While he still appears to be in solid shape to win the Democratic nomination, the last few weeks have been politically the worst of Barack Obama’s career.
The Illinois senator struggled in the pre-primary debate in Pennsylvania, before losing by double-digits despite outspending Hillary Clinton 3-to-1 in what could have been a knock-out blow of the senator from New York. All of this came after his much-talked-about “bitter” comment, which rightly or wrongly offended many blue collar, rural Democrats.
Now he has the Jeremiah Wright World Wrath Tour grabbing all the focus away from him and back to his former pastor. He also had some less than coveted “endorsements” happen, which further isolate him, while continuing revelations about the terrorist backgrounds of supporters swirl around his campaign.
Obama is finding life at the top is not always enjoyable.
The time is now passing when reporters are asking questions about how Obama’s good looks impact his campaign. He’s facing harder questions and tougher reporters. In politics things can turn around over night, but right now Obama is in a tailspin.
The next two primaries were shaping up to be a firewall for Obama, ones where he could garner sizable wins to increase the pressure on Clinton to withdraw. However, one poll has Clinton in the lead by 9 in Indiana (another has her up 8). Another has Clinton cutting Obama’s lead in NC in more than half from 25 points down to 12. A more recent poll cuts the double digit lead down to 5.
The last thing that Obama needed after the disappointment in PA, was the resurfacing of Rev. Wright, the man Obama once called his spiritual mentor.
After Obama told Fox News that Wright was “a legitimate political issue,” the former pastor mocked the accent of an assassinated president. Wright later spent time praising hate-monger Louis Farrakhan, who’s Nation of Islam has been providing security for the Christian pastor. He’s engaging in racist language about how black students and white students learn through different parts of their brain. He doubled-down on his assertion from old sermons that the US government intentionally infected people with AIDS in order to start a genocide.
Wright also insinuated and basically said that Obama only distanced himself from Wright because he wanted to be elected. Wright said that Obama had to say those things politically.
Wright has become so toxic that even those on the left who had defended him only recently have since begun finding fault with him. Bob Herbert, Eugene Robinson, E.J. Dionne and the editorial board of The Washington Post have changed their tune. Andrew Sullivan reversed course in the matter of a few hours (after he actually read what Wright said). Joe Klein is openly wondering if Wright is trying to “destroy Barack Obama.” However, there is at least one prominent left-wing politician would be glad to go to Rev. Wright’s church.
On the heels of Wright-mania, a top Hamas political advisor told WABC that the terrorist organization supports Obama’s foreign policy. “We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election…,” said Ahmed Yousef. Obama’s Judas, Bill Richardson brought back another semi-endorsement from Venezuela.
Despite the press attention to other issues, the one that has recently come to light that is much more troubling to me and will be, I think, much more damaging to Obama in the fall is his relationship with the domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. His campaign has said that Obama and the two Weather Underground leaders are “friendly.” He describes them as “respectable, mainstream figures in Chicago.” As of last year, they would not denounce their terrorism.
The audio of Ayers and Dohrn then and now is very troubling and will be politically effective for the GOP in the general election. Clinton can’t touch the issue because Bill pardoned Weather Underground.
All of these issues, particularly Wright, have forced Obama to make yet another speech denouncing his former pastor in even harsher language.
The problem for Obama was the last time he spoke on Wright, he reassured us that the clips we heard were not in context and they did not give the full picture of who his pastor was. He told us, “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…These people are a part of me.” Yet, here he is a few months later disowning Wright as hard and as fast as he can.
It has become less and less believable for Obama to say that he never knew this side of Wright, when it seems the man relishes the attention his verbal bombs bring him. Wright does not seem like a man who shies away from confrontation and vocalizing his opinions despite their lack of popularity. All of what we know, flies in the face of Obama’s comments today that he was “shocked” at what he heard from Wright yesterday. That’s odd because nobody else was.
Michelle Malkin points out that for Obama, his tenor toward Wright changed when the pastor said Obama was being politically disingenuous with his distancing of Wright. “What particularly angered me was the suggestion that my previous remarks were political posturing…” The senator should have been “particularly angered” at Wright’s comments a long time ago instead of trying to dance around the issue.
Why should this even be brought up in a presidential election? After all, shouldn’t we be spending more time discussing issues and less time dealing with guilt-by-association? For starters, Obama himself declared Wright to be a legitimate political issue. Secondly, Obama’s campaign has been founded on the nation that his judgment is more sound than either Clinton’s or McCain’s. What he lacked in experience, he made up for in judgment. He had the campaign slogan “Judgment to Lead.”
These issues, particularly Wright and the Weather Underground duo, call into question the judgment on which he has campaigned. If he cannot see (for over 20 years at least) that Wright is a gutter-based, racist hate-monger masquerading as a Christian leader, how does he have the judgment (which supposedly outweighs the experience of others) to become President of the United States, leader of the free world? Why now, when it is the most convenient (and necessary) politically, does he finally see the truth behind Wright that most everyone else has seen from the moment we heard him utter “God d*mn America!”? So Obama’s critics exercised better judgment on a man whom the senator knew for 20 years, who married he and his wife and baptized his children?
Whether you support Obama or not, these are issues (real, legitimate issues) that he is going to have to answer – if not in the primary, definitely in the general election. I fully expect his supporters both here and in the media to declare this issue dead now that Obama has issued his decree, but it will not go away with the way it has been handled and continues to be handled.
The question that many have is where was this current Obama speech a few weeks ago when we were assured that Wright was a fine fellow who was being mischaracterized with YouTube clips. That what makes all this current “shock” seem disingenuous and purely political (the exact opposite of the image Obama wants to portray) and calls into question the judgment he has featured so prominently in his run to the White House.
In a week of political absurdities, this may be the most absurd. Barack Obama should do exactly what Karl Rove tells him to do!?!
AARON WROTE: He's engaging in racist language about how black students and white students learn through different parts of their brain.
This isn't racist, but it is skewed. He is saying that black people learn through rhyme and rhythm rather than through analytical reading. I suspect that that is merely a cultural artifact, but to claim that is somehow genetic is dangerous.
It could easily be misinterpreted as "black people can't learn through analytic/objective means, so we use music, like with children and monkeys who work to the hurdy gurdy's tune."
Making racial generalizations, will probably do more to bite him in the butt than make him a messiah. Everyone hates these types of generalizations. But maybe different ethinicities, in general, learn differently, and excel in different areas. But have fun trying to get these generalizations accepted without people making value judgements.
The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability, for instance, argues from statistics that Jews, in general, are more intelligent than others.
Bell Curve, argued that society stratifies with the dumb people at the bottom of the educational and socioeconomic ladder, and that it has nothing to do with opportunity, but with intelligence. This has huge implications if you look at which ethnicities are at the bottom.
OOPS! Rev. wright said "different, not deficient."
Is white oriented education really what has held blacks back? That's quite an audacious claim. I think it's the black subculture which has done so, esp. the victim culture that Wright espouses. Thank God that the great Jazz Masters and other black contributors to culture didn't blame whitey for their situation.
I mean, maybe blacks do, in general, learn better through music and meter than 'object oriented' teaching (RAP education anyone?). But I think he is straying into territory, that, though perhaps has validity, is filled with landmines. He can try to leverage it for his own ends, but it's a two-edged sword.
Next, he'll argue that blacks do better in sports because they are black. And maybe he'll be right ;).
I think this whole debacle is really a result of Obama's inexperience, and his lack of understanding about how black racist overtones are seen by many Americans. See you next election cycle, Baraq.
I heard Obama's speach live today while on my lunch, and it didn't do anything to slam the door on this issue. Rather is shows the reality that this issue is a problem that will not go away. It keeps coming up.
Here's the reality, the more this issue is in the news, the more people will question Obama's credentials and ability to win the National election.
The last time something like this came up the leading candidate lost the election. And yes, the loser was a Democrat.
Considering voter preferences in Indiana, his weakness in support in older Americans and working class people (who always turn out to vote) and the increasing storm surrounding Wright, the many super delegates are already having second thoughts about whether Obama can win a national election.
No matter how you slice it, right now or after you apply the math of the last few primaries, neither Democratic candidate will have enough to slam the door on the nomination. So, the Super Delegates having second thoughts publicly about Obama is not a good thing because they could very well decide for the good of the party and the chances of winning in November
– S
And here it is folks: a preview of the Republican attack machine's strategy should Obama win the nomination. Nothing whatsoever about the tanking economy, the rising cost of energy, the disastrous and ever more costly war in Iraq, the neglected and deteriorating infrastructure, the on-going environmental disasters, higher unemployment, average people losing homes and insurance, health care, the erosion of civil liberties, toleration of torture and illegal imprisonment, and so on ad nauseum. No, we are going to hear about little but Obama's pastor and his "terrorist connections." Senator McCarthy and President Nixon must be grinning and slapping palms amid the flames. Guilt by association, slander, insinuation, lies, character assassination, crypto-racism – whatever it takes to keep the stronger candidate out of the race so that the Republican attack machine can concentrate on Billary and inflict all that 1990's crap on us all over again.
It's clear that no matter what Obama says, no matter what kind of man he is, no matter what the reality is, his enemies on the right will just not give a damn. They will "swift-boat" him mercilessly. And we will hear nothing – NOTHING – about the real issues that are threatening our country and ourselves individually. And that's because the Republicans have nothing to offer but more of the same crap which has just about destroyed us: comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted (oh, and terrorizing us all with gay marriage, that world-destroying attack on all that is good and true and holy). It's vile and disgusting and makes me ashamed to be an American.
before losing by double-digits despite outspending Hillary Clinton 3-to-1
In fact, Billary won by 9.2% points. Unless you subscribe to the Hillary Clinton school of math, that counts as a single digit (you don't round up, but down).
Billary and inflict all that 1990's crap on us all over again.
Gee Louis for all your rabid and rapid fire commenting here, I take it you thought having the first budget surplus in about 40 years, peace and security in Europe (save Bosnia), record employment numbers, and low interest rates of the 1990's to be bad? My word man, that all happened under Clinton. The very establishment you are railing against…how naive.
Frankly, I take your comments here and rinse them through a laundry machine and filter out your "Chicken Little, Sky is Falling Crap"
The kind of discussion about issues you want has not happened in this country since before the invention of the Radio. Welcome to running for political office in modern society
(BTW, read Al Gore's last book on the effect of modern communication on the US's ability to engage in civil issues debate and you will understand why)
Rant, cry and whine all you want, but this is reality. This is what it takes to run for elected office in this country. And that is not going to change. Sorry.
If a candidate can't take the heat regardless of political party, then they should not run.
As upset as you appear to be, you really should calm down and post a reasoned critique of what is happening here.
– S
LOUIS WROTE: And we will hear nothing – NOTHING – about the real issues that are threatening our country and ourselves individually. And that's because the Republicans have nothing to offer but more of the same crap which has just about destroyed us:
Actually, this is not a republican thing at all, unless Rev. Wright is being paid by the GOP to be a loudmouthed gadfly. This is normal politics. Even more, any minority candidate needs, unfortunately, to be even more spotless than your run of the mill whitey to gain acceptance. Forerunners always suffer this way.
And me, I am not interested in Obama's politics, since his voting record shows him to be incredibly far left, I seriously doubt he has anything good as far as national leadership is concerned – let him temper a little longer in the Senate before foisting liberal anti-think idealism on us.
And really, the other reason why his politics aren't being talked about is because his party is still in the primary process, and well, the politics of the two Dems don't differ that much (though Hiillary is making conservative threats towards Iran), so how else will we tell them apart?
Once we hit the national elections, if Obama is in it, I expect the policy differences will be focused on, esp. if Rev. Wright goes back under the rock where he belongs.
rabid and rapid fire commenting…
Nice play on words. However, I was writing my comment the same time as you. Yours wasn't there when I was writing mine.
My word man, that all happened under Clinton. The very establishment you are railing against…how naive.
I was assuming that the people here would understand that I was refering to the political crap we endured in the '90s. I guess I expect too much.
Frankly, I take your comments here and rinse them through a laundry machine and filter out your "Chicken Little, Sky is Falling Crap"
The kind of discussion about issues you want has not happened in this country since before the invention of the Radio. Welcome to running for political office in modern society
Since you accept this level of political discourse, and feel compelled to assuage your hurt feelings by running it through the sarcasm filter, I guess I have nothing more to say to you. The whole point of the Obama candidacy was to escape the McCarthyist "gotcha" politics we have to endure every two years. I should have known that such an elevated expectation for American democracy (given the educational and intellectual standards of the American people) was both hopelessly naive and ridiculously idealistic. This problem with democracy goes back all the way to Socrates and what happened to him. So, why bother?
Fellas,
At the risk of sounding Neanderthal to our lib folks here, the problem from the very beginning for BO has been that he based his whole empty, naive campaign on an emotional wave that he thought he may be able to ride into DC come January.
His followers, his voters are(and were, I believe his base is melting away): Black Americans(because of his melanin),kids(young Americans, because its cool to vote for a young black guy), and the Head Bobbers(the white, head nodding, possibly guilt ridden(?), upper middle class and above people). This left the ones who will actually decide the election, wascully white men, hanging undecided until his SF gaff. Game over BO.
It has nothing to do with Pub attack machines, it was BO's naivety and Hil's opportunism, and the emotional wave that was sure to weaken as all emotional out pourings do. He is now playing defense, and will be for the foreseeable future, and whats more, if you are not moving forward, you are dead in the water.
Again, Hil v McC in 2008 …. BO is forked, stick a done in him.
Also, this shows what liberalism is all about … dare I say it? Rainbows and Unicorns.
I offer Ben as Exhibit A for my opinion of American intellectual quality.
louis, insults will not change the reality of a sinking Obamessiah who tried to walk on water, but found the world outside of the lib sanctuary city of Chicago unlike his insulated universe. Rainbows and Unicorns … meet the new lib, same as the old lib.
BTW: I take you as a Bobber.
That wasn't a gratuitous insult. That was an accurate assessment of you based on your posts. Take the following:
His followers, his voters are(and were, I believe his base is melting away): Black Americans(because of his melanin),kids(young Americans, because its cool to vote for a young black guy), and the Head Bobbers(the white, head nodding, possibly guilt ridden(?), upper middle class and above people).
Talk about insulting! You dismiss millions of people on the most baseless and stereotypical of terms. Black Americans will only vote for him because of the color of his skin? "Head Bobbers"? I'm working class and a white guy and NOT young, and I'm still for him. I'm very contrarian, so how can I simply vote for him mindlessly? And how ridiculous is your mantra "Rainbows and Unicorns"? Are you really as stupid as you come off? Can you chew gum and walk at the same time? Calling you stupid is an insult to stupid people. I've had sandals smarter than you.
If you have some serious and thoughtful comments in you I have yet to see them. Until then, don't expect me to respond.
Hi Ben;
I am not all that interested in making political predictions. You may be right that Obama will not win the Presidency. But I would have to disagree with your analysis. You wrote:
His followers, his voters are(and were, I believe his base is melting away): Black Americans(because of his melanin),kids(young Americans, because its cool to vote for a young black guy), and the Head Bobbers(the white, head nodding, possibly guilt ridden(?), upper middle class and above people). This left the ones who will actually decide the election, wascully white men, hanging undecided until his SF gaff. Game over BO.
You call Obama's campaign empty, but how has he been any less specific that either McCain or Hillary? It is correct that his appeal has been emotional; he appealed to those folks who want a different kind of politics, one where we look our for each other instead of embracing the egoism of the last several years, one where we respect those who disagree with us instead of demonizing them. Young people find that attractive. Black people? Initially Hillary got more support from blacks than Obama did (that was considered a problem for Obama). It wasn't until Obama shocked people by winning the nearly all white Iowa caucuses that blacks started supporting him. White guilt? Obama has clearly NOT been appealing to guilt, but rather to hope.. No, the reason Obama was (is?) popular is because he has a gift for inspirational communication. He is, in fact, the Great Communicator.
What has happened of late is that the press and the pundits have distorted Obama and his former pastor. They have ignored real issues in favor of cheap trivia. This creates a negative atmosphere around the Democratic candidates (it hurts Hillary too).
It has nothing to do with Pub attack machines, it was BO's naivety and Hil's opportunism, and the emotional wave that was sure to weaken as all emotional out pourings do. He is now playing defense, and will be for the foreseeable future, and whats more, if you are not moving forward, you are dead in the water.
But the support for McCain is also purely emotional, the emotion being the way the press has fawningly dubbed him a "maverick" a "straight talker" who tells you what he believes regardless of the political consequences. He gets credit for this even though he has flipped on all the issues he "mavericked" on in the past, even though his policies would be the continuation of the Cheney/Bush policies that the American people now reject. But the conservative MSM doesn't care about policies, they care about trivian and about protecting their own interests–and their personal interests are best protected by right wing economics.
your friend
keith
When you go off in an almost hysterical rant that is several paragraphs long it is sure hard to tell.
Two paragraphs qualify as "several"? And I hardly think it can be described as a "hysterical rant." It's exactly what I think, no more no less. And I stand by it. What is being done to Obama is terrible. And it always seems to be the cons who do this kind of smear job (dating back at least to Nixon's first campaign). Now we also have the spectacle of a fellow Democrat jumping in. It may be that the only rational response to this situation is hysteria. When the world you live in has gone mad, what is a rational response? Eventually, one gives up.
That’s a long post, Aaron. I can tell you worked hard on it. It’s too bad that it’s completely devoid of substance. Instead, it’s filled with typical republican smears. Instead of the economy we get Jeremiah Wright. Instead of gas prices, we get Ayers. Instead of Iraq we get Michele Malkin. What garbage. You’re screed appeals only to the ignorant and the gullible. Americans should be more concerned with the state of the nation than on narcissistic personalities like Jeremiah Wright. If you really want to raise the level of discourse here, then get out of the pig sty.
“He’s facing harder questions and tougher reporters.”
“Reporters weren’t really “scrutinizing” Obama. They were scrutinizing other people and demanding that he speak for them and denounce them. Same old crap. And then asking him to explain again a comment that has been explained, and fully understood, by everyone who has heard him explain it.”
I don’t think Wright dissing Obama and Obama divorcing him in return will be enough for you people. But, as far as Wright goes, good riddance. If there is a lesson Obama should take from this is don’t get mixed up with a sleazy religion like Christianity and it’s pastors. Hopefully, McCain will do the same thing with his cadre of religious sycophants so we can move on to more important things.
Let’s not forget McCain and Hillary and real issues while simpletons continue to fixate on manufactured issues. Don’t worry though, I’ll inject something people actually care about into this thread…
“This is the problem with Washington. We are facing a situation where oil prices could hit $200 a barrel. Oil companies like Shell and BP just reported record profits for the quarter. And we’re arguing over a gimmick that would save you half a tank of gas over the course of the entire summer so that everyone in Washington can pat themselves on the back and say that they did something.” -Barack Obama
A holiday from gas prices? Here are the facts.
"Wright, the man Obama once called his spiritual mentor."
Provide quote where he said this please.
louis:
"That wasn't a gratuitous insult. That was an accurate assessment of you based on your posts." —–>
its hard to tell, since you are full of gratuitous insults. I can not help that you dislike my posts, in fact I like that fact. And expected.
"I'm very contrarian" – no kidding. "so how can I simply vote for him mindlessly?" – I would say being contrarian could be a form of mindlessness(not mindless, more like gullible, especially in BO's case).
"Rainbows and Unicorns" – perfect description of the campaign that BO has waged. And, thinking people have seen through its emptiness.
It is no different than the inane "Hope and Change, to me, these two slogans, mine and his, are interchangeable. Both are just as meaningful.
"If you have some serious and thoughtful comments in you I have yet to see them. Until then, don't expect me to respond." —–>
I never expect you to respond.
"Talk about insulting! You dismiss millions of people on the most baseless and stereotypical of terms." —–>
Sure they are stereotypical, but in the terms of stereotypical when the word existed before other demonizing terms like "homophobe", "racial profiling", etc.
From my observations, I am dead on. Are there others from other fringe areas like yourself who have glommed on to the Rainbows(Hope) and Unicorns(Change)? Sure, but the three groups that stand out to me, are these three. Based on observation and putting PC aside.
I would suggest you get out more and speak with others to get a better feel for what is going on … look past the pretty newness of the Obamessiah.
Keith-
"You call Obama's campaign empty, but how has he been any less specific that either McCain or Hillary?" —–>
Its his tactics of not being forthright about his personal dealings and aquaintances, his offensive remarks made about rural Americans (also known as SF-gste), etc., while being proclaimed as the post racial uberpolitician, so unlike any other that we have seen. But being nothing more than a Chicago style lib …
"It is correct that his appeal has been emotional; he appealed to those folks who want a different kind of politics, one where we look our for each other instead of embracing the egoism of the last several years, one where we respect those who disagree with us instead of demonizing them." —–>
…riding an emotional wave than requires nothing substansive than emotion, until -the-wave-starts-to-slow-under-the-weight-of reality.
Like when questions that require more than some atmospheric language as an answer are asked. This is what I find empty, dangerous, not new ….
"Black people? Initially Hillary got more support from blacks than Obama did (that was considered a problem for Obama). It wasn't until Obama shocked…" —–>
I think it was a fore drawn conclusion that states with large, black, inner city populations will/would turn out for Obama, and I believe this is largely based on his skin color. No shocker at all, just good old human nature.
" he has a gift for inspirational communication. He is, in fact, the Great Communicator." —–>
A gift for rhetoric for sure, but he is an Ivy League trained lawyer, so words are his arena(from Sting of the Police:"poets, preists, and politicians, have words to thank for their position).I am sure he has the velvet tongue.
"But the support for McCain is also purely emotional, the emotion being the way the press has fawningly dubbed him a "maverick" a "straight talker" who tells you what he believes regardless of the political consequences. He gets credit for this even though he has flipped on all the issues he "mavericked" on in the past, even though his policies would be the continuation of the Cheney/Bush policies that the American people now reject. But the conservative MSM doesn't care about policies, they care about trivian and about protecting their own interests–and their personal interests are best protected by right wing economics." —–>
I find the MSM left leaning. Except FOX, to me, they ride the fence pretty evenly. But, thats never going to be agreed upon here, so …
You will get no argument from me about McC. He was not my choice, but I find him the lesser of the three evils. I have no emotional attachment to him, and whats more, if one does find them being emotionally attached to any poli, they need to reassess. Conservatives still feel empty about their choice, but what can we do? The MSM picked our choice for us, IMO.
I do not think he would be a continuation of Bush/Cheney really(although i would not find that all bad if it were true). If you have the time, breifly(or in depth)outline what you mean by this. I have heard this many times from many people, but when I ask them, they are just merely repeating what they hear.
"It's vile and disgusting and makes me ashamed to be an American."—–>
How does the comments of Wright make you feel? He being a "Christian", he should be anti gay marriage also. Just wondering.
BTW: If BO had not laid down with the dog(Wright), he would not have had the fleas he must combat now. Self inflicted wound from looking for street cred to prove himself black enough.
This is what I mean when I say that Obama does not live up to his mantra as a "uniter." Any post on him becomes the most vitriolic comment section because people have become emotionally invested in him as a person, not merely as a candidate for president but a person. So the comments become personal.
No matter how many times I say I appreciate Obama as a person and that I think he is a brilliant, phenomenal orator, it still is said that I criticize him because I hate him or because I'm part of some GOP attack machine. But let's look back and see some posts and some comments made here at 2or3.
In an earlier comment section, seeker said this about Obama:
I said this:
Which one of us said this just over a year ago:
That would be Louis. Care to guess how I would be characterized if I said this?
Now if Obama is criticized, our very patriotism is questioned. "How dare you attack Obama, the very foundation of our democracy, the man who will unify this world under his banner of charisma?" It's absurd.
Clearly, we have both praised and criticized Obama here as have his current supporters. Why get so angry and irrational when someone criticized Obama over issues that he himself have made legitimate? He said the Wright issue was okay to go after politically. Was he part of the GOP attack machine? He made judgment he cornerstone of his campaign. Why is it now wrong to question his judgment after it took him so long to completely denounce his former pastor and when he called unrepentant terrorists "mainstream"?
It's not guilt by association when people are part of your life for decades, when they give you start politically, when they are part of your campaign, etc.? Just like it's not guilt by association to criticize John McCain for having an overly pro-illegal immigration guy on his staff to reach out to Hispanics.
It's too bad that it's completely devoid of substance.
I wonder if you took time to read it and some of the links I provided or simply dismissed everything because I would dare be critical of Obama. Honestly, the only criticism I gave of him in the piece was that he waited too late to do what he did to Wright. If he had given the most recent speech earlier, most of this would be gone (imo).
I was simply giving a political analysis about Obama's situation. You can act like all of this is just gutter politics and beneath Obama and his well-educated, super citizen supporters, but he is going to have to answer questions like these. His speech yesterday completely denouncing Wright was good, but that was what we were asking for earlier. His connections to domestic terrorists is not simply GOP attack noise, those are legitimate questions especially when Obama's staff describes them as "friendly" with Obama and the senator himself calls them "mainstream" when they refuse to denounce their past actions.
I've had to truncate my comment to get past the spam blocker, so more to come.
Other written here that are praising Obama or at least defending him: 10 Reasons why Obama win will in '08 (seeker), Are you ready for some politics? (me, where I praised Obama's MNF intro and said GOP who criticized him for it didn't know what they were talking about), Obama gets it right (seeker, where he praised Obama's speech to the Call to Renewal conference and criticized Al Mohler for his comments about Obama), Far Left Demonizes Obama (seeker, where he came to Obama's defense after some on the left unfairly criticized Obama over his speech about faith and politics).
But the support for McCain is also purely emotional…
Not mine. I mean I don't really feel a "support" for McCain. Just as Ben said a lesser of two (three) evils option. I have no emotion invested in the man or his "maverickiness." You want to criticize him over the issues – go ahead. I may disagree, but I'm not going to get fighting mad about it. You can even criticize him unfairly or personally (attacks on his anger anyone?). I won't hurt my feelings and I won't call you names or tell you how you are attacking the foundations of our democracy.
Now to past comments on Obama's speech. It's funny how much things change in the space of a few weeks. Suddenly Wright is no longer acceptable politically and he seems to be going after Obama (possibly because his feelings have been hurt).
Yesterday Obama was "shocked" 'outraged" and every other term he could use to distance himself from Wright politically as well as personally. In essence, he denounced the man. But in his earlier speech, Obama said he could not denounce Wright any more than he could denounce the entire black community.
In fact the last time we had a conversation about Wright and Obama, Cineaste told us so. Here's Cin quoting from Obama's first speech:
Cin went on to say about the speech that is now no longer good enough for Obama:
More to come.
Despite its title, this country will never be united. Obama's giving it his best shot but he will fail.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Now to how great, noble, angelic it was of Obama to not "throw Wright under the bus" (which of course, he has now done):
Has Obama suddenly taken the low road? Of course not, he has simply done what he should have done when all of this first came up. But it seems Obama supporters are incapable of truly criticizing any political move the man makes. So when he gave his first speech, it was perfect. Now that he has had to go back and give a second speech about the same issue, it's perfect too.
This is why it becomes frustrating talking to Obama supporters and why the whole "Obamessiah" thing came about. You refuse to allow that the man makes political mistakes. Whatever he does, you defend him and proclaim it to be the greatest in American history.
Honestly, Obama is a great politician and a fantastic orator, but he jumped in too early. He's not quite experienced and polished enough as a politician or as a legislator to be running for president. All of these issues come up. Ask either Clinton. Ask Bush. You face political attacks of all sort, low, high and in between. Unfortunately, you even face personal attacks.
This is not a personal attack or a character assassination. This is a question of his judgment to lead when he only recently decided that what Wright said was outrageous. He's been that way as far back as anyone can see. It seems only Obama (and his supporters) didn't see it. That's why we can legitimately question his (and their) judgment to lead the United States of America and the free world.
Obama's giving it his best shot but he will fail.
Louis, I have an honest question – what changed since last year when Obama was not experienced enough for you, so much so that you called him the flavor of the month? He has not become more experienced (except of course for the year, but I'm assuming you factored that additional year in your analysis last year).
Some things can change, policies, opinions, etc. but you can't change your experience over night. That's something only time can bring. How did he go from "flavor of the month" one year ago, to the man who is single handling trying to unite America and the best choice for president?
"You can even criticize him [McCain] unfairly or personally"
Two wrongs don't make a right, Aaron. We want to get out of the political pig sty, not deeper into it. Lately, Two or Three has become an avalanche of BS personal and unfair attacks using guilt by association directed against only one candidate, Senator Barack Obama. This is just another in a long line of hollow rants. You point to other people like Ayers and Wright and demand Obama speak for them is if they were one and the same person. You ask him to explain again a comment "bitter" that has been explained, and fully understood, by everyone who has heard him explain it. Praising Obama before you assassinate his character is no excuse. Here is Senator Obama in his own words. This is nothing new except now he is denouncing the man as well as the words. What more do you want, to have Obama do a citizens arrest on Wright? Are you over it now? Can we move on to discussing real issues and not manufactured ones?
"A house divided" —>
We have fifty little houses(well, 48, if you are the DNC) … we will be fine.
"This is why it becomes frustrating talking to Obama supporters and why the whole "Obamessiah" thing came about." —–>
Obamessiah … I like that.
Can we move on to discussing real issues and not manufactured ones?
Cin, you mean discussing issues that you agree with and keeping our mouths shut about Obama right?
The fact of the matter is that all this vehement defense of a candidate by you and Louis is more emotion based than reason based.
Looking back at the comments from a year ago (thanks Aaron), Obama had a lot of issues and shortcomings with Democratic supporters and that included both you and Louis.
No, I see your complain about ToT focusing on Obama instead of other issues as a complaint due to a feverish support for a candidate.
Like it or not issues surrounding a candidate's character and background are highly relevant. If Obama's "issues" were instead tied to HRC you know I could bet and win a million dollars that Louis would be attacking her to prevent a back to the future of the 1990's. It is far better to get this out in the open now and decide for ourselves.
I find it odd and unfortunate that we are on the opposite sides of this Obama thing, but this stuff has come up and Obama did some of this to himself by not handling it better.
He may end up with a Michael Dukakis moment now that the Republicans will zero in on and make a real issue of at National. I would rather know about this now–regardless of candidate and be able to decide whether that person can actually survive this stuff come a national election.
Cin, I'm just going to assume that you didn't actually read my post or my comments or if you did you read them through a filter of "brings up issues against Obama = unfair, personal, attacks."
You didn't answer my questions or any point I raised. You didn't say what changed for you (except Obama's own mind) from the last speech to this current speech. Your own quotes said that Obama took the high road by not throwing Wright under the bus. It was "courageous" to do so. On and on. What do you make of the current speech in light of your previous statements, in light of Obama's previous statements?
Obama declared Wright a legitimate political issue, do you disagree with him? Obama said that his judgment was what set him apart from Hillary (since politically they agree so much) and McCain (since he is so much more experienced). Should his judgment not be questions at all even though he never saw the shocking things of Wright. Either Obama is a horrible judge of character or he's lying when he said he never knew that side of Wright.
How do you (and Obama) get to decide for everyone else what "real issues" are? This is an election for the United States President, not home room representative. Character, judgment and yes personal and political associations matter. They are not the end all, be all, but they do matter.
Most of your complaints about Republicans have little to do with "real issues." McCain is too angry or too old. Bush is too stupid. Explain to me how those are much more serious issues that require our attention, while Obama sitting under a racist pastor for 20 years and calling unrepentant domestic terrorists "mainstream" should not be considered as fair game or indicative of his judgment?
Those were Seeker's complaints about McCain not mine.
Just to be clear, those weren't my complaints, I only said that I would consider those to be valid, though perhaps not as important as others like policy or persistent and personal associations with questionable people ;)
"Obama declared Wright a legitimate political issue, do you disagree with him?" I agree. So, now that he has denounced both the man's words and the man himself, is it still an issue?
Um, so before when he refused to throw Wright under the bus, he was courageous. Now that he IS throwing him under the bus, he's not a coward? Or being politically expedient?
I think the issue is NEARLY over. The problem is, he's changed his approach to Wright so many times (I didn't know, he's my pastor, he's being taken out of context while a few snippets are being repeated, i disagree with him on these points, and now, a fuller repudiation), that his credibility is somewhat shot. That, and the problem of Wright parading himself in the news and doing patsy interviews with those like Moyers just keeps the issue lingering. If Obama had done the right thing up front, this would have gone away. Pretending not to have noticed after 20 years was dumb.
I think the issue is over, but Obama failed the test. I feel badly for him, he's a nice guy, well meaning, charming and smart. The machine of politics is chewing him up and spitting him out. But if he keeps at it, he may still succeed.
You see Wright as a reflection of Obama's views and vice versa, that's clearly nonsense.
Not exactly. I see that he has been *apathetic* towards this type of racist banter, even if they are not his views. That, coupled with his wife's gaffe, his own gaffe regarding guns and religion, make me think that his actual world view does not match his public persona, no matter how genuine he seems (and he does seem very genuine).
I do NOT think that this is nonsense, though it has been blown a bit out of proportion, in part because us white conservatives are amazed that this type of racist banter is very prevalent in black churches, as evidenced by the many black and white leaders who defended it – so, Obama got caught in a social issue that was bigger than him.
"I agree. So, now that he has denounced both the man's words and the man himself, is it still an issue? If you answer yes, then becomes a personal issue with Obama, not a political one with Wright." —>
So, after 20 years of sitting in the church, after thousands upon thousands of dollars in gifting, after baptism of his children in the hands of Wright, after the hateful comments that came from Wright's lips that were played for weeks now, and barely an utter from BO, and now, after Wright has made himself a grand ASS during several self agrandising appearances on national TV, BO has finally, finally, almost put a wedge between he and the good Rev, we are supposed to consider the issue dead? Are you serious man?
That would take a monumental suspension of disbelief …
Well since you want "real issues" Cin, I'll try to give you some. I'm not sure these will pass the test because they still do not sign a favorable light on Obama.
Friday when asked about the DC gun ban, Obama said, "I don't like taking a stand on pending cases." Okay seems pretty weak, but if that's his principle, it's his principle. Except yesterday when speaking about the Indiana voter ID case (which was just upheld by the Supreme Court), Obama said that he filed an amicus brief. What changed from Friday to Tuesday that Obama could not take a stand on a pending case except when he files briefs on one side of the issue?
When asked by Chris Wallace about specific instances of bipartisanship on tough issues, Obama stumbled. Both examples were things, he didn't actually do. He said he would have supported the partial-birth abortion ban if there had been an exception for health of the mother (which would have basically stripped the entire bill of meaning and would have been supported by almost everyone). His other instance was where he opposed the nomination of John Roberts, voted against him, but defended those that voted for him against DailyKos writers.
While in principle I agree with Obama on the gas tax "holiday," he doesn't agree with himself. He voted for a similar measure as a state legislator. He supported it so much that he jokingly asked if they could install placards at pumps telling motorists (voters) that he helped reduce their gas prices.
A Slate reporter found Obama's campaign to be hypocritical in their denunciation of "tit-for-tat" politics. The same day Obama was giving speeches decrying the tactics, his staff was hold conference calls engaging in the practice.
More to come.
Obama has been disingenuous in his statement that he would not raise taxes on the middle class, when he has said he would almost double capital gains taxes, which would hit millions of middle class people.
While he speaks out about issues and claims to be the presidential candidate most interested and passionate about [insert issue here], most of the time he is reluctant to use his political capital on issues.
This was a big deal to me, but to some it showed hypocrisy that Obama used his quitting smoking as part of his campaign, while he has secretly continued to smoke.
More to come.
In above post where it reads "This was a big deal to me…" it should be "This wasn't a big deal to me.."
Finally…
He essentially lied about his previous statements on hot button issues like gun control, death penalty and abortion.
One of Obama's key national security advisors broke ranks with the candidate to voice his support for immunity of telecommunications companies. He said that candidates (apparently including his own) that opposed the law should "do their homework" and not have "knee-jerk responses."
There are more of these and more serious, deep, philosophical differences that I have with Obama, but these should be enough "real issues" to start with.
Those were Seeker's complaints about McCain not mine.
If you did not make those insinuations then I apologize. You have however consistently criticized President Bush for low intelligence called him insulting personal names, etc. So again I apologize if I made a mistake in your criticisms of McCain, I did not make a mistake in your venom (as you often put it) toward Bush. You have a double-standard.
So, now that he has denounced both the man's words and the man himself, is it still an issue? If you answer yes, then becomes a personal issue with Obama, not a political one with Wright.
Despite your forcing me to make a false choice, i actually agree with this statement. The issue is no longer Obama's relationship to Wright. He has distanced himself from the man and should not be held responsible for further stupid remarks by Wright.
However, the issue has become the contradictions in all of his stories about Wright. It all does not add up and it all seems to be political opportunism – ie, he only cast aside Wright when it become politically needed. The issue has become his judgment, why could he just now see that Wright was a racist? Why couldn't he see that in the 20+ years prior to Wright's speech at the National Press Club?
You had nothing of substance. When you get to something legitimate, I'll address it.
I raised points including yours and Louis' own words, but because you have deemed them illegitimate you don't have to answer them. Nice evasion and dodge. I'll try to remember that in a future debate.
There's a difference between being courageous by not throwing your pastor under the bus when it's expedient and standing there and being insulted.
Well you do agree with Obama there. The straw that broke the camel's back is the fact that Wright said Obama was acting politically. It was not Wright's racist statements, his anti-American comments, his anti-Semitic rants, etc. etc. It was the fact that Wright became too hot politically and insulted Obama that really became "shocking."
See that's the problem. For the rest of us hearing Wright say "God d*mn America!" was enough for us. For Obama (and some of his supporters) the reason to dump Wright is because he "insults" Obama. Insulting our nation, our troops, white people, Italians, Jews, Bill Clinton, Hillary, etc – not worth getting really riled up about. Insulting Obama – now you've done it!
I don't care to debate it anymore. It just sickens me.
Mental health break.
I don't care to debate it anymore. It just sickens me.
On that we almost agree Louis. I really am tired of politics. I know that sounds strange after this post and these comments, but I started thinking after I put all this up – what good has it done?
Obama supporters are still going to gloss over these things. Obama detractors are still going to blow up all these things.
It hasn't done me any good, nor the issues I really care about. I'm thinking about going on a at least one week "holiday" from political writing. So if I don't respond in the comment section you know why. Not saying I won't, but saying I might not.
I'm not sure yet, but I may need a break from this. I need one ever so often, just to regain my sanity. Politics is an ugly business, I don't care who you are, and you don't get any prettier going through it.
"For the rest of us hearing Wright say "God d*mn America!" was enough for us."
It was enough for Obama too. That's why he denounced what Wright said. Now to denounce someone personally, that requires something personal, ya? Think!
"Friday when asked about the DC gun ban…"
Good, this is better. Ya, if it's legit then you have a real point here. The way I look at it is that he wants to get guns out of the hands of inner city criminals who tend to kill people and commit crimes with guns but also let hunters be hunters.
"He said he would have supported the partial-birth abortion ban if there had been an exception for health of the mother (which would have basically stripped the entire bill of meaning and would have been supported by almost everyone)."
Why does putting an exception for the health of the mother strip the entire bill of meaning?
"His other instance was where he opposed the nomination of John Roberts, voted against him, but defended those that voted for him against DailyKos writers."
"While in principle I agree with Obama on the gas tax "holiday," he doesn't agree with himself. He voted for a similar measure as a state legislator."
I'll provide the same link to this as I did above. I hope you take notice of it this time. I'd call Obama's position on this, "learning from experience." Apparently, McCain and Hillary agree but they haven't yet learned the lesson Barack has. In fact, they got two Pinocchio's for not being completely truthful.
More to come…
"Obama has been disingenuous in his statement that he would not raise taxes on the middle class, when he has said he would almost double capital gains taxes, which would hit millions of middle class people."
Capital gains is a tax on rich people, not the middle class. by the time you are making enough money that a capital gains tax actually hurts, you are no longer in the middle class.
"It displays an utter lack of self-awareness and irony on the part of McCain that he can accuse Obama of being out of touch with the concerns of poor people because Obama favors increasing the capital gains tax. Does McCain really believe that people who are struggling to make ends meet give a flying fu*k about the capital gains tax? Even Warren Buffett, not an income redistributionist by any means, knows how ridiculous it is that his secretary pays a larger percentage of her income in tax than he, a mega-multigazillionaire, does. Yet McCain thinks the problem is that the Warren Buffetts of the world pay too much in taxes? That in fact poor Warren Buffett's unfair tax burden is the cause of the problems of poor people? We've been slashing the taxes of the rich for 7 years and all people have to show for it is less money and higher prices. But McCain thinks that what poor people are really concerned about is that the rich might have to pay higher taxes on their capital gains."
"This was a big deal to me, but to some it showed hypocrisy that Obama used his quitting smoking as part of his campaign, while he has secretly continued to smoke."
If you think quitting smoking and failing and trying to quit again is a big deal, then fine. Chalk it up as hypocrisy and demonize the man for it. That's probably part of your rationale for voting for Bush twice since he's a former alcoholic. I think there are better measures of potential presidents, like intelligence.
more to come…
“He essentially lied about his previous statements on hot button issues like gun control, death penalty and abortion.”
That was 12 years ago right? Like with the gas tax, is it possible that he doesn’t hold the same views? McCain himself has flip flopped more recently and with much bigger U-turns. He’s not even considered a maverick anymore but just a 3rd term for Bush in all but name. McCain’s flourishing flip-flop list
“So again I apologize if I made a mistake in your criticisms of McCain, I did not make a mistake in your venom (as you often put it) toward Bush. You have a double-standard.”
I criticized McCain for not signing the GI Bill and for his proposal, along with Hillary, on the gas tax summer holiday. It’s pandering. You should also apologize for saying I have a double standard. You know very well I like McCain but I can’t stand Chimpy McChimp Bush. I liked that name you made for Bush so much, I’ll continue to use it.
“Why couldn’t he see that in the 20+ years prior to Wright’s speech at the National Press Club?”
That National Press Club interview was set up by a Clinton supporter. Did you know that? I don’t see it yet! Wright is a narcissistic ego manic, but racist? Isn’t his church mostly white but his congregation black? Why didn’t his entire church see it then?
“…because you have deemed them illegitimate you don’t have to answer them.”
It’s very simple really, don’t use guilt by association as a tool for character assassination. It’s logically fallacious.
Why does putting an exception for the health of the mother strip the entire bill of meaning?
Because, typically, 'health of the mother' includes her 'mental health,' which means if she is distressed about having a child, you can still kill it. The health exception needs to be narrow enough to include only things like possible death, disfigurement, or permanent serious disability. I don't think those things were elucidated.
"Does McCain really believe that people who are struggling to make ends meet give a flying fu*k about the capital gains tax?" —>
Yes. I certainly care.
"Capital gains is a tax on rich people, not the middle class. by the time you are making enough money that a capital gains tax actually hurts, you are no longer in the middle class." —>
What is rich in Barry's eyes? By taxing those who employ, you increase their burden. Why not leave the Bush tax cuts in place and cut taxes across the board, thus allowing those who live close to the earth and pay the tax burden to keep their hard earned cash and empowering them.
"Even Warren Buffett, not an income redistributionist by any means, knows how ridiculous it is that his secretary pays a larger percentage of her income in tax than he, a mega-multigazillionaire, does." –>
Hey Warren, if you feel that strongly about this po boys tax burden, give me a call, you can pay mine. Hell, everyone that posts here can use it I am sure. louis has old sandals that need replacing I hear…
MEREDITH VIEIRA: Michelle, do you feel that the Reverend Wright betrayed your husband?
MICHELLE OBAMA: I think Barack has spoken so clearly and eloquently about this.
MEREDITH VIEIRA: But do you personally feel that the Reverend Wright…
MICHELLE OBAMA: You know what I think Meredith? I think we gotta move forward. You know, this conversation doesn't help my kids. You know, it doesn't help kids out there who are looking for us to make decisions and choices about how we're going to better fund education.
Eh, I'm still done with the back-and-forth of this whole mess. It's not that I don't have points or things to respond to, I just don't see the use right now. Besides I'm not enjoying myself and I've got too much to worry about right now to be stressing over politically primary issues in a primary that will not really impact me much.
However, I did want to add this as a light-hearted end to my involvement to this thread. I thought about making it a post, but there will be no more political posts from me for at least a week. Here's a funny little jab at those on the left (no one particularly here, just left and media in general) and how quickly things change politically from The Volokh Conspiracy via The Campaign Spot:
I would truly love to see a posse of reporters grill McCain on the views of the right revs Haggee and Falwell for a week or two. Then they can move on to his involvement in the Keating Five scandal, or why he didn't publish his rich wife's financial records.
louis, let's move on.
It *would* be interesting to see how McCain discusses haggee and Falwell – however unpopular they may be in liberal camps, they aren't seen as terrible racists or crazies by the right, and I doubt by moderates either.
And again, he only sought their endorsement, he didn't live in their church, unaware of their teachings. He just sees them as figureheads for the fundie right.
Most of the sane xians I know don't really listen to Hagee – even though he may have a large following, he's not incredibly influential in Evangelicalism – not like MacArthur, Dobson, Stanley, Robertson (arguable), Swindoll, Jakes, Warren. In fact, remember the recent Time article about the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals?
Those are more representative of where evangelicals are at these days, not Hagee. Names we might know include Warren, Colson, Dobson, Graham, Hybels, Jakes, Richard Land, Neuhaus (love his stuff at First Things), Sekulow (a Robertson protegee), etc.
louis, let's move on
I am agreement with Ben. If this keeps on going and we don't move on people are going to go and make it personal (or shall I say even more personal)….the F-Bomb will probably flow.
It is past time to move on. Next topic.
Hey, you guys can bow out any time you want. If Louis and i want to beat this dead horse, so what? :p
I see, it's okay to beat Obama over the head again and again with his nuttier supporters, but when I bring up McCain it's time to "move on" to another topic. Gee, I wonder why.
McCain actively sought out the endorsements of Falwell and Haggee. You guys think Wright and others should disqualify Obama from getting your vote. Well, the same holds for me: getting the support of right-wing xian reactionaries makes me less likely to even consider McCain, especially since he flip-flopped on them (compare his rhetoric from 2000) and actively sought their support.
I agree on one thing: it's time to move on from Obama's baggage to McCain's. One could, indeed, suggest a few topics: the tanking economy and Iraq being two, the Keating Five scandal and his wife's hidden fortune underwriting his elitist lifestyle being two others.
Yeah, I was thinking the same Louis – good for the gander.
I see, it's okay to beat Obama over the head again and again with his nuttier supporters, but when I bring up McCain it's time to "move on" to another topic. Gee, I wonder why.
No Louis, I could do this all day long…McCain, Obama, Harry Truman, etc and not make it personal. A few others around here have proven that when the going gets tough they turn to personal attacks or unfurling the F-Bomb at people. Yes, you are in that group.
So, rather than keep going down a road that I am sure will just be an avenue for more personal attacks, we seek to move on.
Hey, you guys can bow out any time you want. If Louis and i want to beat this dead horse, so what? :p
Yeah, I was thinking the same Louis – good for the gander.
Seeker if you don't mind the F-Bomb being unleashed and more personal attacks lobbed at people including you, then OK. I guarantee that is where things will almost certainly go (without Ben and my own help).
But if it does and specific people that are know to do this stuff goes there, I am going right after them.
So, let the games, discussion, and debate begin. I'll even load up an F-Bomb in my back pocket in response to the eventual personal attacks that will go down that path of insults.
I'm just making an observation about the double-standard that's being employed. As I said before, I'm tired of it all. Politics seems to be little more than using the media to destroy your opponent over trivialities. Everyone obsesses over Wright as if he's running for prez. Why doesn't everyone obsess over McCain's surrogates and supporters? Or Hillary's (there's been virtually nothing said about her here). I think the system is broken. And, of course it's personal: how can it not be? When one really believes the mythology surrounding America, and then comes up against the reality, hopes will be dashed and feelings wounded. After decades of observing the demented circus which passes for politics here, I've had enough. Obama, at least, seemed to recognize it as well, and based his candidacy on refusing to play. More stupid he, and the rest of us for thinking the same way. If he is put down by this and Billary gets the nom, I'm through.
The problem with democracy is that it's rule by the people. If the people aren't up to it, it's a disaster. And I don't say this because they don't think like me, but because they don't seem to think at all. I live and work among average people, not "liberal elitists," and I am constantly appalled at the level of their understanding of everything but the latest sports scores and scandals. Many of them (including my own mother) think Obama is a Muslim! And yet it's the mortal sin of elitism to point this out. The only rational response is to just quit caring and cultivate one's own garden (2 points for recognizing reference).
The problem with democracy is that it's rule by the people. If the people aren't up to it, it's a disaster. And I don't say this because they don't think like me, but because they don't seem to think at all. I live and work among average people, not "liberal elitists," and I am constantly appalled at the level of their understanding of everything but the latest sports scores and scandals
Louis, this is something we can agree on. Yet, this is not the fault of the political system or of how people campaign in this country, but of society and changes in how information and communication flows due to shifts in technology since the advent of radio and television.
Fundamentally, the change from town square discussions and reading to consuming information in one way push has contributed to the problem in society.
I don't know what the cure is for that. I do believe that it is the root cause of what you are lamenting about here.
I think you should really buy/borrow, Al Gore's recent book entitled: "The Assualt on Reason" (link to Amazon)
This book (and I am not an Al Gore follower) takes a really hard look at the shift in society and the ability to debate issues considering the shift in how information is disseminated. I highly recommend it.
– S
"louis, let's move on" —>
I was just trying to be a peace maker, a la Mrs. Obama. :)
All, I believe the cure is what we are doing here. Shooting it out, making or trying to make useful points. Discussion. Even with all of its warts, it is fun and it is constructive.
BTW: I find it very interesting, the differing views, whether they be regional, religious, cultural or whatever based. The spectrum is truly represented here, IMHO.
I agree with Louis, it sounded like a double standard to me.
Yet, this is not the fault of the political system or of how people campaign in this country, but of society and changes in how information and communication flows due to shifts in technology since the advent of radio and television.
I agree to some extent. However, history doesn't entirely back you up. Nineteenth-century America (and earlier) saw politics which was even more vicious and more superficial than what we see today (I know that's hard to credit but it's true). And the problem with democracy goes all the way back to its birth in Athens. Remember Socrates and his fate? Certainly, the modern media machine combined with the entertainment industry facilitates the dumbing down, but it couldn't do so if the people weren't pretty dumb in the first place. Hell, even the Founders recognized this unfortunate fact. If politicians don't shamelessly brown-nose and pander to the American public they are considered evil elitists or worse. I think a large part of Obama's problem is the suspicion of intelligence and education inherent in American cultural make-up. Just look at Hillary downing shots and beers with rednecks and the widespread ridicule of Obama's failed attempt to bowl (and his subsequent bout of basketball athletics). We also have the military jock, McCain, beating that prissy pretty boy (you know, the Mormon). Anti-intellectualism (along with homophobia) is as American as apple pie and bombing brown people. No wonder Obama doesn't wear a flag lapel pin!
I believe that we must make voting harder rather than easier. A certain level of education is needed along, perhaps, with accomplishments more involved than switching on the tv or your iPod. I'd like to see some kind of public service as a requirement, military or civilian, where self-sacrifice and citizenship are demonstrated. Also, the ability to pass a test for knowledge of our government, history, and political make-up would be helpful. Yes, terribly elitist, I know! But democracy without a well-educated and informed citizenry is little but mobocracy.
btw: Thanks for the book recommendation. In return, I recommend an excellent though ignored (no surprise here) film I saw on dvd: In the Valley of Elah. As you xians will no doubt recall, the valley of Elah was where David met Goliath. The metaphor is a propos) to the story line and themes. Check it out!
Gee, a whole exchange without one f-bombing. I must be slipping!
Hi Louis:
You wrote:
I believe that we must make voting harder rather than easier. A certain level of education is needed along, perhaps, with accomplishments more involved than switching on the tv or your iPod. I'd like to see some kind of public service as a requirement, military or civilian, where self-sacrifice and citizenship are demonstrated. Also, the ability to pass a test for knowledge of our government, history, and political make-up would be helpful. Yes, terribly elitist, I know! But democracy without a well-educated and informed citizenry is little but mobocracy.
I hear this idea from a lot of intelligent people like yourself, but I think it's a terrible idea. The reason is that there is every reason to think that the educated elite would intelligently vote to benefit itself at the expense of the uneducated. Educated people are every bit as selfish and egoistic and everyone else, and the uneducated cannot depend on the good will of the well educated for their political interests to be taken care of. I assume you didn't vote for Bush in the last 2 Presidential elections but I'll bet a majority of college educated voters did, simply because they are more well-heeled than most, and higher incomes tend to vote for the party of the rich.
your friend
keith
I'm well-educated but I am not rich. I am working class. I don't think it's necessarily true that well-educated people will vote for the rich or just to enrich themselves. I also included a qualification of public service. That combined with better education will enable all people to be better citizens. As it is now, what incentives do average people have to improve their minds, to learn about their country, to be better citizens? They have the right to vote without the responsibility that entails. They can vote their envy or their resentment or their fear or their greed or their hate. They can easily be swayed by demagogues who specialize in scapegoating unpopular minorities or talked into stupid wars because they don't have the tools to see through these tactics. I say provide these tools as well as the requirements to be citizens. And then let them choose how to vote on their own.
Louis, I was enthusiastically nodding my head in agreement as I read your post about Obama being unfairly portrayed as an intellectual elitist and then I came to a screeching halt when I read this…
"I believe that we must make voting harder rather than easier. A certain level of education is needed…"
It just strikes me as undemocratic. There are democracies where the vast majority of the country's population is dirt poor ignorant and uneducated. But if people's voting rights are removed, their voice is also removed along with them. This leaves the people rich enough to get a good education with all the power. I mean, if you attached an education requirement to voting rights, that would effectively halve the republican party membership. :)
As for me, I'm comfortable having a President with an education far above my own. I don't want another Bush. Unfortunately, nuance goes out the door making it difficult for candidates to relate with anything but outright pandering. People who are not political wonks like we are also more susceptible to negative campaigning.
Take a look at this guys…
Lois sways idiot undecideds
…it is just such a PERFECT example of what Louis is talking about!
Don't get me wrong, I realize my ideas haven't the slightest chance of coming true. I was just dreaming aloud. The American people, the greatest, wonderfullest, most compassionate and wise people the earth has ever hosted, wouldn't allow such a thing to occur. One nice thing is that we are also about the most ruthless race at getting our own way and making money (well, until recently)and creating diverting entertainments, so I, at least, will probably live comfortably and have fun until I fertilize the environment with my ashes (not having any dependents to drag me down). The xians will try to spoil the fun, of course, but they're really on a short leash, and their bark is worse than their bite, so we can keep one eye on them while we whoop it up. Let the proles have their ballot since it doesn't really matter anyway – our masters choose the candidates they really want and upstarts like Obama are swiftly dealt with. Politics is little more than the magician's trick performed with one hand while the other picks your pocket.
btw: the reference was to Voltaire's Candide. No points for anyone.
"I mean, if you attached an education requirement to voting rights, that would effectively halve the republican party membership. :)" —>
Buying into what passes as education today in a dumbed down educational/secularist leaning system does not mean one is intelligent, whether left or right, just indoctrinated.
"Politics is little more than the magician's trick performed with one hand while the other picks your pocket." —>
Very true.
btw: the reference was to Voltaire's Candide. No points for anyone." —>
No points? I disagree. There is one person of short time here who has always said less gov(meaning the hand Voltaire speaks of is in your pocket for a much shorter duration)is always best.
If he were not such an elitist, and seeing only the reference above, his view could have confused him as a fine conservative.
It just strikes me as undemocratic. There are democracies where the vast majority of the country's population is dirt poor ignorant and uneducated. But if people's voting rights are removed, their voice is also removed along with them. This leaves the people rich enough to get a good education with all the power.
Cin, I can understand that, but again a Democratic system cannot function without a well informed and actively involved electorate.
Sadly, today, that is not the case in the United States of America…where 2 out of 3 citizens do not know how a bill becomes a law or can intelligently speak to who their elected officials are.
As we all know, America is not a Democracy. We call it that, but in fact we are a representative republic. That is by design. We can go deeper into this discussion on a seperate post (seeker, aaron), but that very nature of elected representatives and an electoral college system is an elitist system established by wealthy land owning aristocrats. That in itself is not Democratic.
I myself buy into the sentiment that there is a certain level of edication that is required to be an actively involved, critically thinking citizen. Some would say that civics classes as part of required curriculum in schools is enough. I actually would buy into that. However, civics classes in schools have largely been eliminated due to budget cuts and a lack of understanding of how this education impacts our voter base.
At a minimum required classes in civics should be required. At a maximum, required service in the military should be considered. As for being undemocratic, there are more representative republics in the world that require this kind of "service" as a pre-requisite for voting…and they are stable, responsive to citizen input, and have long track record of being "democratic."
Voting based upon ignorance is dangerous. You may have the right to vote, but that does not mean that you exercise that right judiciously based on facts and careful consideration. Many Americans just go based upon the color of a person's skin or even more comically, just randomly check initiatives or candidates at the ballot box. That does not make an informed electorate.
"Voting based upon ignorance is dangerous. You may have the right to vote, but that does not mean that you exercise that right judiciously based on facts and careful consideration."
Well, you seem to agree with Louis's dream, and Louis admits it's elitism. And all the while Seeker has been accusing the left of elitism against plain folk. In essence, could I use your rationale to make the argument to restrict voting rights of religious people since they harbor ignorant beliefs in the supernatural? Does ignorance of civics extend to ignorance in general? I agree, having a well informed and active electorate is ideal, but restricting the vote, if that's the suggestion, is oppression. I had to mine a quote sof someone who can say it better than I…
"Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories."
"Information is the currency of democracy."
-Thomas Jefferson
So Keith and I are on one side of this and Silver and Louis on the other. The pot has been stirred!
Hi Seeker:
You wrote:
It *would* be interesting to see how McCain discusses haggee and Falwell – however unpopular they may be in liberal camps, they aren't seen as terrible racists or crazies by the right, and I doubt by moderates either.
Racists? I doubt it although I am not sure Falwell wasn't an opponent of integration back in the day. But crazy? I am pretty sure most people think that blaming 9-11 or Katrina on homosexuality is crazy indeed. That Wright is getting so much press for positions that are (except for the AIDS thing) not that out of line reflects the bias in the media.
And again, he only sought their endorsement, he didn't live in their church, unaware of their teachings. He just sees them as figureheads for the fundie right.
Yes, Mccain cosied up to the crazies for crass political purposes, while Obama joined a church that cannot be properly measured by the snippets that MSM have been trafficking in. I'd say that counts against so-called Mr. "Straight Talker".
Most of the sane xians I know don't really listen to Hagee – even though he may have a large following, he's not incredibly influential in Evangelicalism – not like MacArthur, Dobson, Stanley, Robertson (arguable), Swindoll, Jakes, Warren. In fact, remember the recent Time article about the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals?
I agree, which is why McCains sucking up to him is so troubling.
your friend
Keith
Hi Louis:
I'm well-educated but I am not rich. I am working class. I don't think it's necessarily true that well-educated people will vote for the rich or just to enrich themselves.
I agree–there are lots of educated people who are quite civic minded. Of course some of those people evaluate things though their class-based bias, which means that they too will fail to reliably support the interests of the uneducated. So the number of educated people who could be counted on to protect the interests of the uneducated is reduced further. But still there do exist educated folks-even rich folks–whose political actions would help protect the interests of the uneducated. I would claim that the problem is there aren't nearly enough of them to prevent the political system from being skewed away from interests of the working class and the uneducated class. I think the evidence of how voting correlates with having a college degree bears this out.
I also included a qualification of public service. That combined with better education will enable all people to be better citizens. As it is now, what incentives do average people have to improve their minds, to learn about their country, to be better citizens?
I think your public service idea is a decent one. What incentive do average people have to become better educated and informed? Well as a teacher I like to pretend that education is its own reward:-)
They have the right to vote without the responsibility that entails. They can vote their envy or their resentment or their fear or their greed or their hate.
but as long as people can FREELY vote this is a danger, whether or not voters are well informed. Is it better for a greedy hating voter to be well informed, or does that just make him more effective at hating and greed? :-) You mention demagoguesd below; I'd like to address such.
They can easily be swayed by demagogues who specialize in scapegoating unpopular minorities or talked into stupid wars because they don't have the tools to see through these tactics. I say provide these tools as well as the requirements to be citizens. And then let them choose how to vote on their own.
I'm not sure an educational requirement would protect us from this. I'd bet the majority of college educated in the US supported Bush's war on Iraq, I'll bet they were convinced that Iraq had WMDs and were a Hitler like threat against civilization, just the way the college educated Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Wolfowitz team claimed.
your friend
keith
Regarding an educated electorate, and whether or not we should restrict voting, here's what I think:
1. I agree that the more educated AND virtuous an electorate is, the better our leaders will be
2. I agree that if the electorate is ignorant, they can easily choose bad leaders OR good, and can be swayed by charlatans and candidates (good or bad) with good marketing machines.
3. However, I think that we should NOT restrict voting in any way, except to those who are citizens by birth or naturalization.
While we do want to have an educated and virtuous voting populace, the correct means to that end is NOT restricting voting, but doing the hard work of promoting education and virtue.
Restricting voting to what we think is 'educated' or 'virtuous' is dangerous ground to tread, and based on who's in power – perhaps those with faith would be be considered ignorant, or those who were gay were considered unvirtuous, or those without a college degree would be considered ignorant.
The solution to an ignorant electorate can not be amended entirely, or even significantly, by legislation. It must happen through education and moral proclamation, through convincing argument, not laws – otherwise, we cease to be free.
Government primarily exists to PROTECT life, liberty, and property, or as Beliles says in Liberating the Nations:
BTW, here's a couple of relevant scriptures on god and governement:
1 Peter 2:13-14
Romans 13:1-4
Interestingly, isn't the electoral college created to prevent large groups of uneducated or crazy people from killing our country with bad leaders?
Okay, forget education requirement (except for civics). Base voter eligibility on a minimum I.Q. It's clear that formal education doesn't equal ability, as the education system is to flawed. A test indicating I.Q. and general knowledge (eg, history, civics, literature, etc.) should be enough for a baseline qualification. Add to that military or civilian service and we have some standard for citizenship rights.
You quote Jefferson above; however, his definition of "the people" was different from ours, no? White adult male property owners, as I recall. In other words, people with some accomplishments and a stake in society. We can argue the details, but restricting the vote is as American as…well, Thomas Jefferson.
Hi Louis:
Okay, forget education requirement (except for civics). Base voter eligibility on a minimum I.Q. It's clear that formal education doesn't equal ability, as the education system is to flawed. A test indicating I.Q. and general knowledge (eg, history, civics, literature, etc.) should be enough for a baseline qualification. Add to that military or civilian service and we have some standard for citizenship rights.
Leaving aside all the problems with IQ testing and bias, I think this still is a problem because there is every reason to think that restricting voting based on IQ would skew the political system against the interests of low IQ voters.
I can understand the frustration of people voting out of ignorance and bigotry, but I think that's just something we have to live with, content in the knowledge that the other side thinks we're the ignorant bigots.
your friend
Keith
Sorry, I disagree. The whole theory of democracy (even a democratic republic) is an informed and capable citizenry. If we don't have that, we have a mobacracy. My idea is that we make voting as difficult as possible, thus weeding out those with little incentive or interest or capability in voting. It's true that I.Q. has little to do with this, as does race, sex or sexual orientation. So we're left with education, public service, and minimum competence in civics knowledge. So, even an unintelligent person could earn voting rights by public or military service. The standard should be citizenship not "interests." Those with demonstrated gumption, ability, public-mindedness, etc (ie, "citizens") should be the ones making the decisions. There has to be some standard – one that all can achieve with effort and work and a demonstrated interest in the polity as a whole.
Well, you seem to agree with Louis’s dream, and Louis admits it’s elitism. And all the while Seeker has been accusing the left of elitism against plain folk. In essence, could I use your rationale to make the argument to restrict voting rights of religious people since they harbor ignorant beliefs in the supernatural?
Cin, you could make that argument, but I don’t see it sticking. Fundamentally, what I am describing with a minimum threshold standard is not a dream. Instilling and requiring real education in Civics at all levels of the education process–primary, secondary, college, etc is doable. If done correctly and in partneship with local communities it can be done.
To say that it is a dream to make that happen is to say that fixings our education system in the United States is a also a dream.
Minor steps to improve civic based education is not a step towards eltism, but a step to restoring that which existed in this country for years.
Now to read the rest of the pot that has stirred.
– S
I'm not sure an educational requirement would protect us from this. I'd bet the majority of college educated in the US supported Bush's war on Iraq, I'll bet they were convinced that Iraq had WMDs and were a Hitler like threat against civilization, just the way the college educated Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Wolfowitz team claimed
While that assumption might be valid, an education capped with a college degree does not always include required classes in civics. In many cases in today's American liberal arts schools, Civics is considered an elective option to complete General Education requirements…most certainly not required.
– S
The whole theory of democracy (even a democratic republic) is an informed and capable citizenry.
Jefferson the slave owner and anti-religionist is not my total idea of what it means to be American. Maybe more like James Madison if you ask me.
I think requiring taking basic civics could be ok, but a requirement? I don't think it's worth the trouble it will cause.
While we do want to have an educated and virtuous voting populace, the correct means to that end is NOT restricting voting, but doing the hard work of promoting education and virtue.
Restricting voting to what we think is 'educated' or 'virtuous' is dangerous ground to tread, and based on who's in power – perhaps those with faith would be be considered ignorant, or those who were gay were considered unvirtuous, or those without a college degree would be considered ignorant.
Constitutionally we already have grounds for restricting who and when a person can vote and I am not talking about citizenship.
So an abridgment or requirements for voting is already there. I am not saying I favor that outright, but it exists from a strict constructionist view of the Consitution.
The solution to an ignorant electorate can not be amended entirely, or even significantly, by legislation. It must happen through education and moral proclamation, through convincing argument, not laws – otherwise, we cease to be free.
No, but legislation mandating education in civics at different levels of a citizens pathway to adult-hood can be done. Creating "minimum national standards" and applying requirements to exit school by passing said exams is a step in the right direction. It may not make for a fully thinking electorate, but it does make for an informed electorate as to how this country works and how a bill becomes a law. That is a start.
Restricting voting to what we think is 'educated' or 'virtuous' is dangerous ground to tread, and based on who's in power – perhaps those with faith would be be considered ignorant, or those who were gay were considered unvirtuous, or those without a college degree would be considered ignorant.
Dangerous…maybe. However, it has worked quite well in Israel and France…
In addition, through a strong and vigilant judicial system and well written constitutional amendment, I don't see the danger being as great.
However, after 8 years of the Bush Administration, we have seen the severe degradation of true checks and balances along with both Judicial Review and Legislative oversight. So perhaps the risk resides there.
I think requiring taking basic civics could be ok, but a requirement? I don't think it's worth the trouble it will cause.
Then perhaps we should also rescind the NCLBA (No Child Left Behind Act) as is sought to create a minimum standard and benchmark for eduction in this country but has proven to be more trouble than it has been worth.
Doing something that is worthwhile and seeks to improve the country and our education system to make for more intelligent and better prepared citizenry is worth the trouble. Otherwise, what's the point of even having any meaningful minimum education standards at all? I see no point.
-S
meaningful minimum education standards
Standards are fine for service providers, but not for individual eligibility for basic rights, unless those rights endanger others – again, government is there to protect. Whom do such laws protect? Only the haughty who think their education makes them more qualified to choose a candidate. Education might help, but it's no substitute for interest in virtue, which is really, if you ask me, more important. Things like honesty, industry, loyalty, fidelity are easier to recognize than understanding how economics work (and how many educated people understand that?).
I think an illiterate voter voting for a pro-life candidate because they believe killing children is wrong is a better voter than the highly educated who feels otherwise.
However, on the other side, I hate when unsuspecting minorities vote for entitlement programs that prolong their dependence on government rather than enabling them to become self-sufficient. But just because they don't understand conservative economics and are uneducated doesn't mean I should take away their right to vote.
So, I agree you should have to, for example, pass a driver's test to get a license. You also have to be literate enough to take the written exam. That's a public safety issue.
But I don't think that literacy or education should be required for voting, unless you want to disenfranchise people. There is little danger in allowing them to vote – I think you are restricting freedoms for not good enough reasons.
Jefferson the slave owner and anti-religionist is not my total idea of what it means to be American.
?!!!
Let's leave the slave owning aside, shall we? Several of the Founders were slave owners and it was an accepted practice of its time. But it seems off the charts that you exclude Jefferson (who wrote the Declaration of Independence) as an American. I know you are a religious fanatic, but this is just cuckoo. Shall we also exclude such skeptics as Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin?
Christians can really be weird.
I didn't say he wasn't an american, I said that he is not my TOTAL definition of what it means to be american. I prefer the example of others better, like madison WHO WROTE THE CONSTITUTION.
seeker-
"Standards are fine for service providers, but not for individual eligibility for basic rights, unless those rights endanger others – again, government is there to protect." –>
Basic rights endangering others? Like which rights? If by "protect" you mean limit in some way, I find that the most un-Democratic of all. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even for louis. ;)
Maybe I missed your point here …
I said that he is not my TOTAL definition of what it means to be american[sic].
I see, religious skeptics aren't "total" Americans to you. Theocracy here we come.
More on Obama and his critics.
Two Nobel Prize Economists Recommend Obama
“Doing something that is worthwhile and seeks to improve the country and our education system to make for more intelligent and better prepared citizenry is worth the trouble. Otherwise, what’s the point of even having any meaningful minimum education standards at all? I see no point.”
We’ll soon be able to gauge if Americans are intelligent enough to recognize the summer holiday gas tax proposal by Clinton and McCain for what it is, a gimmick.
Silver, I think Senator Obama has a much stronger education policy than Senator McCain. We are so far behind the rest of the world already in science and since technology drives our economy, it’s just another ingredient for potential collapse. Like the environment, this is not a conservative or democratic issue. We’re all in this one together. We need to get kids excited about science somehow and I think somehow science must be made culturally relevant again like it was when the space race was going on under JFK. This atmosphere of anti-intellectualism is detrimental to our prosperity. I’d place civics on a lower educational priority level than science.
"We'll soon be able to gauge if Americans are intelligent enough to recognize the summer holiday gas tax proposal by Clinton and McCain for what it is, a gimmick."–>
Of course its a gimmick. Putting that small amount of money(maybe a full tanks worth of cash)over the Summer back in the consumers pocket is not going to quell anything. But, in a situation in which nothing can be done by the gov where OPEC production and speculators control market price AND its an election year where poli's want to make it look like economic Apocalypse is upon us and they(the poli's)have all the answers to our woes, something, for the sake of political expediency must be done!
O'Reilly stated the other night, that if the American consumer would cut back by 10% on fuel consumption, the price would drop since market forces would dictate(a glut supposedly causing amount of fuel on hand to rise, and then the price to move stock must drop). But wouldn't the petroleum companies sell any glutted stock on the open market, thus rendering any American sacrifice noble, yet useless?
Guilt by association(as in Wright/BO)-
poo pooed here by some as not a viable point of view or vetting tool.
“Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals,’” 1 Cor. 15:33. –
not poo pooed by those who exercise the Bible as guidance.
Ah, the chasm between the intelligent and the ignorant, backward Christians types, clinging …
louis,
Nutso? Is that a technical term?:)
Did I ever say I was a McCain supporter? I think if you would go back and look at some of my earliest posts on the folks we have to choose from, you would see where I stand(if you remember, my calling McC descriptive names caused seeker to burn me down once or twice).
The fact of the matter is, BO was media created by MSM, Clinton survives by her name(Bill's coattails)and BO's ineptness, and McC also being guided by MSM forces(how does a PUB(?)senator who hates the angry-white-man-conservative, who will decide the election, rise to the top? Just what the hell is going on here?)are all horrendous choices to me.
McC Daddy is the least destructive(possibly)of the three. My hands are tied, unless Ms. Rice or Mr. Jindal comes a callin' …
Hi Ben:
Continuing:
keith said:
"I hear that Jesus guy hangs with a lot of unsavory characters; we might want to be careful around him:-)"
Touche … almost. I actually thought about that too, but there is a huge difference here, even though some low brow Neanderthals may jokingly call BO the Obamessiah(heyyyyyy … wait a minute).
JC was actually trying to change hearts by spreading a message of hope and love, and giving them an example on how to carry ones self…
That is a distinction, but my comment was addressed to your claim that Christians are OK with attributing "guilt by association". I think my retort is right on target, honestly.
BO was absorbing a message in a fascist church.
I'm sorry but you have no basis for blasting the whole church because of a few out of context snippets from the pastor. My wife grew up in a UCC church–that's the denomination of Obama's church–and she tells me it is altogther common to disagree with the pastor, and that the UCC churches place a strong emphasis on caring for the poor and powerless. This was what drew Obama to the church, the fact that Trinity walked the Christian walk instead of just mouthing religious platitudes.
JC said he was with the "societal dregs" because "the sick were the ones needing the physician, not the well"(para phrased).
That is indeed what he said, to the hypocrites who never considered themselves to be in need of the physician. But there is no reason to think Jesus didn't enjoy their company too.
BO, being an Arab-American, needed the "physician" in image of Rev Wright to bless him with the olive oil of Southside liberalism to give him cred with the people of the area, in order to further his poli career, to make him more authentically black.
Obama's father was from Kenya, he wasn't an arab. Also, you here accuse Obama of doing community activism as a means to gain politically. But there is no reason to doubt his claim that his politics is a means to community activism. Obama has said he connected with Wright's church because Wright's church was connected to the community, but that Obama was inspired to move from religious skepticism to faith by the church. Yuo have no reason to doubt Obama's claim.
JC broke bread with no thought for his own flesh, BO "broke bread" for selfish reasons.
Yoiu have no reason at all to assume Obama was being selfish.
So, honestly Keith, you believe as others who have posted here, that who you associate with will have no effect on a person? Especially the types of folks you would have to hang with for a political life, that these folks give no insight to a person?
I honestly believe that a person can associate with the unsavory without themselves becoming unsavory. I honestly believe that it is unfair to judge a person by the company he keeps.
To dismiss grandpa's wisdom of the "birds of a feather" as not useful for insight is folly.
I prefer Jesus' wisdom: judge not, lest you be judged.
your friend
Keith
“I prefer Jesus’ wisdom: judge not, lest you be judged.” –>
That is solid advice, until politics are stirred in. Two different worlds, religion and politics.
Sorry man, but we are judging who we want as our president. We do that by vetting the poli’s … judging, based on personal wants in a leader, for example, is part of the process.
“I honestly believe that a person can associate with the unsavory without themselves becoming unsavory. I honestly believe that it is unfair to judge a person by the company he keeps.” –>
So you associate yourself with unsavory folks? If so, why? And if not, why? And I will repeat Paul’s message that hanging with bad folks produces bad outcomes … “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals,’” 1 Cor. 15:33 .. Do not be deceived.
“You have no reason to doubt Obama’s claim.” –>
Yes I do, when the message is hateful. And he is like any other poli, deflecting until he is caught, then taking a half measured stand against what he now says is terribly wrong words. First he could no more divorce himself from Wright than he could divorce himself from the black community, now, adios Rev. Expedience makes “new kind” of poli’s what they really are, old style poli’s.
“and she tells me it is altogther common to disagree with the pastor, and that the UCC churches place a strong emphasis on caring for the poor and powerless.” –>
Firstly, it would be easy to disagree with the hate he spewed. Any thinking person would. Would you stay in a church where the leadership used this kind of spew?
“I’m sorry but you have no basis for blasting the whole church because of a few out of context snippets from the pastor.” –>
As a pastor of 20 years, do you think these were the only times that Wright used derogatory language? And exactly how do you put into context the words that the gov(whitey, as pointed out by the Rev earlier in the same sermon)created AIDS to destroy “people of color”? Keith, I enjoy your level headedness, but even you are stretching your defense of this moron. Have you caught some of his latest antics? Oh, and the left brained right brained comparison was also a stroke of brilliance. If this were so, who is he stating is the subspecies? White or dark melanin?
I also have heard the two vilest sermons in full … I just wish the whole 20 year extravaganza were available.
“That is a distinction, but my comment was addressed to your claim that Christians are OK with attributing “guilt by association”. I think my retort is right on target, honestly.” –>
I did not mean to make it look like a Christian thing, just a common sense thing. A brush with bad people one may not be permanently stained by, but the more time spent with them, the more of a possibility arises that more is going on than meets the eye. In my experience, bad folks hang with bad folks. If you have a child, and I think you said that you do, would it be OK for them to run with kids known to be unsavory?
“That is indeed what he said, to the hypocrites who never considered themselves to be in need of the physician. But there is no reason to think Jesus didn’t enjoy their company too.” –>
I believe he did enjoy their company, to the extent he could. I think what he probably enjoyed more was the actually carrying out the Law that his Father put forth, in the way that the priests should have been carrying it out in ministering to the people.
“Obama’s father was from Kenya, he wasn’t an arab.” –>
Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian, that from his mother. What those who want Mr. Obama to write history by becoming “America’s first African-American president” ignore is that his father was ethnically Arabic, with only 1 relative ethnically African Negro – a maternal great-grandparent (BO’s great-great grandparent, thus the 6.25% ethnic contribution to the senator’s ethnic composition).
On his father’s side, he is descended from Arab slave traders. They operated under an extended grant from Queen Victoria, who gave them the right to continue the slave trade in exchange for helping the British defeat the Madhi Army in southern Sudan and the Upper Nile region. Funny how circular history is; now the British again face the Madhi Army, albeit this time Shiite, not Sunni, as in nineteenth century Sudan.
This is the reason he and his father have Arabic names, his fathers side of the family tree is Arab.
But he is the blank screen … he can be anything we wish to project upon him.
Oh well, even Pilate asked, “What is truth?” :)
I think things have gotten about as low as they can get when you are blatantly trying to associate Obama with the Arabs (and therefore Mislim), arguing his father was "ethnically" an Arab. And, not to stop there, but that his "ancestors" (no less) were slave traders! Were they also child-abusers? What else can you guys do to smear him?
My question is a big, SO WHAT!!. What is the quality of his (his, not Wright's) character? What kind of man is he (and not his ancestors).
Can you at least try to be fair (I know it's hard, but try!)?
Hi Ben:
Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian, that from his mother. What those who want Mr. Obama to write history by becoming "America's first African-American president" ignore is that his father was ethnically Arabic, with only 1 relative ethnically African Negro – a maternal great-grandparent (BO's great-great grandparent, thus the 6.25% ethnic contribution to the senator's ethnic composition).
I've been trying to verify your claim; could you provide a credible source? I am skeptical of any source that tries to make a political point out of this claim BTW. I'd prefer an unbiased source. I expect that Obama was considered African-American when he was a highschool basketball player in Hawaii, also when he was in law school and an organizer in Chicago. That is IMO the relevant social factor.
your friend
Keith
From Slate.com:
His parents met as college students in 1960. His father, also named Barack Obama, was from Kenya's Luo tribe, the first African exchange student at the University of Hawaii. His mother, Anna, had gone to Hawaii from Kansas with her parents.
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BARACK
That was funny, but Wright should have been somone like Jabba the Hut
"Wright should have been somone like Jabba the Hut"
Jabba is Dick Cheney and Bush is that little laughing alien sidekick. James Carvel is Greedo.
"His parents met as college students in 1960. His father, also named Barack Obama, was from Kenya's Luo tribe, the first African exchange student at the University of Hawaii. His mother, Anna, had gone to Hawaii from Kansas with her parents." –>
OK. But the topic was on his father being of Arab descent, not African negro.
I am not interested in anything but interesting points … I find this interesting. Its ok louis, if BO has skeletons, and it has been shown that he does, it is what it is.
The aura of the halo on the Obamessiah is blinding you …
keith:
This is the site where I first saw the story: http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-ob…
I think the technicality, whether he is African enough to be actually called African-American(i find it stupid that we as Americans have to subdivide ourselves into these little boxes in order to gain something or to be abused by poli's)is what the author was speaking of. I just thought it was interesting, I being a person who is interested in genealogical sciences.
Why I think this is true, and here really is the gist of my thought. I have a buddy(Osman)of African Arab descent that I go to school with. It was his/the point, which comes from the Old Testament(importance of a good name)and in turn is held in high regard by Islam, that if one has or is given an Islam reflecting name(like Osman or Baruk/Barach), especially in a heavily Christian country, like Kenya, it is to celebrate or to set oneself apart from the Christian religion or population. Much like Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Farrakhan, Ali, etc., in this country.
Hi Ben:
The source you cited is exactly the kind of source I mentioned I was uninterested in: it is a source with an ax to grind. But it seems to me that his bizarre legal argument is irrelevant to the issue. Obama's father was (according to the source Louis cited) a member of the Luo tribe, which is one of the largest ethnic groups of Africa. It seems to me that a person from that tribe can properly be called African, and his US citizen children could properly be called African-American. Obama sees himself as African-American and he was treated as such by America.
About dividing ourselves ethnically: I often here conservatives say the same thing you say here: it's stupid to divide ourselves as hyphenated Americans instead of just being Americans. But these same conservatives have no problem with dividing ourselves from the rest of the world as Americans when we could just be people of the world. IMO there is no harm in explicitly honoring all the various cultures and backgrounds that make up the United States of America, that being able to draw from so many cultures makes us a richer nation. It's not multicultralism that is the problem, it is hating people who are different that's the problem.
your friend
Keith
Like he said "What is truth."
And louis does not have an axe to grind? He is qouted, but the journalist who put the BO article together is dismissed? Oh well.
Like I and others have said, he is a blank screen. He can be anything we throw against it. Arab-American? Got it covered. African-American? yep. Caucasian? Typical white Granny. All feeling, no gravitas.
"it's stupid to divide ourselves as hyphenated Americans instead of just being Americans. But these same conservatives have no problem with dividing ourselves from the rest of the world as Americans" –>
Erase the borders you say? I do not think that Americans have divided themselves from the world, the world under non-freedom loving gov's(the freedoms given to the people being decided by the gov, not our creator as bore out by our documents)have decayed.
America comes to the aid of ANY country needing it … shame on the blame America first crowd.
"that being able to draw from so many cultures makes us a richer nation." –>
If they come here with the express desire to be Americans, yes. Can you site an example of someone who came here without wanting to become part of the American culture that has made us richer? I think the French, especially the Islamic ghetto's of Paris are knee deep in this richness, which seems to explode every Summer.
"It's not multicultralism that is the problem, it is hating people who are different that's the problem."–>
Then, for example, Sha'ria law is OK in your opinion, a desirable way of governing the people? Even the Brit's exploded over the assertion by a "christian" Bishop this Winter on the adopting of such into British law. The Brits though seem to be wising up a bit though with the last elections hopefully a sign of things to come.
Would you like to see the West, namely America, leading the world into the future? Or something different?
Hi Ben:
I don’t have time to address your whole post, but I need to clarify one point: I am not saying that Louis is axe free. Louis quoted a source–Slate.com–that was merely giving biographical information about Obama. The source you quoted presented its claim as an argument that Obama is a phony. On the subject of Obama’s family background, your source has a bias.
your friend
keith
Hi Ben:
I don't have time to address your whole post, but I need to clarify one point: I am not saying that Louis is axe free. Louis quoted a source–Slate.com–that was merely giving biographical information about Obama. The source you quoted presented its claim as an argument that Obama is a phony. On the subject of Obama's family background, your source has a bias.
your friend
keith
keith,
I was not intending to paint him(BO)as a phony per this one article. My only intention was to list the article, as you asked about it. Whether in part or in whole or not at all you find it reputable, that is up to you. I was merely stating the source, no more, no less.
I think he has proved himself as just an average poli. Now, however one finds poli's is a personal thing.
The islamic name he carries is what really to me is the crux of the article, along with the genetics.
On the subject of Obama's family background, your source has a bias.
To say that there is such a thing as an unbiased source is incredibly naive. People are inherently biased. This extends to all walks of life including the media. Pretty much every media source…MSM, blog, or journal is biased. The game of "unbiased" really means which biased news source agrees with your own personal bias. That source is unbiased.
-S
"To say that there is such a thing as an unbiased source is incredibly naive. People are inherently biased. This extends to all walks of life including the media. Pretty much every media source…MSM, blog, or journal is biased. The game of "unbiased" really means which biased news source agrees with your own personal bias. That source is unbiased."
–>
Xactly. I find it interesting, speaking of bias, how certain ideas and perceptions on different topics seem to be colored by regional thought or ideals(the SF-gate/BO slip stung me, and helped to strip the camoflague fom BO for me). In fact, I find some ideas fostered here a bit alien to my way of thinking.
Hi Ben:
you wrote:
I was not intending to paint him(BO)as a phony per this one article. My only intention was to list the article, as you asked about it. Whether in part or in whole or not at all you find it reputable, that is up to you. I was merely stating the source, no more, no less.
I didn't mean to suggest you were painting Obama as a phony, but the article you quoted was exactly trying to do so.
The islamic name he carries is what really to me is the crux of the article, along with the genetics..
He has an Islamic name because his father came from an Islamic family. Islam has a history in Africa, which is one of the reasons African-Americans began to explore Islam during the 60s. This is part of why Lew Alcindor became Abdul Kareem (later Kareem Abdul Jabbar).
your friend
Keith
Hi Silver:
You wrote:
To say that there is such a thing as an unbiased source is incredibly naive. People are inherently biased. This extends to all walks of life including the media. Pretty much every media source…MSM, blog, or journal is biased. The game of "unbiased" really means which biased news source agrees with your own personal bias. That source is unbiased.
I think your comment oversimplifies things. I agree that every source has a bias; that's the human condition. But even a biased person CAN state a simple fact without the bias affecting the credibility of the statement. Slate.com said that Obama's dad was a member of the Luo tribe of Kenya, and Slate is a well respected on-line journal and quite credible when it says that Obama's father was a member of the Luo tribe. On the other hand, the source that Ben cited was from a guy who makes a bizarre claim about "legal" African-Americanism. I'd argue the latter source is less credible.
your friend
Keith
I think your comment oversimplifies things. I agree that every source has a bias; that's the human condition. But even a biased person CAN state a simple fact without the bias affecting the credibility of the statement. Slate.com said that Obama's dad was a member of the Luo tribe of Kenya, and Slate is a well respected on-line journal and quite credible when it says that Obama's father was a member of the Luo tribe. On the other hand, the source that Ben cited was from a guy who makes a bizarre claim about "legal" African-Americanism. I'd argue the latter source is less credible.
I could also make the strong argument that your own personal bias gives greater credibility to Slate as a media outlet than a blogger that Ben cited.
It rubs both ways and is not really an oversimplification, but pointing out that biases impact the level of credibility we grant certain sources of information.
Hi ben:
I think you drew far too much conclusion from what I wrote. Continuing the discusssion:
Like I and others have said, he is a blank screen. He can be anything we throw against it. Arab-American? Got it covered. African-American? yep. Caucasian? Typical white Granny. All feeling, no gravitas.
I don't see how Obama has any less gravitas than did Fred Thompson, or Mike Huckabee, or Ronald Reagan, or any other leader in our nation's history. Obama has been as specific as any of the viabnle candidates, but the issue he thinks is most important is getting our country back to where we looked out after each other instead of just worrying about our own egoistic interests. Obama has made this a central point of his campaign and he has modeled this while serving in office. Obama has an ability–he is able to inspire people with his speeches–and this ability is critical to leading America back to our communitarian roots. But being inspiring doesn't equate to being empty; I'd challenge you to name any of the candidates from either party who showed more substance than Obama.
"it's stupid to divide ourselves as hyphenated Americans instead of just being Americans. But these same conservatives have no problem with dividing ourselves from the rest of the world as Americans"
Erase the borders you say?
I don't think that's what I said. My point was that the afformentioned conservatives are hypocritical when the complain about a person expressing pride in his (foreign) roots while encouraging (demanding?) that Americans express pride in our own roots.
I do not think that Americans have divided themselves from the world, the world under non-freedom loving gov's(the freedoms given to the people being decided by the gov, not our creator as bore out by our documents)have decayed.
Americans definitely distinguish themselves from the others in the world, otherwise they'd not even know what the word "American" means.
America comes to the aid of ANY country needing it … shame on the blame America first crowd.
On one hand, if we Americans blame ourselves first, we'd seem to be practicing Jesus' admonition to take care of the big log in our own eyes before we worry about the tiny splinter in our brother's eye. On the other hand, there are lots of countries that give a higher percentage of their GDP to aid other countries. on the OTHER other hand, I didn't suggest that America doesn't aid people, although we aren't doing much good for the prisoners in Guantanamo when we torture them (many of whom are innocent victims not even captured by US forces).
that being able to draw from so many cultures makes us a richer nation."
If they come here with the express desire to be Americans, yes.
Why should they have to become Americans (although I know quite a few Mexicans who did just that)? We can still gain from the non-Americans who live with us.
Can you site an example of someone who came here without wanting to become part of the American culture that has made us richer?
Sure. I have friends from the Mexican state of Oaxaca. They maintain their Mexican traditions–they celebrate El Dia de los Muertos, they eat traditional foods, they speak Spanish in the home (the adults speak limited English; the kids grew up here and speak both Spanish and English perfectly). They work very hard and I get to experience their culture when I hang out with them. There are thousands of others like them.
I think the French, especially the Islamic ghetto's of Paris are knee deep in this richness, which seems to explode every Summer.
That's the problem: they are NOT knee deep in multiculturalism. Both Muslims and French are treating the other culture as enemies to be feared. Thus you have the French government prohibiting girls from wearing traditional head coverings and you have Muslim young men rioting in the streets.
"It's not multicultralism that is the problem, it is hating people who are different that's the problem."
Then, for example, Sha'ria law is OK in your opinion, a desirable way of governing the people? Even the Brit's exploded over the assertion by a "christian" Bishop this Winter on the adopting of such into British law. The Brits though seem to be wising up a bit though with the last elections hopefully a sign of things to come.
Where do you get that I am OK with Sha'riah law being applied? This is where you are overconcluding from my comments IMO.
Would you like to see the West, namely America, leading the world into the future? Or something different?
You know the future will come no matter who leads. I would like to see the West play a constructive role in bring peace to the world. I'd also like to see the East do the same. We Christians have been tasked by Christ to do our part (see the Sermon in the Mount and Matthew 25).
your friend
Keith
your friend
Keith
Why should they have to become Americans (although I know quite a few Mexicans who did just that)? We can still gain from the non-Americans who live with us.
Keith – while I agree with you on many points, on this one, there is a point to make. America is not a nationality/race like in many countries, as much as it is an IDEA, a set of principles and ideals that we expect those who want the PRIVILEDGES of being an American to commit to. If they are not willing to serve what America stands for, they should not live here and reap the benefits.
I am not sure how I feel about dual citizenship – I think all citizens should be under obligation to defend the country if they are citizens, and not have dueling loyalties.
However, I also think that they should contribute their own unique cultural experience, in as much as it does not conflict with American values or human rights (e.g. Shariah law).
Lastly, I think that having one official language of government, English, is important to national cohesiveness, and others like Newt have made good arguments for that.
keith/seeker-
"America is not a nationality/race like in many countries, as much as it is an IDEA, a set of principles and ideals that we expect those who want the PRIVILEDGES of being an American to commit to. If they are not willing to serve what America stands for, they should not live here and reap the benefits." –>
I guess where I am making my mistake is in this respect: I was under the impression that most had this point of view. I do not see America as a giant goodie jar that just anyone should just be able to take advantage of giving nothing in return.
======
I said:
"I think the French, especially the Islamic ghetto's of Paris are knee deep in this richness, which seems to explode every Summer."
keith:
That's the problem: they are NOT knee deep in multiculturalism. Both Muslims and French are treating the other culture as enemies to be feared. Thus you have the French government prohibiting girls from wearing traditional head coverings and you have Muslim young men rioting in the streets.
I would hazard a guess and say that if maybe more stringent rules were applied, and those coming into France all of these years were required to become Frenchmen(and chicks), these problems would not exist in the form or number that they do.
"Where do you get that I am OK with Sha'riah law being applied? This is where you are overconcluding from my comments IMO." –>
I would hope you are not OK with it. I was throwing out an obvious boundary in hopes of trying to see where you stand on how much of a culture would be OK to sacrifice in the name of America giving up its status as sovereign in turn for becoming just a region in a one world style of gov, which I believe you were eluding to when you said: "…dividing ourselves from the rest of the world as Americans when we could just be people of the world."
My argument about just being people of the world, is that to truly pull this off, someone would have to have oversight. If it is America and our law and our Constitution, OK. If it is some other hegemonic body, with "World Court" oversight, I would be opposed.
Hi Seeker:
You wrote: Keith – while I agree with you on many points, on this one, there is a point to make. America is not a nationality/race like in many countries, as much as it is an IDEA, a set of principles and ideals that we expect those who want the PRIVILEDGES of being an American to commit to. If they are not willing to serve what America stands for, they should not live here and reap the benefits.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but if you are saying that the people who live here ought to do their part to maintain the VALUES that America is sustained by, I agree completely. This doesn't preclude them from expressing pride in where they came from, nor from continuing to identify themselves as citizens of those other countries.
I am not sure how I feel about dual citizenship – I think all citizens should be under obligation to defend the country if they are citizens, and not have dueling loyalties.
IMO dual citizenship is OK, but part of this is based on my belief that there are no TRUE conflicts of interests between countries. of course if one of your countries does wrong against the other, you should side with rightness rather than nationality–our first loyalty is to the Kingdom of God and God's righteousness.
However, I also think that they should contribute their own unique cultural experience, in as much as it does not conflict with American values or human rights (e.g. Shariah law).
Exactly my opinion as well.
Lastly, I think that having one official language of government, English, is important to national cohesiveness, and others like Newt have made good arguments for that.
Here we might differ a bit. I think there is no reason to HAVE an official language; as a practical matter most people in the US speak English so English will be socially dominant. And the 2nd generation of immigrants end up speaking English anyway. It's hard for adults to learn a 2nd language and it's doubly hard to learn English (I speak Spanish and English and while that took a lot of effort on my part Spanish is much easier to learn than English).
your friend
Keith
We largely agree then.
hi ben:
Continuing the discussion (and I thank you for that): That's the problem: they are NOT knee deep in multiculturalism. Both Muslims and French are treating the other culture as enemies to be feared. Thus you have the French government prohibiting girls from wearing traditional head coverings and you have Muslim young men rioting in the streets.
I would hazard a guess and say that if maybe more stringent rules were applied, and those coming into France all of these years were required to become Frenchmen(and chicks), these problems would not exist in the form or number that they do.
That might be right, the same way that the people who passed by the guy the Good Samaritan protected themselves from being ambushed by robbers. But Christianity isn't supposed to be safe (those who hang on too tight to their lives will lose it, but those who lose their lives for Christ's sake will find them) and all I am saying is that actually practicing multiculturalism would make a society richer, not poorer.
"Where do you get that I am OK with Sha'riah law being applied? This is where you are overconcluding from my comments IMO."
I would hope you are not OK with it. I was throwing out an obvious boundary in hopes of trying to see where you stand on how much of a culture would be OK to sacrifice in the name of America giving up its status as sovereign in turn for becoming just a region in a one world style of gov, which I believe you were eluding to when you said: "…dividing ourselves from the rest of the world as Americans when we could just be people of the world."
I wouldn't phrase things the way you just did, but I would reject any cultural tradition that oppresses people (even when that tradition is our own).
My argument about just being people of the world, is that to truly pull this off, someone would have to have oversight. If it is America and our law and our Constitution, OK. If it is some other hegemonic body, with "World Court" oversight, I would be opposed.
There is a long distance between multiculturalism and World Government, I would say, but I do note that the US (quite properly) had no problem ignoring German sovereignity when it tried Nazis for war crimes.
Your friend
Keith
"We'll soon be able to gauge if Americans are intelligent enough to recognize the summer holiday gas tax proposal by Clinton and McCain for what it is, a gimmick."
Hooray for those who voted against the Clinton and McCain summer gas tax holiday. They saw through it! Obama's gamble paid off!
"There is a long distance between multiculturalism and World Government…"–>
I think you and I may have a bit different definition of what MC is.
I agree with your premise, but, when Gov uses judges or wings of justice systems to force one into accepting cultural values which you may have reason not to accept, but must under penalty of law, I find that Nazi like. A la' the Mark Steyn and Islam deal in Canada. I see the lefts version of MC as baby steps to inflict a universal view of right and wrong where mine is already established through my faith. The liberal view of the world, to me is skewed.
"But Christianity isn't supposed to be safe (those who hang on too tight to their lives will lose it, but those who lose their lives for Christ's sake will find them)" –>
Agreed that being a Christian has and always will be a dangerous way of life. And I believe that in this world in which we live true safety can never be delivered by governmental bodies. When I read "to serve and protect" motto's on police vehicles, I chuckle.
"I would say, but I do note that the US (quite properly) had no problem ignoring German sovereignity when it tried Nazis for war crimes." –>
And kept certain Nazi's(and non)for there scientific value. And, Hussein(no, not BO, louis :)….)may also fit this scenario. The difference I see between Saddam and the Nazi's is that Saddam was just a despot, the Nazi party was
Sidebar: I have read where the Viet Cong of the fifties were an off shoot of the Nazi's which escaped prosecution after the war and settled into SE Asia. If the world wide search was carried out a bit more intently, maybe it would have have averted the calamity of the 60's.
Keith sorry on the cut out their:
The difference I see between Saddam and the Nazi's is that Saddam was just a despot, the Nazi party was a religion of sorts.
I wrote on May 1,
I agree on one thing: it's time to move on from Obama's baggage to McCain's. One could, indeed, suggest a few topics: the tanking economy and Iraq being two, the Keating Five scandal and his wife's hidden fortune underwriting his elitist lifestyle being two others.
Here and here is someone else McCain must answer for.
Still not going to get into politics much, but my question is – Why are all the issues raised about Obama and his associates off-limits, but the same type questions with even looser connections to McCain are something he "must answer for."
You can say "good for the goose, good for the gander," but then you lose all right to complain when someone goes after Obama with Wright, Ayers, etc.
I guess the question is do you want to go down that road and take what lies with it or do you want to say that type of politics is wrong. You can't do both. My opinion is that personal associations are fair game when it comes to evaluating who is the better fit to be elected President, much more so than state legislature or even US senate.
Now back to me staying out of politics for awhile longer.
Hi Aaron:
I personally don't make much of the McCain/Hagee connection. I don't believe that McCain secretly agrees with Hagee about the catholic Church or (and I heard Hagee talk about this myself) the forged "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". But there is some difference between McCain's cheap pander to the Hagee faction of the Republican party (cheap pander being my biased assessment of things:-) and Obama's membership in Wright's church. Wright's church cannot properly be summed up by the out of context YouTube clips that we were subjected to for the last several weeks, and Obama says he became pulled toward Christianity because the church "walked the walk" instead of just "talking the talk". There is no reason to think that Obama secretly believes that American is reposnible for all the ills of the world, or that he shares Wright's suspicion that AIDS is a government conspiracy. There is no reason NOT to take Obama at his word that he believes we should stop the vitriol and division between people, that we ought to kindly listen to our neighbors who disagree with us because we all have a lot to learn from each other. Obama pointed out that a lot of black folks from Wright's generation are angry, and that this anger explains a lot of the tone and content of those clips. But, Obama said, such anger can lead you to misunderstand the progress that has been made and understate the justified hope we have in future progress. There is no reason to think that Obama doesn't really believe exactly that.
As you know from being part of a church, church membership is more like being in a family than it is like consuming a product. As Obama pointed out, it would be wrong for him to turn his back on family because a family leader made some offensive remarks. It ought to be enough for Obama to answer questions about what he believes about Wright's comments. And Obama has done just that. That seems a lot different from seeking out the endorsement of a religious leader (who you now say you don't agree with) for political gain.
your friend
keith
You can say "good for the goose, good for the gander," but then you lose all right to complain when someone goes after Obama with Wright, Ayers, etc.
No, what I'm saying is that there's a big double standard going on here, especially by those on the right who insist on bringing up Wright, Ayers, etc., every 5 minutes. Why aren't you guys doing the same for McCain's questionable associations? Why aren't we tarring McCain with the extremist rhetoric and beliefs of those whose support he actively sought? There's something very questionable and, even, sinister going on here, and it's time to shine light on it.
In 2000, McCain denounced Falwell, Robertson, and their ilk. But now, he virtually kisses their butts and actively seeks their endorsement. Why the flip-flop? Could it be that he has no personal integrity left, and that he'll do anything, associate himself with anyone, no matter how vile or extreme, to get the job? Could it be he's as big a hypocrite as those who ignore his associates while crucifying Obama for his?
Why aren't you guys doing the same for McCain's questionable associations? Why aren't we tarring McCain with the extremist rhetoric and beliefs of those whose support he actively sought?
Easy. Cause he's 'our' candidate – that's your job ;)
Hi Seeker:
Part of the "we" that is guilty of a double standard is the mainstream media. Thanks for acknowledging that McCain is their candidate:-)
Keith
Did you see the interview tonight with McCain by O'reilly – another great example of how to do an interview. And he even asked about Hagee. Like the interview w/ HIllary, i'm sure the far poles of the spectrum will feel he went too easy on him, but it was a good interview.
keith states:
"As you know from being part of a church, church membership is more like being in a family than it is like consuming a product." –>
Only if you mean a person born into a religion and you stay the same course, then I agree. If you are "pulled" into a religion, then what pulled you is what needs to be examined for a closer look into the heart. And from my perspective, Wright does not walk the walk. We all know this now from his horrible comments(lies)and misrepresentation of historical facts(Romans being Italian so they must be white, Left brained/Right brained subspecies learning capabilities, giving black men Syphylis,)on video in church to his shenanigans afterward that this guy is a mental midget, bigot and racist. Can we agree on that? Forget the clips(although how a thinking person can I do not know)and listen to the full sermon(s).
All Wright is about is helping to foster the plight of blacks by pumping them with this propaganda, instead of uplifting them with a spiritual message, so he can take advantage of that emotion. And taken advantage he has. He is a charlatan. Without the victimhood claims, BO would not exist. Now, what this does for me, is to put BO in the radical wing of the left(voted the most left). What pulled him? The search for credibility. A comparison:
Bombs:
BO = Ayres McC = Navy
Pastor:
Wright/black fascism Hagee/is he really McC's pastor?
Working with other side of the aisle:
BO = no experience McC = 21 years of experience in Senate as Maverick.
BO = uniter! = no examples McC = see above
Tough decision maker:
BO = how to pay for ballet lessons for daughters, piano lessons, paying school loans, etc.(from Mrs. Obama)America is so mean!
McC = how to survive daily in the gentle arms of torturers, how to best set(twice?)prison mates broken arm in prison camp. Was same prison mates acting "pastor" due to McC's depth of knowledge on Episcopalian religion, helping him keep his faith(both ways I presume). Refusing release before others from POW camp(5 years of life given).
Political view:
BO = socialist+ McC = Moderate with lefty tendencies
Taxation:
BO = we know McC = we know what he says he would do.
seeker says:
"Did you see the interview tonight with McCain by O'reilly – another great example of how to do an interview. And he even asked about Hagee. Like the interview w/ HIllary, i'm sure the far poles of the spectrum will feel he went too easy on him, but it was a good interview." –>
Fair and balanced baby! Tomorrow, waterboarding and Iraq as a topics, awesome!
An interesting YouTube posting dealing with or BO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7Yd80tXs_4&eurl=h…
A preview of the Fall's Republican campaign:
About Obama:
Elitist! Rev. Wright! Terrorist Ayres! Elitist! (whispered – black). Elitist! Socialist! Elitist! (Muslim)
Oh, yeah…ELITIST!
About McCain:
War Hero! POW! War Hero! Naval Officer! War Hero! Torture Victim! WAR HERO!! (whispered – (white). WAR HERO!!!
Hi ben:
We continue…
"As you know from being part of a church, church membership is more like being in a family than it is like consuming a product."
Only if you mean a person born into a religion and you stay the same course, then I agree. If you are "pulled" into a religion, then what pulled you is what needs to be examined for a closer look into the heart…
Actually, that's not what I meant at all. What pulled Obama to Christ and to Trinity United Church of Christ was the church's commitment to serving the community that Obama was organizing. The church has specific programs to do the very things Jesus taught in Matthew 25. What Obama got from Wright's sermons was that we are to display sacrifical love to our neighbors and even to our enemies, that we sin when we (like the rich man to Lazarus) ignore the plight of those who are oppressed by life. All this drew Obama to the church, and the YouTube clips didn't reflect the whole character of the church or or Wright. but some of the things that Wright has said lately are offensive; since you brought up some I'll comment below
And from my perspective, Wright does not walk the walk. We all know this now from his horrible comments(lies)and misrepresentation of historical facts(Romans being Italian so they must be white,…
I don't know this remark, nor its context, so I can't say anything about it. I have noticed that Wright's remarks often seem different taken in context.
Left brained/Right brained subspecies learning capabilities,…
I don't know that Wright used the term subspecies (which I think is a biologically mistaken way to refer to our ethnic differences) but Wright was quoting from the work of academic Dr. Janice Hale, who is a Pulitzer nominated authority in educational research. Wright was referring to Hale's studies about cultural differences, not biological differences.
…giving black men Syphylis,…
It is well documented that in the Tuskegee Experiment black men with syphilis were unbeknowst to them denied treatment so that researchers could study the effects of syphilis. I don't think Wright said that the researches GAVE the men syphilis, did he?
..)on video in church to his shenanigans afterward that this guy is a mental midget, bigot and racist. Can we agree on that?
I cannot agree with any of those things, actually. Racist? I don't see how his comments can be called racist, for example. In none of his comments did he imply that White people were evil, or inferior to blacks or any such thing. Even if you assume the worst about his comments on black/white educational styles, he wasn't criticizing either black children or white children. He presupposed that both groups have the same potentional, just that they needed different strategies to reach those potentials.
Forget the clips(although how a thinking person can I do not know)and listen to the full sermon(s).
All Wright is about is helping to foster the plight of blacks by pumping them with this propaganda, instead of uplifting them with a spiritual message, so he can take advantage of that emotion.
It seems to me that you presuppose here that Wright is mistaken about the degree to which blacks are oppressed by racism in todays society. I would argue that it's far from obvious that you are more right than Wright about that.
And taken advantage he has. He is a charlatan. Without the victimhood claims, BO would not exist.
I don't know how you get that at all. Obama hasn't really made a lot of victimhood claims, that's not what his ca mpaign has been about at all.
Now, what this does for me, is to put BO in the radical wing of the left(voted the most left). What pulled him? The search for credibility.
How does one measure the "leftness" of a candidate. What particular positions of Obama do you consider to be far left?
your friend
keith
tsk tsk tsk. Sad to see the Dems wanting to make this about race. Very sad.
You know, sometimes the big tent of the "Big Tent" party sounds like a circus tent.
Full disclaimer, this is not particularly meant ot be Anti-BO. If I could find a McCain piece from twitter believe me I would.
This just struck me so funny in light of all the promises made by Obama, that I just had to post it (sorry Louis).
Courtesy of Daring Fireball:
Please tske this all in jest. If you have an issue with it, then please no personal attacks. Go find an anti-McCain version…I just could not find one.
"When Obama wins… unicorns will crap ice cream and pastries." –>
And the Obamessiah will feed the masses.
It's really a fascinating revelation of the enemies of Obama that they have to attack him using these self-evidently mindless and deliberately insulting memes. And I say insulting not so much of Obama but of his supporters. It's like saying, "you people are so stupid and childish and easily led that you are being flim-flammed by this charlatan and only we conservatives are adult and smart enough to make correct political choices." This tactic only serves to alienate us further, and confirm our low opinion of you. We could easily make the same kind of argument against you. This just destroys any possibility of reasoned and cordial discourse, and prompts me, at least, to dismiss conservatives as beyond consideration.
It's really a fascinating revelation of the enemies of Obama that they have to attack him using these self-evidently mindless and deliberately insulting memes.
Actually the submissions came for Obama supporters and detractors. I was looking the twitter feed. However, I can understand how you feel.
This just destroys any possibility of reasoned and cordial discourse, and prompts me, at least, to dismiss conservatives as beyond consideration.
I understand that you are feeing particularly sensitive about Obama. This was just a nice Friday post in jest.
I actually googled for a McCain version in deference to you, but there was none to be found.
Additionally, I am far from being a conservative, but I get where you are coming from.
I don't want to seem humorless, but this cutsey dismissal has just gone on too long to be funny anymore.
keith-
It is well documented that in the Tuskegee Experiment black men with syphilis were unbeknowst to them denied treatment so that researchers could study the effects of syphilis. I don’t think Wright said that the researches GAVE the men syphilis, did he? –>
“The government lied about the Tuskegee experiment. They purposely infected African American men with syphilis. Governments lie. …The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. Governments lie.”
–Jeremiah Wright sermon, April 13, 2003.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/wrights_wild_charges.html
RHETORIC AND AN OUT RIGHT LIE TO STIR RACIAL HATRED.
More Rev:
During his Christmas sermon, Wright commented “Jesus was a poor, black man” (although He was Jewish) who was killed by whites: “The Romans were rich, the Romans were Italian — which means they were European, which means they were white — and the Romans ran everything in Jesus’ country.” Wright then compares Obama’s upbringing to that of Jesus’ and promotes him from the church’s pulpit when he says: “It just came to me with— with— with— within the past few weeks, y’all, why so many folks are hatin’ on Barack Obama. He doesn’t fit the mold. He ain’t white. He ain’t rich. And he ain’t privileged!” Hmmm…I guess Pastor Wright failed to read Obama’s biography.
MORE RACIST CRAP NOT TO MENTION AN ODD TWIST ON THE MEDITERRANEAN LATINS. ALSO, THE BIRTH OF THE OBAMESSIAH …
“It seems to me that you presuppose here that Wright is mistaken about the degree to which blacks are oppressed by racism in todays society. I would argue that it’s far from obvious that you are more right than Wright about that.” –>
What I think is … is that people like Wright are idiots and dangerous. Wright lives in a world which he preaches as racially static, he wants to keep his black listeners “stuck on stupid”, since there is more money in that slant. Check out his new home and his 2 Mercedes. The oppression spoken of, today, is brought about mostly by members of their(blacks)own race. Violence, sexual immorality, rejection of the traditional pathways leading to personal success, “leaders” like Wright and Farrakhan,
these are their enemies. Racism is only an excuse used by black “leaders” in powerful places to further the cult of victimhood. No victimhood = no left wing = no Obama.
Sen. Barack Obama’s Chicago church reprinted a manifesto by Hamas that defended terrorism as legitimate resistance, refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist and compared the terror group’s official charter – which calls for the murder of Jews – to America’s Declaration of Independence.
AS I BELIEVE THE GUILT BY ASSOCIATION(ESPECIALLY 20 YEARS WORTH OF IT)MEASURE, COMBINED WITH THESE EXAMPLES MAKES BO VERY SUSPECT TO SAY THE LEAST.
“How does one measure the “leftness” of a candidate. What particular positions of Obama do you consider to be far left?” –>
By examining voting records.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
This is one of several articles I checked out.
“particular positions of Obama…” –>
Abortion … 2ndA … Socialized med
But even at that, I am turned off by most liberal stances.
"We could easily make the same kind of argument against you."–>
Lets hear it.
"I don't want to seem humorless, but this cutsey dismissal has just gone on too long to be funny anymore." –>
I think you have a great sense of humor. :)
I tried to find a John McCain equivalent of Obama girl but this is all I could find…
McCain Girls: Raining McCain
I thought Huckabee Girl was far superior but Obama Girl and Lil Bush girl have the most curves.
Note: I don't think Ben should watch these because it's rated MA and it might be to much for him to handle at his age. So, stick to the McCain girls Ben.
What does MA mean? ;)
anti BO addendum:
“One of Barack Obama’s Middle East policy advisers disclosed today that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas – prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him.
Robert Malley told The Times he had regularly been in contact with Hamas, which controls Gaza but is listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation. Such talks, he stressed, were related to his work for a conflict resolution think tank and had no connection with his position on Mr Obama’s Middle East advisory council.
“I’ve never hidden the fact that in my job with the International Crisis Group I meet all kinds of people,” he added.
Daddy Malley:
His father Simon Malley was born to a Syrian family in Cairo and at an early age found his métier in political journalism. He participated in the wave of anti-imperialist and nationalist ideology that was sweeping the Third World. He wrote thousands of words in support of struggle against Western nations. In Paris, he founded the journal Afrique Asie; he and his magazine became advocates for “liberation” struggles throughout the world, particularly for the Palestinians.” –>
Now before there are shouts of racism(which is the built in lib defense against having to actually answer questions)does this mean anything to anyone?
No.
Not me, he's a liberal politician, plenty of reason to keep him out of the oval office. I'll take a pro life moderate like mccain.
seeker, once again, your logic is untouchable.
"No." –> Shocka!
Maybe Palestine will be one of B0's 57 states …
"The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable." –> Orwell
"What is truth?" –> Pilate
Words, just words.
Hi ben:
You wrote:
How does one measure the "leftness" of a candidate. What particular positions of Obama do you consider to be far left?"
By examining voting records. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
This is one of several articles I checked out.
I'm not sure how much stock we should place in non-partisan voter ratings. There is the question of how did the rating agency decide which votes counted as "left", how far to the left was each vote, etc. More valuable would be to look at particular interest groups to see who they considered to be their best legislative friends. But even that doesn't resolve the problem. What's farther left: supporting abortion rights or union rights?
"particular positions of Obama…"
Abortion … 2ndA … Socialized med
1. Supporting abortion rights is hardly far left, considering the large numbers of Americans who share that support.
2. I expect that supporting moderate regulation of firearms is also far from far left. What is the specific gun regulation that Obama supports that you consider to be outside the mainstream?
3. None of the Democratic candidates support socialized medicine. Socialized medicine means government doctors provide al lour health care. The farthest left Democrat (Dennis Kucinich) supported Single Payer which is NOT socialized medicine since private doctors would still be the ones providing health care. The other candidates various versions of insurance plans where government would be more involved than they are now in health insurance. This is hardly a far left position.
It seems to me ben that when you say Obama is far left you are really just saying that you don't like him very much.
your friend
Keith