious things in the Republican debates.

|3.19.08 @ 9:49AM|#

Some people just want to fight old battles forever.

Such people are pitiful.

|3.19.08 @ 9:51AM|#

Other Matt,

There is no "we" that you speak for.

The only time anyone else acknowledges you is to chide you for your trolling.

|3.19.08 @ 9:52AM|#

Look, let's face it--many on the right want to come out and say "We've got to stop that nigger", but they know they can't. So we are going to hear every kind of euphemism short of that.

I am not going to vote for Obama because of his leftist policies, but anybody who thinks this now a "post-racial" society has their head up their ass. We need at least one (if not two) more generations to croak before that meme might reflect reality.

It can't happen soon enough.

|3.19.08 @ 9:54AM|#

On Obama:

If a single speech can immunize Obama against the infection produced by his decades-long association with Rev. Wright, then it was the speech that Obama gave. Nobody can know what is in BO's heart, but his words in that speech were brilliant, and if he was telling the truth then I, for one, say: questions raised, and answered; let's move on. We can't know if he was telling the truth, though.

BO is far and away the best orator in the list of candidates, and the best I have ever listened to. Were oration the only requirement for a president then he would have my vote. Of course, there is more to the presidency than public speaking.

Where does he come down on the second amendment? What are his views on the overtly racist affirmative action programs codified in federal law that driven an irreconcilable, racial wedge between otherwise honorable people? There are lots of other fundamental questions about Obama.

|3.19.08 @ 9:54AM|#

henry, as long as there are groups of people that look and act differently, they won't like each other. That's about all there is to it.

|3.19.08 @ 9:54AM|#

As the Swiftboating of both McCain and Kerry shows, it doesn't really matter what the substance of your accusations are as long as you say them with a self righteous sneer and indignant voice.

Fluffy|3.19.08 @ 9:56AM|#

Joe, I'd respect it more if they actually really wanted to fight old battles forever.

Anybody wants to fight about the Civil Rights Act of 1963, I'm there.

But they don't give a shit about the old battles and never did. They had the Presidency and both houses of Congress and didn't do dick about the old battles.

All they care about is avoiding crushing defeat in November and they're willing to make up lots of stupid shit to try to do that.

Obama is obviously a liberal. It should be possible to run against a liberal honestly and beat him. It would be possible, if it weren't for the fact that the Bush administration sucks as badly as it does, and if it weren't for the fact that George Bush is the biggest big government liberal since Johnson, and fellating Bush all this time has tied his supporters' hands this election cycle.

So they have to make up this nonsense and latch on to it in a campaign of faux outrage that makes the one maintained by liberal academia look sincere by comparison.

When Reagan ran against Carter in 80, he just said, "This guy is a liberal. [Insert examples.] Vote for me instead."

But this crew is too cowardly, too compromised, and too dishonest to do that. If they ran against Carter in 80, they probably would have had to make up a rumor that Jimmy was gay, or had a black love child, or that his cousin's friend's pastor had a pot leaf bumper sticker on his VW bus. This is what the GOP is reduced to in the 21st century.

|3.19.08 @ 9:59AM|#

Warty,

I think it is natural from people to be initially wary towards people who are different from them, and to want to stay away from them.

But I also think it's natural for people to overcome that as they go about their daily business and encounter people from the Other group, and for that barrier to be worn down by the constant experience of operating within a diverse environment. (That's why liberals like me are so big on desegregation and diversity.)

When this doesn't happen, it's because someone or something is working to stop it, and keep those barriers in place.

|3.19.08 @ 10:02AM|#

"Until further evidence is presented, I must conclude that Mr. Obama never called Rev. Wright on his views and only now deplores and condemns them when they become a campaign issue."

This sums it up for me.

Obama not only attended the church for 20 years choosing Rev, Wright to preside over his wedding and Baptize his children but only left the church when campaigning for President.
He, also, claimed to have not heard any such language while attending the service but changed the story the following week to state that he heard similar statements but disagreed with them.

Which is it MR. Obama?

Either he attended the church for 20 years because he shared the view of the minister and congregation or he used it as an instrument to build support in the black community of Chicago.

Either answer is a concern.

|3.19.08 @ 10:02AM|#

"When Reagan ran against Carter in 80, he just said, "This guy is a liberal. [Insert examples.] Vote for me instead.""

That's just the trick though, isn't it? Obama hasn't really done much to point to-- and when one does find something to question, it must be racist.

Well he went to this church for 20 years, and his children were baptised by Rev. Wright. If his opponents can't be allowed to question this, then I wonder what is permissable.

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 10:02AM|#

Kinda funny that the guy's preacher is not supposed to get the same treatment as the Rev. Falwell, Rev. Robertson and others who said that we were attacked on 11 Sep. 01 because of our immoral society.

Even funnier that the people I mention were automagically linked to a bunch of politicians who never, or only passingly, may have been in their presance on occasion, certainly none who had been attending their services on regular occasion for two decades.

Even funnier that the non-Dem politicians are called to (and do) denounce these sorts of Preachers just because the politicians had a speaking engagement ant their associated institutions.

All of a sudden Senator Obama has to gin-up a speech, full of reworked spoutings from the Rev. Jackson, about how he does not believe these things that his Preacher has been spouting the entire time that he and his spouse have been members of Rev. Wright's Church and we are supposed to both believe him and make excuses for the Preacher.

ANYBODY tossing out the race card saying that no Caucasian Preacher catches any criticism for the equivelant views of Rev. White, implying or directly saying that it is only because of his race, is the funniest of them all.

I happen to be someone who believes that the Rev. Wright should get EXACTLY THE SAME treatment as those mentioned above and the social proximity of Sen. Obama to the man deserves much more condemnation than any of the politicians got unjustly painted with from the things those guys said.

|3.19.08 @ 10:04AM|#

"All they care about is avoiding crushing defeat in November and they're willing to make up lots of stupid shit to try to do that."

I agree with you about their motivations, but "they" did not make up the stupid shit about Obama and his lunatic spiritual advisor, Obama created that story on his own over the last 20 years.

|3.19.08 @ 10:06AM|#

Everyone who has "called" their religious leader on his politics, please, regale us with your tale.

|3.19.08 @ 10:06AM|#

I'm sick of hearing about this stupid BS already. News flash: some preacher is an ignorant, biased, knuckle-dragging religious zealot. It goes with the territory.

I turned on the tube last night to see what what was being said about the Heller case and every news channel was talking about this non-stop.

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 10:06AM|#

Anybody remember Candidate Jimmy Carter's Church problem?

When he was running against Ford (I think, might have been Reagan) a [ghasp] Person of Color attempted to join the Church where Mr. Carter was a member. The Church split up over it. I honestly do not remember which portion for the Church that Mr. Carter moved to, so I will not speculate if it was the racially bigoted one or not.

|3.19.08 @ 10:08AM|#

I agree with Fluffy. A good case can be made against Obama's liberalism, and the likely economic economic policies we can expoect.

This cretinous handwringing over the "lapel pin gap" is pathetic.

|3.19.08 @ 10:09AM|#

"Look, let's face it--many on the right want to come out and say "We've got to stop that nigger", but they know they can't. So we are going to hear every kind of euphemism short of that."

I have associated with "many on the right" for years. The only ones I have heard utter the word "nigger" have been lefties, the most recent example being you.

|3.19.08 @ 10:11AM|#

economic
expoect

sheesh; stupid keyboard

|3.19.08 @ 10:12AM|#

Me first: the priests and St. M____________'s talk about abortion in the Intentions at every mass I have ever attended.

At the Shrine of St. J_____________ the ____________, the priest called in a friend to give the homily on Palm Sunday, and he proceeded to go into an environmentalist rant - on Palm Sunday - that ended with him singing "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands" while holding an inflatable globe.

Not a word.

What am I supposed to say? Please, all of you who, obviously since you are so comfortable denoncing Barack Obama for not abandoning his religious community because the pastor said some stupid things a few times, give me some guidance here.

How did YOU deal with it when your pastor said dumb things about politics? I'm eager to share in the wisdom of your vast experience.

|3.19.08 @ 10:12AM|#

Is it really surprising that a large number of conservatives, who place a great emphasis on religious values and their churches, are up in arms about this?

I think those of us, myself included, who do not place a great emphasis on religion in our lives may not realize how important this is for some. I think Obama would have gotten a pass if it had been a secular leader and not a religious one. To many, religion is a core value, and is representative of their true beliefs.

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 10:13AM|#

wayne,

Me too. The only people I hear using that talk are the ones trying to project dirt on their opponent because they have no proof of their own gratuitous assumptions or biases.

|3.19.08 @ 10:13AM|#

"What am I supposed to say? Please, all of you who, obviously since you are so comfortable denoncing Barack Obama for not abandoning his religious community because the pastor said some stupid things a few times, give me some guidance here.
"

Sure, happy to oblige. Don't run for president.

Abdul|3.19.08 @ 10:13AM|#

Everyone who has "called" their religious leader on his politics, please, regale us with your tale.

I once attended a Catholic church where congregants spouted out their own intentions during part of Mass. For the most part, it was inoccuous things like "pray for my sick granny." Every once in a while, a political opinion would come up, like "pray for equality for homosexuals." Even though I agree with the idea of equality for homosexuals, I found it highly inappropriate to interject such opinions during Mass, and found a different catholic church to attend where we shuffle restlessly and silently in the pews at Mass the way St. Peter intended.

|3.19.08 @ 10:15AM|#

henry, I think the right is being completely cynical here, and using race-baiting they don't actually believe in for political purposes.

They don't oppose Obama because he's black; they oppose him because he's a liberal who's stands a very good chance of kicking their ass.

The race-baiting is just a means to an end; it's not really what motivates them.

|3.19.08 @ 10:16AM|#

"This is what the GOP is reduced to in the 21st century."

That's right Fluffy. Sean Hannity is a prime example. He's been harping on Wright for nearly a year now. Jack Kemp put him in his place on Sean's radio program Friday. Jack Kemp said the Republicans need to campaign on Obama's tax increase plans and his plan for socialized medicine instead of all this "guilt by association" stuff.

|3.19.08 @ 10:16AM|#

Surely your new rules after his speech will apply evenly across the board, not like your other rules which change quicker than Spitzer's hookers on the way out the door.

How quickly do Spitzer's hookers change on their way out the door?

Fluffy|3.19.08 @ 10:16AM|#

Kinda funny that the guy's preacher is not supposed to get the same treatment as the Rev. Falwell, Rev. Robertson and others who said that we were attacked on 11 Sep. 01 because of our immoral society.

This is utterly false.

When the media spends ten days in nonstop coverage dissecting the various public statements of Robertson, Hagee and the rest and linking them to McCain, let me know.

Honestly, the only reason MIKE HUCKABEE'S OWN statements about the proper surrendered role of women in marriage, or the role of divine intervention in causing his electoral victories, or the way his campaign duplicated Biblical miracles, is because of its coverage in the blogosphere. None of this material got more than a passing reference in the broadcast media.

nueces|3.19.08 @ 10:17AM|#

I have associated with "many on the right" for years. The only ones I have heard utter the word "nigger" have been lefties, the most recent example being you.

It's called projection, a specialty of people like henry.

|3.19.08 @ 10:18AM|#

I have not, other than as a tourist, been in a church for more then thirty-five years.

Does that count?

|3.19.08 @ 10:18AM|#

Look, I couldn't give a rat's ass that Obama is half-black. That doesn't bother me, or anyone I know. What does bother me is that his wife and his bestfriend clearly hate America. He appears, at best, ambivilant about the country. I just think that immediately disqualifies you from the presidency. I just do, and and so do a lot of other people I know.

I know that people like joe are just going to say we're racists who were looking for a reason to not vote for him, but up until a couple months ago, we were all enthusiastic about Obama, or at least thought he was the least bad of the bunch. Now, I don't know anyone who would consider voting for him...

|3.19.08 @ 10:22AM|#

Now he's his "best friend."

Yawn.

I know that people like joe are just going to say we're racists

Abdul|3.19.08 @ 10:22AM|#

When the media spends ten days in nonstop coverage dissecting the various public statements of Robertson, Hagee and the rest and linking them to McCain, let me know.

This is a bad comparison because McCain is much less in the corner of religious conservatives. Look at the number of religious conservatives who were disappointed with his nomination.

A better example is the nubmer of times Romney was questioned about Mormonism, as if he were going to reinstate prohibition and mandate that wedding dresses only be sold in sets of ten.

|3.19.08 @ 10:22AM|#

Joe,

And that alleged distinction matters...why?

I am not here to judge the hearts of those engaged in this bullshit. I am just saying the appeal they'd like to make to their cretin base, and how they'll dress it up in modern garb.

Angry black preachers are tiresome, but not half as much as crybaby angry white people. Seriously, I can't wait for another two generations to just fucking die already, to somewhat drain this poison from the body politic. (Unfortunately, I am in that that second generation, and I am not feeling too good already.)

|3.19.08 @ 10:24AM|#

I haven't accused a single person of being racist in the entire debate over this issue, Kitty. But, hey, don't let that stop from donning that sweet, sweet cloack of victimhood!

joe:

henry, I think the right is being completely cynical here, and using race-baiting they don't actually believe in for political purposes.

It's almost enough to make you think that whining about mean liberals calling you a racist is some sort of ploy to gain sympathy that doesn't actually have any connection to reality.

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 10:24AM|#

Abdul,

Back when I actually attended services on a basis that could be stretched/confused into "regular", i.e., some months more than 2 services, I did mention to my Sunday School teacher that linking the collapse of the Soviet Union to the "end times" was purly a figmant of his political imagenation.

Otherwise, I have not gone enough in my adult life, and have not been a "member" of any Church, to add anything more than the above.

|3.19.08 @ 10:24AM|#

He appears, at best, ambivilant[sic] about the country.

If the alternative is more idiots who think "American exceptionalism" requires us to kill a lot of greasy, dark-skinned heathens, then I consider that to be a major point in his favor.

|3.19.08 @ 10:25AM|#

henry,

If it doesn't matter whether it's really in their hearts or is just a ploy, then why speculate what's in their hearts?

|3.19.08 @ 10:25AM|#

Jack Kemp. I'd vote for him--why isn't he running? He's too old probably to be a viable VP candidate, because of concerns about McCain's age, but if he's healthy and mentally alert, he'd be pretty good. Speaks well, has reasonable ideas, etc. He's not perfect of course, especially considering that he endorsed McCain.

Obama alone may or may not be too liberal. I suspect that he is, which is a bad thing in my mind as the left moves further to the left. However, him combined with a Democratic Congress is a bad idea. All the worse if he's good at rhetoric. Unless Congress looks like it's splitting or going back GOP, I'm not voting for Obama or Clinton. I'll vote Libertarian and bitch and moan for another 4-8 years instead.

|3.19.08 @ 10:26AM|#

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/18/213458/375

According to TalkLeft today, Obama is 26 points behind Hillary in Pennsylvania and 40 points behind her among whites. The Wright affair succeeded in turning Obama into another race candidate.

The best hypocrisy on this is Romney. Andrew Sullivan called Romney to account for the Mormon church's black on black priests, which ended in 1978. Jerimiah Wright? Not so much.

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 10:26AM|#

When the media spends ten days in nonstop coverage dissecting the various public statements of Robertson, Hagee and the rest and linking them to McCain, let me know.

I guess your electricity was out for months or years after they spouted their nonsense.

|3.19.08 @ 10:27AM|#

He talks all the time about how his story could only happen in America, but since he also talks about America having problems, that means he's, at best, ambivalent about his country?

I don't political leaders to be suck-ups. I want them to call out problems when they see them.

My country, right or wrong? Yeah, sure: my mother, drunk or sober.

|3.19.08 @ 10:28AM|#

The Wright affair succeeded in turning Obama into another race candidate.

You must be so proud.

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 10:29AM|#

Obama is 26 points behind Hillary in Pennsylvania and 40 points behind her among whites.

What? In the Progressive, union-loving, not-in-the-'racist'-South, PA has a racial bias toward Mrs. Clinton?

Say it isn't so!

|3.19.08 @ 10:29AM|#

Kitty,

What does it mean to be ambivalent about America?

If one were to find that some of the history of America is problematic at best would that make one ambivalent?

|3.19.08 @ 10:29AM|#

Guy,
Falwell and Robertson themselves were attacked for what they said. They said what they said on CNN, not sermons. Republicans as a whole were not attacked because of this.

|3.19.08 @ 10:30AM|#

One poll shows Obama 26 points behind. Others have him at 11, 14, 18, and 20.

That's where the Pennsylvania numbers have been for months.

Fluffy|3.19.08 @ 10:31AM|#

What does bother me is that his wife and his bestfriend clearly hate America.

OK, at least here is an example of sincere opposition to Obama. This is the kind of brain-dead response the cocksuckers at the Corner and elsewhere hope to whip up.

This is the kind of person who is so unbelievably stupid that they actually believe that when Pat Robertson asks God to kill Americans, it's out of love, but when Jeremiah Wright says that God will damn America for her actions, he hates America.

Ronald Reagan in 1980 wanted substantial changes in American governance as it was then constituted. Why didn't that mean he hated America?

|3.19.08 @ 10:31AM|#

Joe, I didn't--that is a gloss you put there. RTFP, again. The subjective beliefs of the people spewing this bullshit matters not much--they know who they are appealing to, and what are the reasonable limits of how they can appeal to them. Period. If they could get away with more ("He's one of THEM!"), they would.

For the record, the Clinton Brothers are no better, but somehow I doubt our fellow posters on the Right will criticize the Clintons on this score (just on every other one, real and imagined).

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 10:32AM|#

Mo,

Sanatize your memory however you like.

nueces|3.19.08 @ 10:32AM|#

Andrew Sullivan called Romney to account for the Mormon church's black on black priests

"Black on black priests"? Sounds kinky.

|3.19.08 @ 10:33AM|#

"What does bother me is that his wife and his bestfriend clearly hate America."

They're not running for President.

Fluffy|3.19.08 @ 10:33AM|#

I guess your electricity was out for months or years after they spouted their nonsense.

Wrong, douchebag.

Pat Robertson can still go on any talk show or news program he wants and get a respectful hearing and be presented as a mainstream figure. Jerry Falwell could, until his dying day.

Can Louis Farrakhan?

|3.19.08 @ 10:33AM|#

"Republicans as a whole were not attacked because of this."

Their enemies certainly did. Most hard core Dmeocrats I know associate the Republican Party with Robertson and Fallwell. But that is what political enemies do. Most Republicans associate Democrats with Michael Moore and Al Sharpton. I don't think either is a bad thing. The nuts on both sides ought to be marginalized and the people in the mainstream who kiss their ass ought to be called out for it. Frankly, the Republicans deserve to take some heat for associating themselves with Fallwell and Robertson.

|3.19.08 @ 10:34AM|#

What? In the Progressive, union-loving, not-in-the-'racist'-South, PA has a racial bias toward Mrs. Clinton?

Dude, you will never find a bigger racist than some fucking old dago or pollack from Western PA who spent his life in a steel mill.

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 10:34AM|#

Wow Fluffy, just WOW.

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 10:35AM|#

Warty,

I was being snarky.

|3.19.08 @ 10:35AM|#

"Their enemies certainly did. Most hard core Dmeocrats I know associate the Republican Party with Robertson and Fallwell. But that is what political enemies do. Most Republicans associate Democrats with Michael Moore and Al Sharpton. I don't think either is a bad thing. The nuts on both sides ought to be marginalized and the people in the mainstream who kiss their ass ought to be called out for it. Frankly, the Republicans deserve to take some heat for associating themselves with Fallwell and Robertson."

Well said. I agree.

Abdul|3.19.08 @ 10:37AM|#

This is the kind of person who is so unbelievably stupid that they actually believe that when Pat Robertson asks God to kill Americans, it's out of love, but when Jeremiah Wright says that God will damn America for her actions, he hates America.

Oh come on. Even Obama acknowledged that Wright's comments were wrong, divisive, and Anti-American.

Whitey|3.19.08 @ 10:37AM|#

I'm shocked (shocked!) at what goes on inside a black church. Who knew?

|3.19.08 @ 10:37AM|#

I've seen plenty of Republicans "disassociate" themselves from particular remarks by Falwell or Robertson about "the gays" or some other ignorant, bigoted statement.

I've never seen any of them provide an actual critique about the underlying philosophy behind such statements, lay bare where they went wrong, and lay out an alternative viewpoint that incorporates a thoughtful expression of contraty principles.

Anyone can say, "No, I think that's bad" when a media firestorm erupts. Demonstrating that you actually dissent from that view on a fundamental level, and explain the basis of your dissent and of your alternative view, is something more.

|3.19.08 @ 10:37AM|#

Guy,
Really? Point to the part of the campaign in 2004 where Bush had to apologize for their behavior. Falwell and Robertson took back their words. The difference was they were the ones that actually said the words.

|3.19.08 @ 10:38AM|#

Yeah, I know, but people who have never lived there don't tend to realize how much yinzers really suck.

|3.19.08 @ 10:41AM|#

Guy,

Can't medals also be purchased, say, from Ultrathin? When the Air Force gave me my medals, they came in a nice Air Force blue leather folder with the citation, which is not replaceable, but the medal itself can be purchased by anybody.

|3.19.08 @ 10:41AM|#

I just looked at the polling numbers: 56% of independents say they are less likely to vote for Obama because of the pastor and his favorable rating has dropped by 5 points in one week.

We'll have to wait to a week or two to see the impact of his speach, to see if it fixed anything, but frankly, I think he's toast and I bet the democrats will end up nominating Hillary as a result of all this...

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 10:41AM|#

Mo,

Just scroll above and if you are really interested, do your own research.

Like I said, Falwell and Robertson deserved the criticism they got, so does Rev. Wright and Mr. Obama needs to be painted with a stronger association brush than the Republicans got just for being guys that Falwell and Robertson supported.

|3.19.08 @ 10:43AM|#

Even Obama acknowledged that Wright's comments were wrong, divisive, and Anti-American.

Yes, but he went further than that. He discussed how Wright focused so relentlessly on the negative that he generated a distorted, offensive vision of America.

There are negative things about America, things that need to change. America really does have a dark history of racism, and one whose effects continue to the current day. Only a fool or a coward would say otherwise - you know, a conventional politician.

The problem wasn't that Wright called America onto the carpet for its sins - Obama never denounced him for that. What he denounced him for was, on the political level, failing to "love the sinner, hate the sin." Wright let himself see America as the sum of its worst parts (hm, sort of like the armchair theologians criticizing Wright's entire ministry based on 25 seconds' worth of clips from a 36-year career?), because he is an embittered old man, who incorporated that bitterness into a juvenile political viewpoint.

|3.19.08 @ 10:43AM|#

I don't have a religious advisor but have been dragged to my wife's Presbyterian church a few times. I have engaged the pastor in political discussion a few times afterwards - like how Jesus never told us to send men with guns to collect for charitable works. Had I been a member and the nonsense kept up, I would have dropped my membership in the church and told the pastor exactly why. I would not sit there for twenty years and be silent, though I can imagine many non-boat rockers would. Is Obama worried about rocking boats or doing the right thing?

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 10:44AM|#

Jim Bob,

Can't medals also be purchased, say, from Ultrathin? When the Air Force gave me my medals, they came in a nice Air Force blue leather folder with the citation, which is not replaceable, but the medal itself can be purchased by anybody.

Replica medals can be found at places like that. Did not look to see if they are forging the Medal of Honor, but IIRC that one is a felony to replicate.

Original medals can only be got through the services.

|3.19.08 @ 10:44AM|#

"When the media spends ten days in nonstop coverage dissecting the various public statements of Robertson, Hagee and the rest and linking them to McCain, let me know."

"I guess your electricity was out for months or years after they spouted their nonsense."

Hagee has endorsed McCain and McCain has accepted his endorsement. Has the media or Obama scrutinized everything Hagee has ever said and then tried to make a connection with McCain as if McCain somehow shared those views?

|3.19.08 @ 10:46AM|#

Mr. Obama needs to be painted with a stronger association brush than the Republicans got just for being guys that Falwell and Robertson supported.

Done. Did Bush, Old Bush, McCain, Reagan, or any Republican ever - ever - have to give a major speech distancing himself from a political figure, after their relationship dominated the news for a solid week?

The answer is no. You want an unprecedented level of attention on Obama for this? You got it.

I know this game: why don't X say Y? They did, here and here and here and here and here.

OK, but why don't they do it MORE?

|3.19.08 @ 10:47AM|#

Jose, I agree with you, Obama is toast. Hillary has always been toast against a non-nutty GOP candidate, a role for which McCain may barely qualify (there is always a chance he could implode/explode).

Basically, the country is fucked for another four years.

See you at third party lever of the polling machine.

|3.19.08 @ 10:48AM|#

creech,

So in other words, you have no religious affiliation to speak of, you have no relationship with either the church or the clergyman, but you "woulda" done all sorts of things if you did? You're sure about that?

OK. If you say so.

|3.19.08 @ 10:49AM|#

I think he's toast and I bet the democrats will end up nominating Hillary as a result of all this...

And I, naturally, assume Hillary's operatives have been toiling assiduously to get (and keep) this in the public view.

|3.19.08 @ 10:52AM|#

"I would not sit there for twenty years and be silent, though I can imagine many non-boat rockers would. Is Obama worried about rocking boats or doing the right thing?"

Obama has said there are things his pastor has said that he strongly disagrees with, but otherwise, the are things he likes about his pastor. He continues to go to that church because of the things he likes about it. I don't think this whole matter is so serious that it disqualifies him to be President. I think Fluffy is right when he says that Republicans are avoiding campaigning on the issues because they don't expect to get much mileage out of those issues. They prefer to engage in slimey, dirty campaigning.

|3.19.08 @ 10:52AM|#

I was born and raised Catholic. Went to Church every freakin' Sunday of my life until the pedophile scandal broke. I was so disgusted by the reaction of my local church that I stopped attending, stopped donating money to Catholic Charities and basically quit religion for awhile.

Now, several years later, I've found a small parish nearby with a priet that I like. If he starts acting like a nut, I'll stop going to his church, too.

I don't think this is unusual behavior...

Tacos mmm...|3.19.08 @ 10:52AM|#

Well he went to this church for 20 years, and his children were baptised by Rev. Wright. If his opponents can't be allowed to question this, then I wonder what is permissable.

It should be pretty obvious to anyone whose ever gone to church that if you changed churches every time the pastor said something you disagreed with, you'd have to find a new church at least every couple of months.

Secondly, a church is a lot more than a pastor, it's a community.

As far as I'm concerned, someone brought up the issue, Obama addressed it well, end of story.

Fluffy|3.19.08 @ 10:53AM|#

Oh come on. Even Obama acknowledged that Wright's comments were wrong, divisive, and Anti-American.

Right, and yesterday my personal criticism of Obama was that by doing so he's pandering. And that he shouldn't have done that, however useful it may be electorally.

Personally, I never think of myself as "anti-American". But I despise just as many historical Americans as Wright does, and I have just as many - if not more - problems with our current system of governance and the existing code of laws. Anyone who makes any pretense about being a libertarian BY DEFINITION rejects about 90% of what the state currently does, and disdains the political history - and set of political actors - who brought it about.

But you know why I can oppose this much of the mainstream political narrative of America, but not consider myself anti-American? My automatic overriding sense of entitlement. I can always console myself with the thought that I am America, and the rest of you assholes are interlopers who have fucked everything up.

But I honestly can concede that this sort of use of self-centredness as a psychological defense probably isn't possible for a black American.

Black Americans were told they weren't really America for long enough that an outsider posture is still natural to them. Wright has obviously internalized it.

So where I see an unjust government and a political history of continual failure to live up to the promise of liberty, my White Guy Master of the Universe personality goes all Atlas Shrugged and identifies itself as the true inheritor of "America", and wants the rest of you to get the hell out of the way.

But it seems perfectly natural to me that a black Christian preacher might see himself as an outsider, in opposition to America.

Our critiques of America share many of the same elements, but our personal identification with that critique changes.

But I think that Wright's own manner of personally identifying with his critique is incorrect, and concedes too much. If he could be made to realize that "America" is actually good and just in essence, and that the word "America" belongs to me and not to George Bush, maybe he would change his frame and damn Bush, and not America, the way I do.

|3.19.08 @ 10:54AM|#

Jose,

Molesting children = saying stuff?

No, not really.

|3.19.08 @ 10:54AM|#

"I think he's toast and I bet the democrats will end up nominating Hillary as a result of all this..."

I believe like Dick Morris, that this nonissue will fade before long.

|3.19.08 @ 10:56AM|#

joe - no one in my local parish molested children. I left because of what they said about the molestation of children... or, more accurately, what they didn't say.

Tacos mmm...|3.19.08 @ 10:57AM|#

Had I been a member and the nonsense kept up, I would have dropped my membership in the church and told the pastor exactly why. I would not sit there for twenty years and be silent, though I can imagine many non-boat rockers would. Is Obama worried about rocking boats or doing the right thing?

In the real world, however, my parents have been going to a church where they dislike the pastor for the past four years, simply because they'd been going for the previous 20 and all their friend are there.

|3.19.08 @ 10:59AM|#

Joe,
I have left several churches over the years for social, political, and theological differences. The latest, as a result of the leadership allowing a racist undertone among the congregants. I tried to address the disdain for black people attending and became an outcast for it.

I see church today as a membership store like costco. You pay your dues (tithe) and the more you pay, the more you get. Hangin with you buncha sharp ass heathens here hasn't made it easier to find a new church to attend.

|3.19.08 @ 11:00AM|#

The reality is that people join or leave churches all the time, it's not really that uncommon. For a Catholic, this usually just means finding a different local church with a better priest. For others, it might mean changing religion all together, becoming agnostic, or switching to a different preacher.

If you look at the growth of the evangelic churches in America, all that growth is coming from somewhere. So, obviously pretending that your religion is some static value that can't change is full-on nonsense.

I mean, Obama wasn't born into this church was he? He choose to join, he could have chosen to leave. He didn't, which is fine, but don't pretend that he didn't have a choice.

|3.19.08 @ 11:01AM|#

Yes, Joe, I'm sure. Most libertarians don't suffer fools gladly. I've flaunted a political button and bumper sticker in front of my boss and asked embarrassing questions of Senator Specter at a meeting my boss hosted.
If Sen. Obama is the great conciliator then he is damned well obliged to speak out - if he disagrees - against prominent and influential people who enflame others. And that applies to McCain, Bush, whomever.

|3.19.08 @ 11:01AM|#

Still, Jose, you left because of the crime of child molestation.

There is no crime that Wright committed, or covered up, or defended, or kept silent about.

He said stuff. He articulated positions. He ranted and raved. And that's it.

There are no suicides, no ruined lives, behind Jeremiah Wright, so it's really not the same thing as the Catholic Church.

|3.19.08 @ 11:03AM|#

joe - I was under the impression that he defended the actions of 9/11. Since when isn't terrorism a crime?

|3.19.08 @ 11:04AM|#

creech,

You are quite the libertarian, if you think one's relationship with a priest is like one's relationship with a boss.

|3.19.08 @ 11:05AM|#

Kinda funny that the guy's preacher is not supposed to get the same treatment as the Rev. Falwell, Rev. Robertson and others who said that we were attacked on 11 Sep. 01 because of our immoral society.

Yeah, it is kinda funny, isn't it? If he got the brutal old Falwell-Robertson treatment he would be getting phone calls from the White House about Supreme Court nominees, like Falwell, or running in the Democratic primaries and receiving millions of votes, like Robertson did in the Republican Party in 1988.

He isn't getting the Falwell-Robertson treatment, but I bet he wishes he was.

|3.19.08 @ 11:06AM|#

Jose,

joe - I was under the impression that he defended the actions of 9/11.

You are wrong, then. Your "impressions" seem to be based more on what people trying to make political hay are saying about Wright's comments than about Wright's comments themselves.

Wright made the quite common poing that America has not been blameless in its foreign policy, and that 9/11 was blowback. Agree or not, this is not the same thing, even remotely, as defending the murders on 9/11.

|3.19.08 @ 11:07AM|#

Latest poll results from PA:

"After a week filled with bad news for the Obama campaign, Hillary
Clinton is out to a 56-30 lead in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary...

"The big story in the Presidential race over the last week has been the comments of
Barack Obama's pastor about America," said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy
Polling. "It appears this issue has hurt him a good deal with likely primary voters in
Pennsylvania."

|3.19.08 @ 11:07AM|#

"But I think that Wright's own manner of personally identifying with his critique is incorrect, and concedes too much. If he could be made to realize that "America" is actually good and just in essence, and that the word "America" belongs to me and not to George Bush, maybe he would change his frame and damn Bush, and not America, the way I do."

People have the mistaken notion that our government is America. We, the people, are America. The government is supposed to be only our servant. Like Fluffy, my gripe is with the government, not with America. Our government is not serving us very well. And I think this is what Wright really meant when he said God damn America. God damn this government which he sees, rightly or wrongly, as oppressing his race.

|3.19.08 @ 11:07AM|#

It's a JoeMama Obama Nation!
Obama being a Lefty Donk means that Obama can do no wrong..in Joe's eyes, unless he moves right of center. Center being Edward's other America.

|3.19.08 @ 11:08AM|#

Hey, look, another commenter with a fake email address who's never been seen here before echoing the same Hillary Clinton press release.

What are the chances?

|3.19.08 @ 11:09AM|#

Wow, Eric, that was so impressive, I almost didn't notice you don't have an argument.

First Little Pig|3.19.08 @ 11:10AM|#

I know I am late to this party. But here's a thought.

Most of you commenting here are most likely 1) white, 2) intelligent, 3) male, 4) educated and in that order. This supposition comes from general observations about libertarians (something which many of you claim to be) in general and generally about those who comment on political blogs as well.

I would add that you are politically engaged and passionate about your views. Given these things, let's change one factor about you and see what would probably be the outcome: let's make you all black.

O.K. Now you are Black men who are passionate about politics and are intelligent and educated. What kind of political views would you most likely hold or at least have a great deal of sympathy for? And even if you did turn out as a bunch of Libertarians, don't you think that the vast majority of your friends and peers and girlfriends or even wives would harbor views more or less in the direction of the pastor in question?

And don't you think that would be brought up when you ran for high office?

Personally, I think it is inescapable that Obama would face at least some of these slings and arrows and that he has handled it all pretty well.

|3.19.08 @ 11:11AM|#

OK, I just looked up what he said about 9/11, and it is actually far worse that I had thought. In my mind, after reading this if Obama doesn't say that Pastor Wright is a truly EVIL monster with whom he will never again associate, then he has no chance of winning this election.

Here's what I found on ABC News:

"In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation. "

|3.19.08 @ 11:11AM|#

|3.19.08 @ 11:11AM|#

The fact is that to a decent minority of the black community nothing Wright said was that objectionable. Further, even the majority who disagree with him will not disassociate themselves from him or sharply criticize him in front of white people. The vast majority of white people, however, find the statements beyond the pale. Obama is stuck with the same conundrum every black politician faces; he can either totally repudiate these views and gain white support but have his own people look at him as being an Uncle Tom and a sellout or he can no repudiate them and keep his support among the black community but lose his ability to be a transcendent candidate to whites. He tried to walk the middle yesterday but I think he failed.

|3.19.08 @ 11:12AM|#

"Wright made the quite common poing that America has not been blameless in its foreign policy, and that 9/11 was blowback. Agree or not, this is not the same thing, even remotely, as defending the murders on 9/11."

And that's exactly right. Our government's policy in the Middle East has caused the blowback that resulted in 9/11. To say this is not to be an America hater, it is to blame our government's plicy for contributing or leading to the blowback of 9/11.

GILMORE|3.19.08 @ 11:13AM|#

I don't know. I'm uncomfortable with thisM

Geezus, Weigel, NOW you start to get a weak stomach? You've been slinging bullshit gossip for a profession for years now. Why should this moment bring a bad taste to your mouth?

maybe it's getting old.

|3.19.08 @ 11:13AM|#

Jose, you are a joke.

Finding out that he didn't "excuse" or "defend" the attacks on 9/11, but described a theory of what caused them, makes you think WORSE of them than when you thought he was actually defending them?

Sure. Whatever.

|3.19.08 @ 11:14AM|#

anybody listening to Hillary right now?

Abdul|3.19.08 @ 11:14AM|#

As much as the Wright connection hurts Obama, it is far too early to say that he's toast. This, combined with his nearly assured loss in PA, will take some wind out of his sails, but he's still beating Hillary with the delegate count.

I think if Obama loses, it will be the death of a thousand cuts. People suspect that black Americans may harbor resentment towards their country. People suspect this because America has given blacks a few legitimate reasons for such resentment. However, we still don't want our President to resent this country.

Obama seemed to be above resenting his country until he was seen not putting his hand over his heart, not wearing flag lapel pins. This meme grew stronger when Michelle Obama said she was only proud of America once in her adult life. Finally, we find out that Obama brings his kids to a church where the pastor blames America for 9/11 just five friggin' days after the attacks.

Obama gave a good speech, but he will still have to prove that he, like Rambo, only wants his country to love him as much as he loves it. Singlehandedly rescuing a dozen POW's from Vietnam despite the government's attempt to sabotage his mission would be a good start.

Bags|3.19.08 @ 11:15AM|#

The over/under on the number of times joe posts in this thread is 50. Do I have any takers?

|3.19.08 @ 11:16AM|#

bookworm,


Our government's policy in the Middle East has caused the blowback that resulted in 9/11. To say this is not to be an America hater, it is to blame our government's plicy for contributing or leading to the blowback of 9/11.

I don't actually believe that; or at least, I don't believe that's the whole truth. And yet, I can still recognize the difference between this point and "blaming America" or "defending" the attacks.

Cheap demogoguery, about cheap demogoguery, is what this scandal has turned into. Obama looks even better for rising above it.

|3.19.08 @ 11:16AM|#

joe - the difference is that I didn't know he made these statements on the Sunday after 9/11. To do so indicates some sort of sick glee that I find personally repulsive.

|3.19.08 @ 11:18AM|#

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism.

Nobody got all this pissed off when Ron Paul said the same thing.

GILMORE|3.19.08 @ 11:18AM|#

this whole thread is more bullshit than the last post about Ron Paul

Seriously

|3.19.08 @ 11:19AM|#

"In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism."

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001."

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation. "

And every bit of that is true. Our bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were nothing but acts of terrorism. Anytime you deliberately target civilians in order to terrorise the enemy, you are engaging in an act of terrorism.

|3.19.08 @ 11:19AM|#

"Cheap demogoguery, about cheap demogoguery"

Joe, isn't this what politics has come to here?
I mean this sincerely, not sarcasmically. Does this bug you so deeply because it is injust, or because you like Senator Obama more than the others?

|3.19.08 @ 11:20AM|#

Jose,

THAT is a fair point.

Time and place for everything, you know? I don't think it's wholly out of bounds to talk about our own aggressive, imperialist foreign policy causing resentment and blowback.

But you shouldn't yell "nigger" from the pulpet on Christmas, and you don't need to make that particular point about blowback four days after 9/11. It's just insensitive.

highnumber|3.19.08 @ 11:20AM|#

We have had ministers at my church who have said some things that I disagree with. If I have the opportunity, I may choose to discuss the issue with the minister. I may not. We are allowed to have differences of opinion. I still find his sermons engaging, thought provoking, and inspiring. I belong to a liberal church (for the religiously ignorant, liberal in this context does not refer to politics, although there does tend be an overlap in that regard) much like Obama, although mine is not necessarily Christian. The style of the sermons is quite different at my church, but the sentiments are probably often aligned. These sentiments that things are wrong, be it about issues of race, other forms of prejudice, poverty, whatever social ill you can think of, I share with my congregation. When it comes to what do about it, sometimes our ideas are different. Often they are not. I imagine that most of my congregation feels the same way as I do at times. Sometimes some people get more upset about something than I would or they view the problem as having a different cause than I do. It's not a bad thing to be engaged in a community of people who share basic common values but don't agree 100% on everything.

My rambling point being, Obama has chosen to stay engaged in a community that overall shares his values, though not necessarily his opinions. He has chosen to stand by a minister who inspires him, but with whom he feels free to disagree.

It's unlikely I'll vote for Obama, but, in a lot of ways, he seems like the best person among the major candidates, and so far I certainly respect him the most.

|3.19.08 @ 11:22AM|#

brotherben,

Obama was my third choice for president.

What really bugs me is that, after yesterday, we have a window to actually elevate how we talk about race in this country, and all some people want to do is drag it back down to the trench warfare we all know and love.

|3.19.08 @ 11:24AM|#

"Cheap demogoguery, about cheap demogoguery, is what this scandal has turned into. Obama looks even better for rising above it."

Obama had tried his best from the beginning of his campaign to not make race an issue, but the Clintons and the Republicans have seen to it that it did become an issue. Now, it will probably be an issue throughout the whole election, putting a wedge between whites and blacks.

|3.19.08 @ 11:27AM|#

Joe,
it does seem there were a great many folks waiting for an opportunity to shout, "see, he IS just another brother from the 'hood."

I see both sides of the argument and still believe this will be his ruin in this race. Just my political opinion. Lotta folks still tender over Imus lookin for some payback.

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 11:29AM|#

Nobody got all this pissed off when Ron Paul said the same thing.

I did.

|3.19.08 @ 11:38AM|#

"It's the economy, stupid..."

While I think issues of character matter, our most important problem to be addressed right now, by far, is the economy.

So far, I've heard nothing from any candidate that makes me believe they have any understanding whatsoever of what needs to be done about our trade deficit, the increasingly reactionary nature of the stock market, and the OUT-OF-CONTROL spending by our government that is currently rendering the dollar almost worthless.

Funny, in polling, the economy is now supposedly the most important issue to Americans, but you wouldn't know it by the stuff we're all discussing on message boards like this one. To me, ANYTHING that doesn't focus on getting us out of the hole we're in and doesn't come off as a sincere sort of soul searching as to how we can get back onto sound financial footing is a complete waste of time and only indicates that we're in for four more years of the same no matter who gets elected. I don't think there are any lifeboats left on the Titanic...

|3.19.08 @ 11:40AM|#

What really bugs me is that, after yesterday, we have a window to actually elevate how we talk about race in this country, and all some people want to do is drag it back down to the trench warfare we all know and love.

You keep saying this. What are you talking about? It's not like Obama is the first person to give a nice speech about racial issues.

Fluffy|3.19.08 @ 11:40AM|#

Hey joe, I don't know if you noticed because you've been busy here for a while, but apparently the Red Sox players just voted a mini-strike.

They are boycotting the Japan trip because apparently a promise by the league to pay the coaching staff for making the trip is being reneged on.

See, here's a union move that I actually support. STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE!

|3.19.08 @ 11:41AM|#

bookworm, brotherben,

That certainly is the threat. We'll just have to see how well he handles it.

The reviews of yesterday's speech seem to be pretty positive.

|3.19.08 @ 11:43AM|#

It's not like Obama is the first person to give a nice speech about racial issues.

It IS like he's the first person in such a prominent position to give a speech like this, and he did it at a time when racial issues are the dominant story in the political media.

alan|3.19.08 @ 11:44AM|#

I guess your electricity was out for months or years after they spouted their nonsense.

Wrong, douchebag.

Pat Robertson can still go on any talk show or news program he wants and get a respectful hearing and be presented as a mainstream figure. Jerry Falwell could, until his dying day.

Can Louis Farrakhan?

Good point. I recall the late Jude Wanniski reaching out to Farrakhan and receiving a lot of flak because of it. I'll leave it to others to decide if it was deservedly so.

Obama may face some more hurdles on this matter (note ~ I'm not condemning him, he remains the only interesting candidate left in the race) as I'm certain some ears likely perked up more than others when Wright mentioned our support of oppression against Palestinians.

Suppose that a tape of Wright spewing
something that could be construed as Anti-Semite shows up. How does Obama deal with that?

daveinboca|3.19.08 @ 11:44AM|#

That Che Guevara face over the US flag in Barack's Houston office? This whole campaign reeks of Manchurian Candidate chicanery.

daveinboca|3.19.08 @ 11:46AM|#

Fluffy, I agree. The Red Sox are making more money than the Yankees and they screw their own coaching staff? Strike is right.

|3.19.08 @ 11:46AM|#

Fluffy,

Ballplayers refusing to go to Japan : Republicans talking about Obama as a scary black man :: reneging on the coaches' bonus : Jeremiah Wright

They would have seized on anything.

|3.19.08 @ 11:52AM|#

"And every bit of that is true. Our bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were nothing but acts of terrorism. Anytime you deliberately target civilians in order to terrorise the enemy, you are engaging in an act of terrorism."

Bullshit.

alan|3.19.08 @ 11:54AM|#

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

Here I agree with Wright. The acceptance of the atomic bombings is something I have always found to be disturbing. If the public lets the government get away with that despite the protestation of MacArthur, Commander of the Pacific Theater, and Nimitz the Commander of the Pacific Naval forces, the two men
in the best position to know whether or not the action was necessary, there is nothing beyond the bounds of morality for us so long as it is done by the government.

|3.19.08 @ 11:54AM|#

Joe,

I frankly wish Obama had never been associated with Wright. As I said above, these kind of whacked out views are not that uncommon in the black community. But black people in this country are still not confident enough to call ou their own to the rest of the country. When it came right down to it, Obama found a way to justify and obfiscate for Wright. That is a shame. It is a shame that this country's race relations are so screwed up that one side is left so insecure that it can't stand up to the uglier elements of its own community. I don't think that Obama agrees with Wright when he sas "damn the US." But I do think that Obama is too insecure in himself and in his place in this country to tell Wright to knock it off and that is a shame.

|3.19.08 @ 11:58AM|#

"If the public lets the government get away with that despite the protestation of MacArthur, Commander of the Pacific Theater, and Nimitz the Commander of the Pacific Naval forces, the two men
in the best position to know whether or not the action was necessary, there is nothing beyond the bounds of morality for us so long as it is done by the government."

McArthur said that it would cause a million casualties to take Japan. Further, the Army was not sure that units being brought over from Europe would mutiny. The US was broke and running out of people. Invading Japan would have irrepearably damaged the country and allowed Stalin to rule a good chunk of Asia.

While you are blaming people, how about blaming the Japanese government for starting the war and then continueing what amounted to a suicidal fight. The war was decided by mid 1944 but the Japanese fought on sacrificing millions of lives in the process. If Truman had not dropped the bomb and invaded Japan and it later came out he had a weapon that could have ended the war but refused to use it, I really think they might have hung him.

|3.19.08 @ 11:59AM|#

Alan--

More people were killed by conventional bombing in Tokyo and other cities than by those two bombs.

Without the Atomic bobms, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been firebombed anyway, followed by a brutal invasion.

|3.19.08 @ 11:59AM|#

Oh, not to mention the Soviets would have probably invaded Japan and demanded a sphere there a la Germany, and you would've had a divided Japan.

|3.19.08 @ 12:02PM|#

John,

When it came right down to it, Obama found a way to justify and obfiscate for Wright.

No, he didn't, he denounced what he had to say, and talked about what a tragedy it is that intelligent black men have fallen into such a worldview.

And then drew a parallel to white people who become bitter towards black people because of affirmative action and urban crime. Do you think he was justifiying and obfuscating for them?

John, have you watched the speech, or read it? Or are you letting someone else tell you what was in it?

alan|3.19.08 @ 12:04PM|#

At the time, Japan was absent any Naval power to extend its reach in the war. The Soviets were still reeling from a ruinous war, and were sure as hell not going to challenge our fleet with an invasion of Japan, something that would have taken them the coordination of a D-Day.

Truman could have accepted the Japanese one condition of surrender that the emperor remain a GodHead and
avoided the continued distruction.

|3.19.08 @ 12:05PM|#

Maybe John is right, and Chester Nimitz was wrong.

But John, does Chester Nimitz hate America? Was he blaming it for the war? Was he letting Japan off the hook?

You can disagree with someone about a political issue, even disagree vehemently about an issue that is life-and-death, without having to hate your opposite, or impute moral failing to him.

|3.19.08 @ 12:06PM|#

At the time, Japan was absent any Naval power to extend its reach in the war. The Soviets were still reeling from a ruinous war, and were sure as hell not going to challenge our fleet with an invasion of Japan, something that would have taken them the coordination of a D-Day.

They had the second most powerful military at the time, and the largest, and it was still fully mobolized. They over-ran Manchuria and Northern Korea in a matter of days.

|3.19.08 @ 12:07PM|#

"They" refers to the Soviet Union. If the war had lasted you're fooling yourself if you don't think they would have gotten a zone of occupation in Japan.

Fluffy|3.19.08 @ 12:07PM|#

Hey, personally I absolutely would have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But Jesus Christ would not have.

And Wright is supposed to follow Jesus, not from Fluffy.

In more important news, right now ESPN is broadcasting an empty green baseball diamond in Florida because the Red Sox have refused to take the field for today's exhibition game with the Blue Jays.

Am I crossing a picket line by watching the ESPN broadcast, Joe? I'm not an expert on the etiquette of these union things.

|3.19.08 @ 12:08PM|#

Hey, personally I absolutely would have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But Jesus Christ would not have.

Which Jesus? The Jesus in Revelation would sure as shit do something worse than nuking.

alan|3.19.08 @ 12:10PM|#

Cesar,

it would have taken Naval coordination to pull off an invasion of Japan. They would have not stood a chance against our fleet patroling the sea of Japan, and would have lost every man and tank before they reached the shore.

|3.19.08 @ 12:11PM|#

it would have taken Naval coordination to pull off an invasion of Japan. They would have not stood a chance against our fleet patroling the sea of Japan, and would have lost every man and tank before they reached the shore.

Even if they didn't pull off an invasion (which we would have helped them do, if we needed help) they would have fought the Japanese in China and Korea, and the more men they lost the more influence they would demand at the peace.

|3.19.08 @ 12:12PM|#

Also Alan, would firebombing those cities instead been a-ok?

As Archy Bunker said when he was told how many people are killed by guns each year, "Would it make you feel any better if they were all pushed out of windows?

alan|3.19.08 @ 12:12PM|#

If the war had lasted you're fooling yourself if you don't think they would have gotten a zone of occupation in Japan.

The war would not have lasted if Truman accepted Japan's surrender in the Spring of 1945.

Fluffy|3.19.08 @ 12:12PM|#

Actually, Cesar, even within the Book of Revelation it is pretty clear that the unrighteous will suffer and the righteous will be saved.

Was there not one righteous person in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There were Christian populations in each city. Was there not one innocent child in a state of grace burned to a crisp that day?

If so, then I don't think Jesus would have done things quite that way. He would have used his super Jesus powers.

|3.19.08 @ 12:13PM|#

"At the time, Japan was absent any Naval power to extend its reach in the war. The Soviets were still reeling from a ruinous war, and were sure as hell not going to challenge our fleet with an invasion of Japan, something that would have taken them the coordination of a D-Day."

The Soviets were our allies. We were not going to stop them from lending us a hand by invading Japan. There is nothing we could do to stop them from doing so. The Soviets also had a 12 million plus man army and no worries about it mutinying, unlike ours.

Further, there is no guarantee that the US would have won had it invaded. In every amphibious assault during the war the US had numerical superiority. The initial invasion of the southern Japanese Island, Operation Olympic, the US would have been out numbered. The Japanese could look at the map just like the US could and as the summer of 1945 went on they moved large numbers of troops there. It would have been Okinawa times 10. That would have only been the appetizer. Once the southern Island was taken, the US would have then invaded the Japanese main Island in the summer of 1946. The war would have gone on another 18 months at least, resulted in probably a million or more US casualties and even more Japanese casualties and even then there is no guarantee that the US would have won. We might have been wiped out on the beaches during Operation Olympic. No sane military mind would argue against dropping the bomb.

|3.19.08 @ 12:13PM|#

The war would not have lasted if Truman accepted Japan's surrender in the Spring of 1945.

What, so they could rebuild their military and we'd have yet another war in the Pacific in 20 years? World War I should've taught you what happens when you don't force states riddled with militarism to surrender unconditionally.

alan|3.19.08 @ 12:14PM|#

Even if they didn't pull off an invasion (which we would have helped them do, if we needed help) they would have fought the Japanese in China and Korea, and the more men they lost the more influence they would demand at the peace.

The Soviets got everything they wanted without being entangled with the Japanese in China and Manchuria.

highnumber|3.19.08 @ 12:16PM|#

John, have you watched the speech, or read it? Or are you letting someone else tell you what was in it?

joe,
I'm not sure it makes a difference when it comes to John's understanding.

|3.19.08 @ 12:16PM|#

Japan didn't surrender unconditionally. Their condition was that the Emperor be left on his throne.

alan|3.19.08 @ 12:17PM|#

No sane military mind would argue against dropping the bomb.

Nimitz did. The politicians saw it your way, not the commanders in the field.

Fluffy|3.19.08 @ 12:18PM|#

World War I should've taught you what happens when you don't force states riddled with militarism to surrender unconditionally.

You mean like Great Britain and France?

|3.19.08 @ 12:18PM|#

Japan didn't surrender unconditionally. Their condition was that the Emperor be left on his throne.

Nobody cares if hes a figurehead. In Spring of '45, if we had accepted that surrender, he would have remained a God, the militarists that started the war would remain in the government, and theres no doubt in my mind they would have started re-arming to start a war of revenge in 20 or so years.

|3.19.08 @ 12:19PM|#

Fluffy, I don't think Britain and France were being run by a dictatorial clique of generals as Germany was in 1918, and as Japan was in 1945.

Fluffy|3.19.08 @ 12:20PM|#

So I guess everybody agrees with Cesar that Jesus would have nuked Japan?

Cause that's still the issue. Nimitz' opinion is all well and good and the geopolitical situation in the Pacific in 1945 was what it was - but would Jesus have given a damn about any of that stuff?

alan|3.19.08 @ 12:21PM|#

What, so they could rebuild their military and we'd have yet another war in the Pacific in 20 years? World War I should've taught you what happens when you don't force states riddled with militarism to surrender unconditionally.

What WWI should have taught us is you don't break the backs of your adversary's economy with war debts that go far beyond the adversary's actual liability in the matter, and thus create resentment among the conquered people.

A revitalized Japanese military would have been preferable to what we actually faced -- Red China and the Soviet Union.

|3.19.08 @ 12:21PM|#

Fluffy-

Jesus of Revelation would've sent all the man-god worshiping idolators straight into the Lake of Fire, while saving whatever Christians were in Japan.

highnumber|3.19.08 @ 12:23PM|#

Hey!
Shouldn't this Who Would Jesus Nuke?/WWII what if? discussion be on the next post up?

|3.19.08 @ 12:25PM|#

Joe,

"On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action ... On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language ...."

I am sorry objecting to affirmative action is not the same as saying "God Damn America". That is obfiscation at its best.

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street"


So an old lady who fears young black men in the street is on the same level as Wright? I think he might want to talk to Jessee Jackson about that who basically admitted as much as few years ago.

The entire speech was one big "I am sorry if this offended you but various white people are just as bad and I like the guy so tough shit." I think the country's response to that is being shown in the poll numbers in Pennsylvania right now.

Fluffy|3.19.08 @ 12:26PM|#

Fluffy, I don't think Britain and France were being run by a dictatorial clique of generals as Germany was in 1918

Personally, I blame Austria-Hungary for WWI, followed by the Czar.

Britain and France were just as "militaristic" as Germany. Even if we accept German war guilt for 1914 [and I don't] that would make a grand total of one war in Europe started by the government of a united Germany [at that time]. How many had France started? How much conquest had Britain done world-wide?

I don't really see a good way to distinguish between Britain and Germany in 1914, when you move beyond Anglo-American propaganda. Both were imperial systems with cults of the military and the nation that were offset somewhat by parliamentary democracy. The German uniforms were a little more gauche and the Kaiser had a little more power, but that's about it.

If Germany in 1914 required unconditional surrender for its own correction, why didn't Britain?

alan|3.19.08 @ 12:26PM|#

Jesus of Revelation would've sent all the man-god worshiping idolators straight into the Lake of Fire, while saving whatever Christians were in Japan.

Well, the very few left after Truman bombed them because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the outposts of Christendom in Japan.

|3.19.08 @ 12:27PM|#

Fluffy, I'm not talking about 1914 where I think we're in agreement. But when you win a war, you better either be very generous so that nation doesn't want revenge, or totally crush and then reform them. The victors in World War I did something inbetween, which is why it didn't last.

Guy Montag|3.19.08 @ 12:27PM|#

Cesar,

Oh, not to mention the Soviets would have probably invaded Japan and demanded a sphere there a la Germany, and you would've had a divided Japan.

They took and occupied a Japanese island. Still have it to this day, unless they finally gave it up recently.

BTW, Jesus would have nuked Japan and Germany, for that matter, and if the planes could not get there with enough daylight he would have stopped the sun and moon from setting to make sure it happened.

|3.19.08 @ 12:31PM|#

Alan, my point was I hate it when preachers talk about how horrible certain acts are when the God they worship is, himself, an unrepentant, tyrannical terrorist in my many parts of the Bible.

|3.19.08 @ 12:32PM|#

John, crack your Bible. If you can't bear the thought of a religious leader saying God would damn his country - not just that you object to his denunciation of some particular policy, but merely the idea that God could rightly be angry at what the country does - then you aren't reading from the Book.

So an old lady who fears young black men in the street is on the same level as Wright? Nice tight cut. An honest man would have quoted the very next line, about how she used to say racist things that made his skin crawl. Yes, that is at least as bad as anything Wright said.

The entire speech was one big "I am sorry if this offended you but various white people are just as bad and I like the guy so tough shit."

So your answer is, no, I didn't watch or even read the speech, I just read commentary on it from people who've been looking for an excuse to denounce Obama.

I think the country's response to that is being shown in the poll numbers in Pennsylvania right now. You mean the ones that have barely budged from a week ago, based on a poll that was taken before most people heard the speech?

I think your predictions about this election will prove to be as accurate as your predictions about the January 2005 elections in Iraq.

|3.19.08 @ 12:37PM|#

Joe,

Obama is just like you. There is always a reason to explain away appalling behavior on the part of someone on his side. You can spin it all you want but that dog is not going to hunt with the majority of the country. Most people in this country actually like this country and take great offense to people running it down and saying it got what it deserved on 9-11 and such. That may not offend your ears but it offends a lot of people's ears. All Obama had to say is "I am sorry I was ever associated with Wright and considering his views, it was a mistake for me to have done it" and the issue would be over. But he didn't do that. That is his right. But a lot of people don't agree with Reverend Wright and don't want a President who would be associated with him.

|3.19.08 @ 12:37PM|#

Obama is a secret racist

He is a Democrat and "secret racist" and Democrat are synonyms.

|3.19.08 @ 12:42PM|#

I can't believe that, given the state this country is and all the serious issues the next President will have to address, people are spending all their time talking about what a Preacher said in a string of 30-second quotes.

|3.19.08 @ 12:42PM|#

A synonym is a word you use in the place of one you can't spell

|3.19.08 @ 12:43PM|#

No sane military mind would argue against dropping the bomb.

John (sane military expert)

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman

"If we were to go ahead with the plans for a conventional invasion with ground and naval forces, I believe the Japanese thought that they could inflict very heavy casualties on us and possibly as a result get better surrender terms. On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time." (Herbert Feis Papers, Box 103, N.B.C. Interviews, Carl Spaatz interview by Len Giovannitti, Library of Congress).

General Carl Spaatz (In charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific)

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

Brigadier General Carter Clarke (The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)

|3.19.08 @ 12:44PM|#

I didn't think you'd have a rebuttal, John, just a denunciation.

Nothing on religious figures calling down God's anger? Nothing on your misleading account about his grandmother?

Yes, my arguments must be wrong, because they tend not to support your political position.

You don't know shit about what most people in this country think, John. You project your own feelings onto everyone else. Remember that blowout we were going to seein 2004? Remember how people were going to support the war now that "the surge in workinig," but support actually dropped?

Solipsism, John. Look it up after you finish readingi about Saul and King David.

|3.19.08 @ 12:44PM|#

Cesar, we are not particularly interested in the responsibility it takes to participate in the governance of these United States. We just wanna kick somebody while they are down.

after we knocked them down

|3.19.08 @ 12:48PM|#

Quite right, Cesar. The matter raised some questions, which Obama answered.

Time to move on to talking about something real. Like, for example, what the next president would do about, oh yeah, that war-thingy that has maybe killed half a million people, and displaced 5 million.

Here's the plan the frontrunner laid out today:

End the war in Iraq, removing our troops at a pace of 1 to 2 combat brigades per month;

Finally finish the fight against the Taliban, root out al Qaeda and invest in the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, while making aid to the Pakistani government conditional;

Act aggressively to stop nuclear proliferation and to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world;

Double our foreign assistance to cut extreme poverty in half;

Invest in a clean energy future to wean the U.S. off of foreign oil and to lead the world against the threat of global climate change;

Rebuild our military capability by increasing the number of soldiers, marines, and special forces troops, and insist on adequate training and time off between deployments;

Renew American diplomacy by talking to our adversaries as well as our friends; increasing the size of the Foreign Service and the Peace Corps; and creating an America's Voice Corps.

Or, we could talk about how Jeremiah Wright is a very, very scary black man.

|3.19.08 @ 12:50PM|#

Joe,

We have had a Presidential Election and a major Congressional election since the war started and there are more people in Iraq today than there were when I was there in 2003. You keep thinking the whole country is a against the war, yet the people who actually have to get said country's votes keep voting to extend the war. I will take their actions over your wishful thinking.

As far as Obama goes, the speech was basically after you get passed the "my grandmother is just as bad as Wright" was also "if we would just stop hating each other and go after the real enemy rich white people and corporations things would be great". I am sure that is mana to your ears but most people don't buy it. When you peel away the rethoric and read his speeches Obama is basically a far left socialist economically. Since I doubt you have ever lived outside of Mass or know many people who disagree with you, this is going to come as a shock, but America is not has never been a leftist country. Class warfare doesn't work and an appeal to it doesn't excuse associating yourself with someone of Wright's ilk.

|3.19.08 @ 12:55PM|#

Damn it Joe,
don't go gettin all Dunderooooooish on us here. You got no right tryin ta change the subject when we are still on the travesty of the week.

|3.19.08 @ 12:55PM|#

"Finally finish the fight against the Taliban, root out al Qaeda and invest in the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, while making aid to the Pakistani government conditional;"

Leave Iraq but turn on our one ally in the region. How do you destroy the Taliban without violating Pakistan's sovereignty? Does Obama plan to get UN approval for such actions? I can't see that happening. If not, do you plan to support Obama's illegal war against Pakistan? Further, how does shutting off aid to Pakistan do anything but challenge thier national sovereignty and force the government to walk away from the US in order to satisfy concerns over national pride? Obama is lying through his teeth when he says this so it is not going to happen, but if it did it would be a disaster.

"Act aggressively to stop nuclear proliferation and to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world;"

By doing what? Asking nicely? Is Obama going to pay protection money to Iran and North Korea? Or is he going to go to war with them? Outside of those two options, there doesn't seem to be any way to stop them from getting nukes.

|3.19.08 @ 1:05PM|#

I will take their actions over your wishful thinking.

I will actually look at the poll data, including the questions about what people think of the war and what they think of the presidents' policies in Iraq.

You are just talking out of your ass, projecting your own opinions onto a country that thinks you're delusional.

When you peel away the rethoric and read his speeches Obama is basically a far left socialist economically. Since I doubt you have ever lived outside of Mass or know many people who disagree with you, this is going to come as a shock, but America is not has never been a leftist country.

John, go here:

www.pollingreport.com

and click on the issues link.

You understand the American public slightly less than you understand Martians.

|3.19.08 @ 1:27PM|#

Joe,

I just look at reality and how people act once they have responsibility. We had a truly unpopular war in this country in Vietnam and there were 100s of thousands marching on capital and they ended running Nixon out of office in no small part because of resentment over the war. Perhaps I missed the riots and marches and impeachment hearings here in Washington. I don't get out as much as I used to. There is only one poll that matters and that is the one at the ballot box and there is only one opinon that matters and that is the one of the people making the decisions.

|3.19.08 @ 1:29PM|#

You are so funny when you get angry Joe. You know that? It is just funny. When you have a point about something you are just tiresome. But when you are wrong and know it, you get really funny. After I learned to look past the smugness and understood that it is just a defensive mechanism on your part, I have to admit you are are pretty damned funny sometimes.

|3.19.08 @ 1:32PM|#

Bush is at 29%. The Iraq War is at 32%. Congress dropped from 60+% to 20% after they failed to stop the war.

But you just keep "looking around" and assuming that everyone feels like you. Don't pay any attention to, you know, 2006 or the polling or anything. You don't know single person who blah blah blah.

Oh, and I'm not angry. I'm giddy. I just love the fact that I can count on people like you to dig your own graves while talking about getting to China.

Maybe that's what you're picking up on.

|3.19.08 @ 1:37PM|#

Only one problem Weigle with your line of thinking is that Wright was an adviser for Obama's election campaign not simply his pastor.

|3.19.08 @ 1:41PM|#

And as an adviser, he did what exactly joshua? Give me a program and/or idea that 1) he recieved from Rev. Wright and 2) is related to his idiotic statements.

Do you realize how many "advisers" these people have?

For Christ's sake guys, attack Obama on his tax-and-spend policies. Attack him on the promotion of socialized medicine. Attack him for his knee-jerk protectionism. But attacking him for this is stupid.

|3.19.08 @ 1:41PM|#

Actually, he wasn't an advisor.

He was on an outreach committee to black clergy.

A relevant distinction. He was a get-out-the-vote guy, not a policy or vision guy.

|3.19.08 @ 1:42PM|#

Congress dropped from 60+% to 20% after they failed to stop the war.

I like how joe said "after" and not "because".

Spotting the tactics of a liar is always a hoot.

|3.19.08 @ 1:44PM|#

But attacking him for this is stupid.

Last I checked Clinton got a little boost in the polls from this. So I guess you can call her stupid if you want...but it is working.

|3.19.08 @ 1:45PM|#

OK, "because" they failed to stop the war.

Happy? It works either way.

|3.19.08 @ 1:47PM|#

|3.19.08 @ 1:54PM|#

Well put, brotherben.

|3.19.08 @ 1:59PM|#

Yeah Joe,

People hate congress over the war. Not because they are crooks and are spending the country into bankruptcy wiht earmarks. Nope, that has nothing to do with it. Good God Joe, just stop it.

|3.19.08 @ 2:07PM|#

Maybe I hang with a crowd of ludites, but nearly everyone I know voted because they were pissed off about the war.

|3.19.08 @ 2:15PM|#

"Yeah joe" is the second most prominent indicator that you are going to write something vapid.

"Joe, you are an idiot" is the first.

|3.19.08 @ 2:33PM|#

"Yeah joe" is the second most prominent indicator that you are going to write something vapid.

"Joe, you are an idiot" is the first.

yeah Joe,

But you are an idiot.

highnumber|3.19.08 @ 2:42PM|#

joshua corning appears to have just committed a self smackdown.

|3.19.08 @ 2:43PM|#

Sarcastic, tenacious, verbose, somewhat myopic, passionate, annoying at times, thought provoking. yep, I can agree with that. Idiot? no, not so much.

M|3.19.08 @ 2:56PM|#

Why put the blazing saddles reference in there i mean come on. b decent, huh?

highnumber|3.19.08 @ 3:16PM|#

brotherben,

How about these:

- full of himself
- stubborn
- has way too much time on his hands
- fails to prioritize
- sometimes has blinders on
- has a different philosophy than most of the commenters here
- still much smarter than some of these c*nts
- seems to have thought some things through a lot further than some of these dumbasses

There's one more. Gimme a minnit. I'll think of it.

Oh yeah, I got it!

AND
joe's a RACIST!

*ducks*

Neu Mejican|3.19.08 @ 3:58PM|#

I think the country's response to that is being shown in the poll numbers in Pennsylvania right now.

Which comes from polls taken before the speech...it is important to note.

[sigh]

Here are the pre-speech numbers...seem to show that MOST PEOPLE don't really care about Wright enough to let it impact their view of Obama...

That is before the speech, of course.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/18/opinion/polls/main3948010.shtml

|3.19.08 @ 4:36PM|#

Rassmussen has Obama back up a point today, and his numbers are 4-day rolling samples, which means only 1/4 of the sample is post-speech.

I don't trust Ras's underlying numbers, but he does seem to capture trends.

Neu Mejican|3.19.08 @ 5:08PM|#

joe,

I think this is telling...

Rasmussen Markets data now give Obama a 74.6 % chance to win the Democratic nomination while expectations for a Clinton victory are at 25.1 %. Market data also suggests that Obama has a 43.4 % chance to become the next President. Expectations for McCain to become President are at 39.4 % while Clinton's prospects are at 16.5 %.

The polls give McCain a lead against either Democrat, but the market predictions flip that.

Bags|3.20.08 @ 2:12AM|#

The over/under on the number of times joe posts in this thread is 50. Do I have any takers?

43 out of 208 posts. Nice effort, joe!

|3.20.08 @ 9:26AM|#

Writing a post about me, because you think I play too large a role in the threads?

What an odd thing to do.

bubba|3.20.08 @ 11:19AM|#

Obama has found it politically expedient to travel with lefty America haters.

He probably isn't really one himself, but he needed the Black Cred of his church. So, it's not unfair to judge him by it, as a political exercise.