I fear some of our liberal friends are a little miffed about the now intense scrutiny being given to Barack Obama's long-time pastor. It seems to me the typical liberal objection to the affair has been to point to controversial utterances and behavior from more conservative-minded preachers. That fundamentally misses the point.
I can find many statements from pastors who are identified with right-of-center politics with which I disagree or wish had been said quite differently, including our local example of the modern day, Ken Hutcherson. Candidly, there are some preachers in that genre I find utterly repellent. I've even heard them from the pulpit of churches I've at one time attended on a regular basis (though thankfully not now!). There is simply no way, however, that I could attend, join, and donate to a church for twenty years if I regularly found the pastor to be as ludicrously over-the-top and outside the reasonable bounds of preaching the Christian faith as Jeremiah Wright. I suspect many Americans of faith find themselves in a boat of similar construction.
Thus, Obama's attempts at distancing and clarification, highlighted by a trifecta of interviews Friday on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, ended up creating not just an association problem, but also a glaring credibility problem. Juan Williams explains:
It's a dagger pointed at the heart and soul of the raison d'etre of Obama's campaign. And it may already have drawn blood. UPDATE: Further proving the point that many liberals have utterly missed the point about this whole story, Obama fan Eli Sanders thinks it makes Obama look better. I guess if this election were going to be decided by urban folk recovering from dalliances with '60's extremism he'd have a point. But, it's not.
Barak Obama was given a free pass by the liberal media for a long time. Now it is coming around to bite not only Obama, but the Democrat movement.
It just doesn't pay to cut corners, and the liberal press is to blame for being lazy.
I think that the destruction in the Democrat party is just beginning.
Posted by: zDawg on March 16, 2008 08:00 PMSo far, he has done better than Dr. Paul in repudiating Rev. Wright. He has to answer the questions listed above.
Now, let's address the issue of "free Pass"
a. Senator Clinton
i Financial dealings of Bubba
ii. Chinese money for campaigns
iii. Charles Pellacano, PI
iv. Fundraisers under indictment
b. Senator Obama
i. Rev. Wright
ii. Rezko
iii. Wife's job
iv. Chicago politics and the general slime
c. Senator Mc Cain
i. Keating Five
ii. Lobbyists
iii. EADS airforce contract
iv. "special" relationship with one lobbysist
All you can say is journalists every where are hedging their bets in hopes of having access to the next prez. Every one is getting not only a free pass, but a free coupon book.
Posted by: WVH on March 16, 2008 08:17 PMI am still hoping that McCain will get Condi Rice as running mate, which could make it come true sooner than anybody might expect.
Posted by: russell garrard on March 16, 2008 08:38 PMI partly agree with you. The first "successful" Black or woman who will occupy the White House will be a conservative. I say that because only some one with a conservative philosophy has "permission" as the moonbeams say to say no to a variety of interests and still keep their job. Mrs. Thatcher was a serious kick-ass leader and the nut job in Iran, wouldn't have dared to yank her chain, she would come over there. She prepared the way for Tony Blair's New Labour to squander the resources built-up.
What I see for republicans is that the party is quite capable of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory. People will vote AGAINST a republican because for so long the party has been viewed as the party of small minded bigots. So, for many in the population of all colors the vote has to be changed from AGAINST any thing republican to let's listen and perhaps give them a chance.
I really like Dr. Rice, but I expect a dem Congress and she will be mired in investigations.
If the republicans snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, it will be New Labor here, no matter which dem is the candidate. The fix is in, as they say.
Posted by: WVH on March 16, 2008 08:51 PMOnce the GOP purges all the Denny Hasterts and Don Youngs from the party, the next wave of Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and co will resurrect a new GOP starting in 2010. Everything goes in cycles, you should know that as a Democrat. Charlie Crist, governer(FL) has a 73% approval rating.
So it's hardly all bad for good, honest Republicans. It's the old, corrupt Republicans that people are kicking out. Sort of like the old, corrupt Dems people kicked out in 1994(Rosty, Foley, etc...). You're memory is quite short.
Posted by: FreedomLover on March 16, 2008 09:17 PMSigh. You wish the Dems were imploding. And Condi with McCain? A dream come true because all we need do is play that tape of her before a Congressional committee trying to remember what the heading of the paper was about bin Laden -"It was something about bin Laden to strike the US with planes."
Bring her on.
Posted by: westie on March 16, 2008 09:20 PMNobody really knows what kind of Republican party will emerge after the Bush era.
FreedomLover, note also that Obama should have known that it could surface, and should have had a better strategy ready long ago. If not arrogance, this is incompetence.
Posted by: russell garrard on March 16, 2008 09:23 PMthe faster the GOP purges itself of the Denny Hastert types the sooner it will rise like a phoenix from the ashes. Problem is there are too many old, corrupt Repubs hanging on for dear life. They'll drag the party down to 1974 levels soon enough.
Posted by: FreedomLover on March 16, 2008 09:28 PMAren't there just a huge number of retirements from both parties? I'm not saying all people retiring are corrupt. The question is which party takes advantage of all the retirements. We are in a recession and who knows where the economy will be by election. I expect that there will be a dem congress and who knows about the WH. I do know there are a large number of people of all colors who vote AGAINST parties and candidates. It is not all rosy for the presumed republican candidate.
It would be good to see two-party rule, that is the best hedge against corruption, but we'll see.
I am an independent, formerly a dem. Parties seem to be populated by idiot leaders who have no clue how to expand each party's base beyond loonies and wingnuts. The ranks of indies seem to be growing.
Posted by: WVH on March 16, 2008 09:28 PMI have no problem with a candidate of any party visiting a faith community. What I have a problem with is that when conservative family friendly candidates visit churches of all colors, the church gets an IRS complaint. Church folks have a particular perspective and should be allowed to participate in the political process, no matter who they invite to their house of worship.
Posted by: WVH on March 16, 2008 09:49 PMWhat makes you think Wright is "regularly over the top"? There are three clips of him saying things that might be considered "over the top". Do you really believe all his sermons are like this? Half even? A quarter?
Those were rhetorical questions. I think it is fairly obvious that the three examples shown were deviations from the norm. I would say that you missed the point here, Eric, (the point Obama made pretty clearly in his response to this controversy): that Obama never would have attended the church and had a relationship with the pastor if these over-the-topisms had been regular.
Posted by: Noble on March 16, 2008 10:29 PMWhat a crock! I don't care if this was once in twenty years. Clearly the church put this forward to represent the church as they sold his nutty "sermons" on DVD!!!!
NO. EXCUSE. Stop trying to make them up, you merely dig the hole deeper.
Posted by: pbj on March 16, 2008 10:43 PMIt's too bad. Once again, the party that claims to be for tolerance and the advancement of minorities, shoots itself in the foot.
When are these folks going to learn that they are the ones working hard to create two Americans with callous and divisive preaching of hatred by Jerimiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, etc. There are many mainstream Americans of all colors and cultures. We work together and hardly give a thought to that fact that our skin is different. Black is only one of many colors. Yet with Black Power preaching, there is a destructive attempt to keep Blacks from joining their fellow Americans in simply moving on. Were there also embarassing chapters in this country's treatment of yellow people? Yes. But do we see yellow people screaming for Yellow Power? No.
Instead we see a lot of people of all colors working towards a culture of success. Hard work, strong values, academic rigor, personal responsibility. These are the keys to success, not victim shell games where excuses for past injustice dominate personal failure in the present.
Until I heard about Jeremiah Wright, I actually thought Obama might be a bridge out of Democrat racism. But it looks like behind the slick image, he's been playing the same tired game.
God Damn America? No. America Damn Obama.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 16, 2008 11:04 PMHe is saying he never heard this guy say those thing, but he was his pastor and close spiritual advisor for over 20 years. He either agrees with what the man says or he doesn't. If he says he doesn't and this is all news to him, then it shows what a poor judge of character Obama is.
Wow, if some nutball black speratists can pull the wool over Obama's eyes, then the North Koreans, AQ and China will make him their bitch.
Posted by: pbj on March 16, 2008 11:05 PMBut they say it with sadness, not anger and hope. That's what makes Rev. Wright's comments to unpatriotic. Even if the sins of America are leading to judgement of God, it should break the hearts of the preacher and his listeners, not see them screaming for God to "damn America" and audience members jumping out of their seats clapping and hooting.
I was shocked and saddened when I saw that. It says something about the culture of Obama's community that he has been a part of for twenty years to see the way they reacted when Rev. Wright made those statements. That's the point and that's why this is a legitimate campaign issue and bares absolutely no resemblence to Haggee and McCain or Ferarro and Clinton.
Posted by: Chad Minnick on March 17, 2008 12:20 AMSee: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/kristol_bungles_key_fact_in_an.php
Posted by: tc on March 17, 2008 07:57 AMThe interview was quite revealing!
I think he has much to hide.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 17, 2008 08:08 AMI disagree with your argument that just because you dislike what a pastor says on occasion that one should leave. David Kuo addresses that argument here.
Here is a different perspective from someone who has studied the black church in America.
Here is Frank Schaeffer, who along with his father started the pro-life movement, view on the subject.
Finally, here is a commentary addressing the Hiroshima and Nagasaki references in Rev. Wright's one speech. I never knew that Dwight Eisenhower, MacArthur, and others were against using the bomb. Their view was that Japan was already defeated and that it was only a matter of months left. This definately runs against the history that I learned that Truman decided against the lesser of two evils and thought that using the bomb would save more lives than it took.
Posted by: tc on March 17, 2008 08:15 AM
Obama claims he was completely unaware that the Reverend Wright's trademark preaching style at the Trinity United Church of Christ targeted "white" America.
Clarification: The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama's church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. Central time (with weekly praise/prayers starting 15 minutes previous to those times). While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. Mr. Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama's attendance. Mr. Davis' story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator's attendance and Rev. Wright's comments during his sermon. The Senator's office declined to comment.
where are the conservatives? you should be screaming about govt intervention in the capital markets. what about the federal deficit? what about govt spending?
there are more substantial issues facing the electorate right now than what a pastor has to say (no matter how egregious).
hacks.
Posted by: dinesh on March 17, 2008 08:37 AMAdditionally, Trinity has services at 7:30 and 11:00 AM. The services last two hours. If Obama was at a 1:30 event in Miami, this would have been 12:30 Chicago time, which rules out the 11:00 am service. It is three hours flying time from Chicago to Miami. This backs the clock up to 9:30. Additionally, you have travel time to and from each airport. Therefore, take away another hour. So, the reporter is stating that Obama got up in the middle of service and left? Was the reporter at the 7:00 am service?
There would be flight logs on the airline. Obama's campaign put out a fact check today that Obama wasn't at church on that day. I am sure they have the flight logs to back up their claim.
It looks like a case of a reporter trying to smear a candidate.
Posted by: tc on March 17, 2008 08:43 AM1. Rev. John Hagee has endorsed Senator Mc Cain and this is what he says in his book Jerusalem Countdown:
"In "Jerusalem Countdown: A Prelude To war" Hagee has stated that Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves by rebelling against God and that the Holocaust was God's way of forcing Jews to move to Israel where, Hagee predicts according to his interpretation of Biblical scripture, they will be mostly killed in the apocalyptic Mideast conflict Hagee's new lobbying group seems to be working to provoke and which John Hagee believes to be a necessary precondition for the "Rapture" that will lift Christians, but not Jews, bodily into Heaven to enjoy physical immortality amidst paradise."
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/3/5/105015/2167/
There is a long theology in certain denominations and among certain preachers of calling the wrath of God against the "enemy" as they define the "enemy."
2. Many progressives agree with Rev. Wright's message, so what Senator Obama has is a base expansion problem. That is the same problem confronted by Senator Mc Cain.
3. No matter who the dem nominee is, what they have going for them is the calculation of who is most likely to have voters voting AGAINST who ever is running. Many republicans voted AGAINST David Duke when he was running for governor.
Many voters of all colors will balance the bigotry of Rev. Wright against what "they perceive" is at times the small minded bigotry of some in the republican party and decide who they vote AGAINST. I sure that people here think that every relevation about Rev. Wright translates into a vote for Senator Mc Cain. Maybe, maybe not. Quotes lifted from this very site will also be useful in directing a host of voters to vote AGAINST the republican party.
Sometimes elections are not about who voters are for, but whom they are AGAINST.
Posted by: WVH on March 17, 2008 08:44 AM"In this column, I cite a report that Sen. Obama had attended services at Trinity Church on July 22, 2007. The Obama camapaign has provided information showing that Sen. Obama did not attend Trinity that day. I regret the error."
So many problems created by Progressive expansionist statism. So little time to address them all.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 17, 2008 09:13 AMSo the European's never traded/owned Slaves, there were never separate and inferior schools/bathrooms/water fountains for blacks and that white American's never passed Jim Crow laws? And the Dixiecrat party never existed? I'd say history is full of tales where blacks suffered at the hands of caucasians.
When you put American institutionalized racism in America in perceptive it's has not been that long:
Brown vs Board of Education was only 54 years ago
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was only 44 years ago
These events happened within the lifetimes of many people in this country (and even some who post on this board).
For Obama supporters to seek to equate the two should be reason enough to raise one's consciousness to the likelihood that the Obama camp knows that they have their @ss hanging out a mile and are grasping for anything they can get their hands on to deflect from the fact that Obama is a voluntary follower (and self described "close personal friend") of a man who preaches racial discord and separatism and is a hater of this country.
Obama is finished, thank God this information was made public. There is no way to rescue his campaign especially when his wife has either paraphrased or has parroted the very same views as this degenerate race baiter disguised as a man of the cloth.
If the Democrats have any sense they will not turn their back on Obama and walk away, they will run as fast as they can from him and solidify behind Hillary - she is a flawed candidate, with high negatives, but the last thing the Democrats need is three months of Uncle Jeremiah prior to the November elections.
If they stick with Obama it may well portend the end of the Democrat Party as we know it.
Wiser words were never spoken. :)
Posted by: Duffman on March 17, 2008 09:34 AMWould you vote for a local Republican who attends Rev. Ken Hutchinson's church?
Obama is a voluntary follower (and self described "close personal friend") of a man who preaches racial discord and separatism and is a hater of this country.
OK, so in your view it's fine to preach against Gays and Catholics but not good when preach about racism and blame white people for placing blacks into Slavery?
There is no way to rescue his campaign especially when his wife has either paraphrased or has parroted the very same views as this degenerate race baiter disguised as a man of the cloth.
Got proof? You referring to Michelle Obama's out-of-context comment about being proud to be an American? Do you have any experiences being a black man/woman in America? Doubt it.
Look at Dubya who had everything handed to him on a silver platter I bet the only suffering he ever had was when he couldn't find the nearest fly-boy bar to the Texas National Guard base.
If they stick with Obama it may well portend the end of the Democrat Party as we know it.
A Conservative Republican claiming that the end of the Democrat Party over a single Presidential candidate's church association?
Yeah, that's about as likely as saying that Dubya's brand of Big Govt. Conservatism is the end of the GOP as we know it.
Regarding the sermon itself, if the Church and pastor were smart, they would post the whole sermon on line, along with the speech the Pastor gave at the college following 9/11. All we have heard is an excerpt. To me, I would prefer the whole context of the speech. Why? Because, I could think of several ways the excerpt could dramatically be used for a larger message that would not be as blatant as it sounds. What Rev. Wright actually states in the message isn't necessarily untrue. God often struck down the Isrealites for not following his laws. He caused Babolyn to invade and wipe out almost all the Isrealites (except for those who they took captive). If the context was in reference to some of these old testament passages, I can envision a scenario where the excerpts could apply.
Posted by: tc on March 17, 2008 09:53 AMLet's see, the Dem's had the South in 1964, the GOP has the South in 2004.
Was there some sort of mass migration of white people to the North that led to the Dem's taking those states while the GOP got the Southern states? I'm betting the a lot of the same voters who voted for segregationist Dem's in 1964 are the same voters who voted for GOP candidates in 2004.
The people didn't move, the voting base changed sides as the Democrat's values shifted to being more liberal and the GOP put emphasis on Christian moral values.
I bet you would. Because blaming America for 9/11 would sound a lot better in the context of a typical Christian sermon with forgiveness, remembrance of the dead, etc. Would you also like the full text of some of Hitler's speeches to help put some of the more extreme remarks into perspective?
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 17, 2008 10:03 AMLet's see who else blamed America for 9/11, maybe Jerry Fawell?
"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen." - Jerry Fawell on whose to blame for 9/11.
Who claims Hurricane Katrina is God's wrath for New Orleans sin?
"New Orleans now is abortion free. New Orleans now is Mardi Gras free. New Orleans now is free of Southern Decadence and the sodomites, the witchcraft workers, false religion -- it's free of all of those things now, [...] God simply, I believe, in His mercy purged all of that stuff out of there -- and now we're going to start over again." - Reverend Bill Shanks (pastor of New Covenant Fellowship of New Orleans)
"New Orleans flaunts sin in a way that no other places do. They call it the Big Easy. There are 10 abortion clinics in Louisiana; five of those are in New Orleans. They have a Southern Decadence parade every year and they call it gay pride. When you study Scripture, it's not out of the boundaries of God to punish a nation for sin and because of sin. When I look at our country, at what's happening, and what's happening in New Orleans in particular, it's not beyond the realm of possibility." - Rev. Dwight McKissic, (senior pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church)
I'm sure you agree that these are all great examples of a typical Christian sermon" with forgiveness".
We did support dictators. We supported Sadaam in the 1980's. We helped to train Bin Laden. How do you justify Iraq and yet Burma exist? How do we as a nation allow Dafar to continue? How do we as a nation allow poor to exist in our own country? We have all the wealth we need to address poverty and to address Aids in Africa. Yet, we are an arrogant and selfish people. In the Black Theology, I could very well see the context being one that calls America to action and not to sit in our comfortable homes.
OBTW, I did post in a previous post a link to an article that highlighted the fact that many high ranking officials did not agree with Truman that we needed to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those two actions killed many times more civilians than acts against our country. Look at the statements. The dissenters included Eisenhower, MacArthur, Einstien, and if FDR had lived, possibley FDR.
Posted by: tc on March 17, 2008 10:21 AMhttp://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/308723.html
"It turns out that blatant racism is alive and well in Idaho, but it's not coming from the Aryan Nation types - it's coming from way-left organizations like Idaho's own Planned Parenthood," Fischer said. "They should have stridently rebuked that donor for being a racist and a bigot and refused to take that money."
The call to Idaho came in July to Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho.
On the recording provided by The Advocate, an actor portraying a donor said he wanted his money used to eliminate black unborn children because "the less black kids out there the better."
Kersey laughed nervously and said: "Understandable, understandable. ... Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited and want to make sure I don't leave anything out."
Posted by: JDH on March 17, 2008 10:38 AMThe record is there, the Republicans passed the 1964 Civil Rights act. I'm not disputing that. Yet you seem to be using it to claim that this action reflects the views of the current Republican Party which I don't believe to be the case (especially since many of the Democrat Senators who voted against it came from states now represented by Republican Senators).
Considering the voter base from those states objecting to the Civil Rights Legislation have changed all that much in 40 some years, maybe it's the party platforms changed causing those same voters to change party affiliation?
Do you know what John Hagee's role is in the McCain campaign? McCain seemed quite proud of his endorsement when he got it. At present time McCain has not renounced the endorsement, he's only said that he disagrees with some of Hagee's views. Maybe Hagee is on McCain's council of religious advisers.
How about McCain calling Rev. Ron Parsley a spiritual guide? Despite Parsley's claim that Christians should have a moral obligation to wage war on the "false religion of Islam"? Is he an official advisor or just a spiritual one?
With Trent Lott being the exception to that? I mean he was all for the known racist Strom Thurmond being President.
although they still do support it in a much more quiet, insidious manner nowadays, i.e. Welfare, Affirmative Action,
Welfare and Affirmative Action, as what racism against white people?
Welfare and Affirmative Action advances "the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others"? I look forward to seeing you explain that.
I don't think they changed parties.
Why not? The voter base is the same, the party platforms are not. I think my argument is more sound than yours which claims the bigots shut up yet continued to vote Democrat.
"It turns out that blatant racism is alive and well in Idaho, but it's not coming from the Aryan Nation types - it's coming from way-left organizations like Idaho's own Planned Parenthood," Fischer said. "They should have stridently rebuked that donor for being a racist and a bigot and refused to take that money."
The call to Idaho came in July to Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho.
On the recording provided by The Advocate, an actor portraying a donor said he wanted his money used to eliminate black unborn children because "the less black kids out there the better."
Kersey laughed nervously and said: "Understandable, understandable. ... Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited and want to make sure I don't leave anything out."
Posted by: JDH on March 17, 2008 11:21 AMNow please show me PROOF McCain attended any of those churches for 20 years, was married by one of the crazy pastors.
"How about McCain calling Rev. Ron Parsley a spiritual guide? Despite Parsley's claim that Christians should have a moral obligation to wage war on the "false religion of Islam"? Is he an official advisor or just a spiritual one?"
I call BS on this! First off your "source" is Wikipedia. I could write that CATO was his spiritual guide as far as that goes. Secondly, the footnote on the spiritual advisor citation rrefernces a Mother Jones article , hardly a nonbiased source of information.
Lastly the quote from the Mother Jones article:
"McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."
Calling someone A spiritual guide and MY spiritual guide are two different things. I hereby today declare that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is A SPIRITUAL GUIDE. Not MY spiritual guide, but A spiritual guide.
Posted by: pbj on March 17, 2008 11:22 AMYou cut the crap and defend your BS argument.
Have you read Rev. Wayne Perryman's book "Unfounded Loyalty"?
I have not.
Perryman believes that the Dems only became interested in the black community in the 60' because Dems saw a large voting bloc.
Was he in the Democratic leadership in the 60's? Is this a theory or an argument based up with supporting evidence from senior Democratic officials at the time? Or is it just a theory?
It is ignorant to say that Republicans have adopted the racist attitudes of the old time Dixicrats.
Why, do you evidence to the contrary? Something like evidence of southern white voters flocking to the states that are currently represented by two Democrats in the Senate? States like Washington, California, New York, or Massachusetts? I'm betting the voters stayed put and switched parties as the party platforms changed over time.
Perryman says that the black community is worse off today than it was before the 60s
Says Rev. Perryman who apparently lives in a nice house on . I'm sure as a member of the poverty stricken black community that lives on Mercer Island I'm sure he's truly suffering.
Perryman believes that it is because many blacks have turned away from God and the Christian church and placed their faith in the Democrat party.
How does he know this? Does he question every blacks relationship with God? Does he see lots of people praying at the alter of the Democratic Party?
( What did Obama hear, and when did he hear it?)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 17, 2008 11:54 AMThank-you for conceding the point by attempting to change the subject. Another prime example of the logical fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi.
Posted by: ewaggin on March 17, 2008 11:57 AMAgain, you said it was racist. By harming the black community black voters somehow get the "idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others". Do share how that works.
demoralized an entire segment of the population of our country by forcing them to remain victims
I'd argue that there are more minorities in American University's than ever before. I'd also say that more minorities occupy top positions in America than ever before (Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Michael Steele, Orpah Winfrey, Barack Obama, Tony Dungy, etc). I don't see these people as victims, do you?
look to the Dem party for a payout
As opposed to large businesses that look to the Govt. for a bailout every time they make bad business decisions (like the current credit/banking crisis)?
First off your "source" is Wikipedia.
1) Yes it is.
2) The endorsement article comes from Fox News. Which cites many of the same statements as the Wikipedia article. Is Fox News to liberal for you?
3) I did not know the Wikipedia article was linked to a Mother Jones article. I used Wikipedia only as a reference to the individual.
Sweet, how long till I get banned like DM did? God forbid anyone disagree with the "factually correct" postings of conservative postings here at SP. =P
First off, that is a second hand source. Show me video of McCain saying that and video of Parsley saying that. I have video of Wright saying that. Obama's church is so proud of his America bashing , they sell it on DVD.
Secondly, the fox news source you cited also has this to say (which you convenitnetly omitted):
"A campaign official disputes that argument, adding that any comparison between the Wright and Parsley situations is "totally absurd." The official notes that Rev. Wright married Obama, baptized his children and has served as his spiritual adviser for 20 years, whereas McCain received Parsley's endorsement at one event and has never attended his service."
As to the wiki to MJ reference, that is why you don't cite from Wikipedia. I could write Cato has the third nipple for all that matters.
Wayne Perryman has experience as an inner-city pastor, journalist, talk show host, and investigator, and he is a black man. He is certainly more qualified to speak of the black experience than either you or I. On two occasions, he requested a formal apology from the DNC for their part in slavery. All he got from the DNC was the middle finger, so he filed a lawsuit on behalf of the himself and all African Amercans against the DNC.
"Why, do you evidence to the contrary?"
You show the evidence. You brought it up. Show me all the instances where Republicans have moved to enact Jim Crow or Black Codes.
So what if Perryman lives on Mercer Island. I guess to you, a black is not a black unless he lives in a slum. Are you a racist Cato? Isn't Perryman black enough for you? Perryman has achieved a degree of success in life and has demostrated that blacks don't need handouts from the Democrat party.
Why don't you try reading the book, then pose your questions to the Reverend himself. You can come back here and dazzle us with your enlightenment.
a. Dr. Paul has David Duke and a collection of other crazies.
Let's vote, good bigot or bad?
b. Senator Obama has Rev. Wright
Good bigot or bad?
c. Seantor Clinton has Bubba,
Girlfriend gets a pass, just having to deal with this idiot on a personal level, which is different from the others, no vote here.
d. Senator Mc Cain has Rev. Hageee
Good bigot or bad?
When I was routinely getting lambested for bringing out the fact that Dr. Paul under his byline had written bigoted material, posters here wanted to give him a pass because he was their candidate and his bigots were good. One poster even went as far as to make the lame and stupid statement that he didn't have a racist bone in his body. Is he a jellyfish?
The issue is that Dr. Paul, Senators Clinton, Mc Cain, and Obama are pols. They would rather beg foregiveness than ask permission. They each have their own bigot. Why do they have their own personal bigots, because at this date and time bigots have followers and followers equal votes. So, folks how do we vote on the bigots, are their good bigots or bad bigots? Who is the best bigot in your opinion?
Do you think being an educational level bigot is better than other bigotry? Please answer the question. I am not going away.
Posted by: pbj on March 17, 2008 12:48 PMIt's the GOP equiv of having a more mainstream Louis Farrakhan endorsing your campaign and welcoming the individual with open arms.
Speaking of endorsements PBJ, didn't you say the other day that Sen. Obama's ties to Farrakhan proved the Obama was a racist? Should the same standard be applied equally to both sides?
Show me video of McCain saying that and video of Parsley saying that.
Apparently these quotes are from his book "Silent No More" which I have not read.
Fox News is reporting it, I'm sure they researched the individual quotes and would not just go parrot the Mother Jones article like a typical "leftist news organization" would. =P
which you conveniently omitted
I would never do such a thing. =P
Furthermore it is not an isolated instance of acceptance of cash donations for the EXPLICIT PURPOSE OF FURTHERING RACIAL CLEANSING RIGHT HERE IN THE USA, it is one of seven documented instances from accross the United states in which this organization accepted CASH DONATIONS FOR THE EXPLICIT PURPOSE OF PROMOTING RACIAL CLEANSING RIGHT HERE IN THE USA. This was in 2007, not 50 years ago.
Can you one good reason why I should believe that a political Party that not only tollerates the happy recipients of these same cash donations but will feature speakers representing the organization that was happy to accept CASH DONATIONS FOR THE EXPLICIT PURPOSE OF PROMOTING RACIAL CLEANSING RIGHT HERE IN THE USA at their National convention should not be considered the modern home of racism?
Posted by: JDH on March 17, 2008 01:01 PM':)
I believe folks are on to you!...thus you're pretty much discounted. But, continue to spew forth as you undoubtedly will. :)
Posted by Duffman at March 17, 2008 12:47 PM
Should I be banned for saying that Duffman?
You might want to read this piece written by Armstrong Williams:
The Clinton Brand of Racism
by Armstrong Williams
Posted: 02/01/2008
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24768&page=1#continueA
or the following articles:
a.Is Bill Clinton a Racist?
By MDefl
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1059
b.
Bill Clinton and Liberal Racism
There is nothing like a conservative voice...lol. I don't always agree with what most conservatives...classic conservatives...say. However this conservative had some very interesting points to raise about Bill Clinton and Racist Liberals.
First Black Prez Turns out to be a Bigot
http://hellonegro.com/2008/01/30/bill-clinton-and-liberal-racism/
Now, Duffman, do you wish to add your voice to that of Pudge's and demand that I be banned?
And you know damn well why DM was kicked. He would post so many times or just copy & post where no one else could get in.
Or take over the thread.
Grow a spine.
PS HAS anyone tried to kick you????
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 17, 2008 01:03 PMAm I complaining about those freedoms? No.
Please stop tying to associate me with the same individuals who run HA or DemocratUndergournd. I am not associated with those individuals in any way. How many times do I have to tell you that I only speak for myself and that I do not represent any party/organization/blog that you happen to have issues with.
Furthermore it is not an isolated instance of acceptance of cash donations for the EXPLICIT PURPOSE OF FURTHERING RACIAL CLEANSING RIGHT HERE IN THE USA
That's like saying the entire GOP party is a racist organization because a single GOP Presidential Candidate took money from members of a known racist organizations and that David Duke is a true representative of the GOP. (FYI, don't believe this to be the case.)
JDH, as you can see I too can make a similar argument against the GOP using similar vast associations. My argument about the racist GOP doesn't hold water, nor does your absurd argument about the Democratic Party
No. But I would like you to be honest about the Clintons'; they don't belong in ANY conversation about 'bigot' or 'racist' PERIOD! Despite spin attacks by the right.
Posted by: Duffman on March 17, 2008 01:35 PM"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population"
Who spoke these words? The Klu Klux Klan? Aryan Nations? The National Socialist (Nazi) Party? These are the words of Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood.
Now fastforward to 2007 and we have documented evidence that Planned Parenthood routinely accepted donations for the express purpose of furthering the stated aims of Margaret Sanger - and yet there is a political Party right here in the USA who will host this organization, feature this organization and stand and cheer speekers from this organization at their National Convention a few months from today.
Posted by: JDH on March 17, 2008 01:40 PMThen by the same absurd logic JDH I will associate you to David Duke, Ron Paul.
But I thought you told us all there was nothing wrong with Farrakahn, that he is just a regular guy.
"Speaking of endorsements PBJ, didn't you say the other day that Sen. Obama's ties to Farrakhan proved the Obama was a racist? "
No I don't think I did. Why don't you provide the link?
"Fox News is reporting it, I'm sure they researched the individual quotes and would not just go parrot the Mother Jones article like a typical "leftist news organization" would. =P"
I don't know about that. Some liberal told me it was "Faux News".
You have already told us about the Southern Strategy and how all Republicans are evil racists bigots and Democrats are tinkerbell unit4ers embraces the diversity of humanity to live happly ever after.
So when you excuse Black Seperatist Obama with "well Republicasn do it" (even though they don't), you are basically admitting he is guilty.
Why should any white man vote for a black seperatist?
Posted by: pbj on March 17, 2008 02:15 PMWayne Perryman is a black man living on Mercer Island (which is 1.14% African American) with a theory that says about inner city blacks (where he doesn't live) turning away from God to worship the Democratic Party. (BTW, I have never seen a Democratic Party church, have you?)
So if WVH, a black woman with a PhD, has a theory that says the exact opposite does that make it true? WVH clearly has more experience being a black woman than you and I ever will. She also has a PhD which means she is well educated (in contrast to the Rev. Wayne Perryman who's degree/qualifications are not listed on his website).
One can only wonder why the Rev. Wayne Perryman is where he is (a successful black man living in a high income community full of affluent white individuals while preaching at an inner city church).
I gave you those three cites because guess what, they were written by Blacks. So, you said:
'No. But I would like you to be honest about the Clintons'; they don't belong in ANY conversation about 'bigot' or 'racist' PERIOD! Despite spin attacks by the right."
So, if some Blacks find that in certain instances the Clintons have acted, in their opinion, in a bigoted manner. Then, those Black folks are being dishonest, right? I get it, whenever Blacks go off the plantation, they are dishonest, right?
Posted by: WVH on March 17, 2008 02:25 PMYour point is so much more valid when you call me names.
you have advanced the case that the modern Democrats left their avowed policies of racism in the 1960's
I have argued that, I have not advanced anything.
I have shown you that your assertion is bull crap.
You showed that one individual of one organization that the Democratic Party invites to their convention is somehow proof that the entire Democratic Party (an origination of thousands of individuals) is somehow out to murder black babies and therefore racist.
You are an idiot. You are pathetic. You are a failure.
I see, so because I showed that your argument is completely absurd you have no choice but to call me names which somehow makes your argument all the more credible.
cannot excuse is that you support a Party that will welcome and cheer a group that continues to support racial cleansing at their Nationl convention this fall.
Fine with me. I'm not asking for your sympathy or your vote here. I'm just an individual who's willing to question the logic behind your argument.
Now JDH, having proven that you cannot handle any level of scrutiny like a mature individual I see no reason to continue our discussion.
My take on Rev. Perryman is just slightly different than yours. His research is not as thorough as it can be sometimes:
Republican reverend ignored recent history in condemning only Democrats for atrocities against African Americans
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407010003
There are points that he makes I feel are absolutely correct.
1. Blacks have given their loyalty to the dems and have little that is tangible to show for it in terms of economic advancement or education achievement.
2. Blacks need to be open to a variety of political choices. The problem is that the perception whether it is correct or not is that republicans leaders are a bunch of minor league bigots. So, in the Black community there is an element of voting AGAINST as much as voting for.
The thing that will save dems every time is that many republican leaders while they may not be bigots, are idiots.
3. He, Dr. Bill Cosby and a host of other Blacks too numerous to mention do agree with this statement from his book:
"Perryman also says of African Americans, "Many no longer put their faith in God, instead they put their faith in government and those representing government. The shift from God to government has resulted in behavior unheard of and problems unprecedented."
I do not see the shift to other parties happening soon. If the people that post here are examples of republican leadership, not only Blacks, but moderates will either go indie or stay in the dem camp. There is simply too much intolerance of any other idea and in cities, moderate ideology will prevail.
I like Rev. Perryman because of the above quote, but like us all, he is human.
Posted by: WVH on March 17, 2008 02:43 PMHehe, you actually believe something a liberal told you? That's a first. =)
But I thought you told us all there was nothing wrong with Farrakahn, that he is just a regular guy.
I said he had not committed any crimes. There is a difference. Farrakhan has made a lot of disparaging remarks much like Parsley and Hagee. Sen. Obama was forced to denounce him as an individual and I believe both parties should be held to the same standard.
how all Republicans are evil racists bigots
I did not say that. I said that the voters who were against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 likely became Republicans as the platform of both parties changed.
So when you excuse Black Seperatist Obama with "well Republicasn do it" (even though they don't), you are basically admitting he is guilty.
Separatism implies that the individuals who go to Sen. Obama's church want to live in their own segregated neighborhoods and practice apartheid.
I seriously doubt this is the case, it sounds to me Rev. Wright wants his flock to invest in the black community so that the individuals who live in that community can be positive role models who turn around and inspire others to do the same.
You know, get off welfare, don't sell drugs, become a positive member of society, give back to the community to help others do the same. Seems to me this is a message you as a conservative would support.
I had never heard of Rev. Perryman before today, so my argument was based on what I found in a 5min Google search. It sounds like you have a much more informed take on him and his views.
It's as simple as that
So one person is wholly responsible for the views of Planned Parenthood and therefore the entire Democratic Party. Nice to know David Duke represents the views of the entire Republican Party because he happened to run as a the official GOP candidate for one election in one state. Yeah, that's real solid logic there JDH.
Funny I didn't hear that one. I heard "God Damn America, US of KKKA etc..."
"White America got its wakeup call on 911"
Sounds pretty sepratist or racist to me.
I did not say that. I said that the voters who were against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 likely became Republicans as the platform of both parties changed.
ANd who were the voters that were against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ...um let's see well the Grand Kleagle fillibustered that one...non other than Dem Sen Robert KKK Byrd.
YOu know damn well you mean to imply that Republicans are racists. Well CATO, the CHICKEND .....HAVE ....COME ....HOME (twirlws waving hads in air aka Dr Wright) TO ROOST fro MR Obama.
Keep Clucking Cato...keep clucking.
I have been illustrating exactly why the message in churches such as the one Obama attends resonates with the congregation. It is because these people have seen the leftwing of the Democrat Party mouth the words yet they have witnessed, this past summer, planned Parenthood accept donations at seven (7) unique Planned Parenthood facilities and the response was as typified by Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho when an actor portraying a donor said he wanted his money used to eliminate black unborn children because "the less black kids out there the better." Autumn Kersey, vice president of development and marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho replies while audibly laughing "Understandable, understandable. ... Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited and want to make sure I don't leave anything out."
This is entirely consistent with the avowed purpose of Margaret Sanger, who through Planned Parenthood, advocated abortions on Afro-Americans in order to eliminate what she called "socially undesirable people" when she founded Planned Parenthood and you have not heard nor will you hear ANYONE within the Democrat Party disavow this.
I mean is it any wonder there are blacks who think terrible things about this country when the Democrats will have as featured speakers at their NATIONAL CONVENTION who represent this group.
As we've heard before, 10 AM on Sunday morning is the most racially divided hour of the week in America. If integration and unity was important to Obama, why wouldn't he attend a church that had a congregational complexion of inclusion...like Hutcherson's church?
Posted by: Chad Minnick on March 17, 2008 04:52 PMJust as I won't back hypcrits like Larry Craig who rail against gays and then go for gay sex in the bathroom stall, I won't tolerate hypocrites like Obama who says he is for unity, but embraces for 20 years....
embraces for 20 years....
embraces for 20 years....
embraces for 20 years....
embraces for 20 years....
embraces for 20 years....
A man who accuses white people of creating the AIDS virus to kill black people and seems to be a magnet for every black nut out there like Louis Farrakhan who tells us "White people may one day be human , they just haven't evolved yet."
That kind of crap is wrong no matter whom it is directed at. You liberals refuse to see it because you are too partisan to be able to stand up and say "that is wrong, I will not vote for you".
Reverse discrimination against white people will not assauge your liberal white guilt, nor will it satisfy people like Dr Wright, whose heart only has room for hate.
Posted by: pbj on March 17, 2008 05:03 PMTake out White and you have Jerry Fawell preaching against the Liberals, Gays, and ACLU.
ANd who were the voters that were against the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Powerful White people. Which sounds like what Rev. Wright was talking about...funny how that works. How many black senators were the in 1964?
YOu know damn well you mean to imply that Republicans are racists
No I didn't. There are a lot more people in America and the GOP now than in 1964. I'm sure a lot of older individuals who vote for the GOP who used to be Dixiecrats (followed Strom across).
If integration and unity was important to Obama, why wouldn't he attend a church that had a congregational complexion of inclusion...like Hutcherson's church
Haha, Rev. Hutchison preaches in the white suburbs. A better example of controversy with true diversity would be Mars Hill.
Jewish is a race. Hitler tried to exterminate us? remember? So if I'm Pro-Israel and choose to shop at a Jewish Deli, buy only Kosher food for Passover I'm a racist for giving back to my community.
Nice try PBJ, face it you're a anti-semite bigot.
Especially so when the group accepting the money will be featured at the National Convention if one of our major political Parties.
This is no "fringe" element, they are mainstream and they took donations LAST YEAR at seven (7) independent locations to implement the avowed purpose of Margaret Sanger, who through Planned Parenthood, advocated abortions on Afro-Americans in order to eliminate what she called "socially undesirable people" when she founded Planned Parenthood.
Posted by: JDH on March 17, 2008 05:20 PM
You Republicans would do well to concentrate on how you're going to get Rossi elected. That's more important to you than Obama's preacher.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on March 17, 2008 06:56 PMIt's almost too fun to watch, they are being eaten up from the inside out.
Posted by: GS on March 17, 2008 07:02 PMIt should be no guess. I don't agree with this logic. I don't view the values stated as being racist because they don't exclude whites. They simply focus the church's mission. It should be noted that the congregation is a mixture, not black only. I know that church's do have specific mission's they are called to and that not every church is called to the same mission.
This still doesn't answer your underlying question, however, if one substituted "white" for black in the value statements would they be racist. I would answer a qualitative no. There is nothing in the values that state only a certain race, so they don't exclude other races (as opposed to White Supremist groups that do exclude). So, one way I would view the word "racist" is whether it excludes a race.
Thinking about it however, I felt that still didn't adequately cover your question. So, totally excluding the context/location of the church, I applied the 12 values to my own overwhelmingly white, middle-class to upper middle class church, located in the highest median housing market in Pierce County. How would my church fair.
I won't go through each point by point, but just substituting the work wouldn't make the statements necessarily sound racist. It makes them sound extremely foolish because they would be all out of context. If however, instead of substituting the word "white", I reworded the statements to make sense to the community the church resides in, most all are applicable. The only one that would need to take a different focus would be value 8 (disavowel of the pursuit of middleclassness). This is a specific issue to blacks. A substitute for the predominantly white middle to upper-middle class community I live in is disavowel of the pursuit of social status. In my community, there are the rich with their waterfront homes and the buying of their kids brand new Lexus or Porsche. The social economic disconnect in the community is most evident in the schools, especially High School. It isn't enough to have a good looking coat, it has to be a North Face Denali. Purses have to be Coach or DB. Kids that have normal cars and normal clothes are not the "in" kids. It seems like everyone else is striving to be the rich families and live their lives spending 110-150% of their income so that their kids can keep up.
So, in summary. Given the context of the church's mission field, I do not find their value system racist. Substituting the word "white" for "black" in the stated values wouldn't make them racist, it would make the statements non-sense. Substituting ones one community makeup into the values does lend some credence that they may be a values system to consider. Shouldn't Church's really focus on their call and mission? Shouldn't they address the needs of the community they reside in?
Just my thoughts.
Posted by: tc on March 17, 2008 07:39 PM103. One point that is not being discussed in all this is how one-color Obama's church is. You could count on one hand the white faces seen in his church as the camera pans to the audience. How is that representative of the "UNITED States of America?"
As we've heard before, 10 AM on Sunday morning is the most racially divided hour of the week in America. If integration and unity was important to Obama, why wouldn't he attend a church that had a congregational complexion of inclusion...like Hutcherson's church?
1. The quote about church segregation is correct.
2. Don't know why this particular church was chosen, but I have a couple of theories:
a. Unless one has spent time in a large city like Chicago, Philly, and Boston one does not begin to understand just how segregated the neighborhoods are. In this area segregation results more from income and who can afford to buy the house. In big cities segregation results from the fact that each racial and ethnic group has their own neighborhood.
b. There are certain churches that "up and comers" go to in each neighborhood. So, if one is developing a business, political career, or wants to meet the "right" people you go to this faith community.
c. Charismatic leaders establish insitutions that mirror their personality. Rev. Hutcherson of Antioch is Black and I forgot the name of the founder of Mars Hill, but he is Caucasian. Both are charismatic personalities and both have had controversy, Rev. Hutcherson about gays and the leader of Mars Hill about the role of women. What is different about their ministries is that this area, with the exception of some of the posters here, is more tolerent of races mixing for worship and social events. Except at the elite levels in Chicago where money is the great equalizer, middle class and lower middle class groups tend to mix only with their own ethnic group. That is my best guess as to why this particular church was so Afro-centric.
In this area, a pastor preaching an exclusionary philosophy would probably be condemned. Mt. Zion Baptist Church, the major Black church has members of all colors, former Governor Mike Lowery was a member there and it is heavy on membership from politicians here.
There are so very real differences in what it takes to survive in the wards and the ward politics of a city like Chicago.
Yeah, this won't faze the core kook people in this country. The ones who really, really hate America.
But that's not enough to win an election. What this does is cuts the Jewish support down by about 35 percent, and I would say cuts the blue collar white union voter support down by at least 70 percent.
The last several elections have been won/lost by the smallest of margins (Clinton never got majority support) (Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 won by a close margin in 2004). So this probably throws it to the liberal Juan McCain.
Not that this is necessarily a good thing. It is hard to say. On the good side for the next generation or more the kooky left will forever complain how the Democrats and Clinton sabotaged Obama. They love conspiracy theories as we all know. And they will blame the Democratic "White KKK" establishment for bringing them down.
But with Juan McCain we have basically a Bill Clinton that Republican Congresspeople and the rest of the republican Party establishment will feel compelled to support. SO, it could mean the end of the Conservative movement, whereas either a Hillary or Obama Presidency could have given the Conservative movement the needed momentum we needed to succeed, just like BJ Clinton led to a Republican Congress and George W. Bush (for all the good that did).
So, yeah, this ends it for Obama. Not in the primary, mind you but even in the general election. It will be closer than we think though because lots of long time conservative grassroots people are committed not to vote this year, but Obama will put the necessary scare on about half of them. Obama will put the scare on the beer drinking blue collar males too and and the extremely liberal but care about the survival of Israel Jewish vote as well (but not the extent you might think as from reading some blogs from some people in Israel there really are many "self hating Jews" who do things that actually hurt their chances for survival).
Posted by: Steve on March 17, 2008 07:51 PMI am going to throw Duffman a bone. I said a couple of weeks ago never count any candidate out of anything. I still don't count out Billary.
1. You assume that people only vote FOR someone, people often vote AGAINST some one. There is a lot of time between now and after the conventions. No one knows what will happen between now and August. You might be correct and Senator Obama could be the one they vote AGAINST. Maybe, may not.
2. The Louisiana governor's race between Edwin Edwards, an admitted womanizer, gambler, drinker, crook and who knows what else and David Duke is the prime example. Edwards kept his mistress on the payroll and later went to prison. People voted for the crook.
Most people who post here wouldn't vote for Senator Obama if they were paid. Voters are often not as strident in their dislikes. Some elections come down to vote for the crook, I don't know if this is one of those elections. There is a long time between now and August.
Posted by: WVH on March 17, 2008 08:03 PMGod, if someone would tell me I would be saying this even 3 years ago I would call them insane but I am really hoping that Hillary will pull things out.
I really think that her Presidency would be in the best long term interest of this country.
Jorge W. Bush has nearly destroyed the Conservative movement. Juan McCain will gladly pound the nails into our coffin.
But yeah, you are right there are so many things between now and Nov it is hard to say if this will finish Obama off. I think it will but McCain and Kemp (his running mate?) has promised that they will run this campaign in the Dole style. So part of me thinks that I should take them at their word and not underestimate their skill in losing even when victory seems so easy.
Posted by: Steve on March 17, 2008 08:27 PMYou proved my point, You would not be voting for Senator Obama, you would be voting AGAINST Senator Mc Cain. I have to wait until election day to decide if I am voting AGAINST the nominees of both parties, not FOR Ralph Nader.
Posted by: WVH on March 17, 2008 08:43 PMI have viewed all the posts both here and on Don's post, and I don't think that this is Obama's real problem. His problem is that people want to believe spin and the ugliest about candidates. His problem is overcoming the politics of negativity. His problem is overcoming the Rove/Clinton oriented politics of divide and discredit your opponent. His problem is our problem. For if this is what politics must be, then we all fail. This is a negative world view that I for one am not willing to surrender to.
For a change, why doesn't everyone listen to Obama's own words on his faith, instead of the spin meisters. Below are a few links:
Interview with Christianity Today in January
Text of his sermon at Ebenezer Church in Atlanta in celebration of Martin Luther King Day
Barack's speech at the Call to Renewal Conference, June 28, 2006
Posted by: tc on March 17, 2008 09:23 PMBut to compare this to a Hagee endorsement is totally wrong.
Remember I am totally against Juan McCain. But Hagree isn't the pastor of Juan McCain's iglesia. He just endorsed Juan McCain. He wasn't the pastor who married his wife, bathized his children. Juan McCain has never credited Hagree with "bringing him to Christianity". McCain never took the title of a book he wrote from a speech that Hagree gave.
But all that is true about Obama and Hatewright. You condemn Juan McCain for one endorsement, but with Obama he attended Hatewright's church for 20 years. We are not talking about an endorsement, we are talking about someone who has had a long term substantial effect on Obama and his family.
And what this does, is it fills in some of the questions that has been popping up. Like why was B Hussian's race for the Presidency the FIRST time his wife has ever been proud of America. Why doesn't he put his hand on his heard for the flag ceremony when even Hitlary could bring herself to. Of course with Hatewright as their "spiritual adviser it all makes sense now doesn't it.
If Romney's Mommonism was an issue, which it was, and I believe it should have been, then why not the man who B. Hussian sees as his spiritual advisor? Especially when it answers so many of the questions that has been coming up about him.
Of course if he loses that means Juan McCain will win. Unless Hitlary can pull it out "Go Hitlary Go!". Whoever wins this fall, America will come out the poorer for it.
Posted by: Steve on March 17, 2008 09:28 PMRegarding the Hagee endorsement, it was not so much that Hagee was velcro buddies with Senator Mc Cain. It is the fact that he is a bigot. Rev Wright is a bigot. David Duke is a bigot. To make Duffman happy, Bubba is an idiot that plays the role of a bigot on TV. None of the candidates supports the principle that bigots will not be tolerated, no matter their color, religion, or creed.
Senator Obama will need all of his eloquent rhetoric tomorrow night to explain why he didn't do sprints out of Rev. Wright's Church. Senator Mc Cain's staff could have googled Rev. Hagee and found that this dude was going to be trouble.
The problem is both were giving lip service to the principle that bigots will not be tolerated.
I have been threatened and called every name in the book because I was relentless against Dr. Paul for his support by David Duke and the Duke clones. People that supported Dr. Paul are shocked, I tell you shocked that Rev. Wright is a bigot, like their pal, Duke. Really. Guess they were late on coming aboard the anti-bigotry train. The bought tickets so they could show their disgust of Rev. Wright.
tc, I think you are correct that campaigns are nasty and of the slime and dirty the opponent variety.
On another note, I hope that Senator Mc Cain chooses a Jack Kemp type, if not Jack Kemp. The man has a lot of class.
Posted by: WVH on March 17, 2008 09:52 PMNo, you are a racist if you start spouting crap like "White people created aids to kill black people"
You are a racist if you say "US of KKKA" and rant on about people of a certain race and crazy conspiracy theories.
You are a racist if you state that white people aren't human, they haven't evolved yet.
"Nice try PBJ, face it you're a anti-semite bigot."
Wow I guess I will have to tell that to my Jewish brother in-law. He will be surprised to hear that!
Posted by: pbj on March 17, 2008 10:24 PMYes you did. It it one of your Democrat talking points, Southern Strategy, racism all that. Broad brush every Republican as a racist.
Please start your education of your Democrat party by watching this.
But with the real personal decisions such as who is choosen to marry you and who is to bathize your children, sometimes the truth is revealed.
And this all ties in with what we already have learned about B. Hussian and his family. He has shown his hatred of America in his refusal to put his hand on his heart during the pledge when all the other socialist (democratic) candidates did. His wife saying that this was the first time she felt something other than shame for America. Of course she would feel that way with Hateswhites as her family's spiritual advisor.
Now, one even two of these things alone, perhaps, perhaps, could be explained away. But now taken with what we all now know about Rev Hatewhite, the pattern is just all too clear to ignore.
So, yeah, I really don't give a damn about what B Hussian puts out for public consumption. I have seen his heart of darkness and its racist to the core.
And, no the following wasn't approved of by the Juan McCain campaign. From what I hear he is in London raising money. How he can raise money from Londoners I haven't a clue. Perhaps he is exploiting a loophole in his anti-first amendment campaign law.
Posted by: Steve on March 17, 2008 10:50 PMThe man brought Obama to "Christianity" or so Obama has said in the past.
Wright was the man who married Obama and his wife. Wright was the man who baptisted his children. To whatever extent Obama now considers himself a Christian it is due to Rev Hatewhites.
Do you understand the degree of involvement that this man has had in the life of Obama?
This doesn't just happen to be some guy of whose church Obama had stopped by once or twice. This isn't just some guy who endorsed Obama. This is the guy Obama credits with bringing him to Christianity. He dedicated a book to the man. He spend 20 years in the guy's church.
He choose to have his family's spiritual life revolve around the guy. Was that just for show? Well perhaps it was, but still it seems from comments his wife has made and his own behavior that some of it still rubbed off on him. And even if it was all for show, what does that still show about Obama that he wanted to be shown to be connected with that man (at least until he realized he had a chance to win the presidency).
How can any person be an "uniter" when he has for whatever reason filled his family full of so much rage by them attending this church.
And no, I don't speak for the Juan McCain Campaign. Like I said he is in foreign countries right now raising campaign funds so you would have to go to London or wherever he may be right now. I wonder if he will be going to China anytime soon. I hear those Monks can raise lots of funds.
Posted by: Steve on March 17, 2008 11:07 PMYou are right. I am quite likely counting B. Hussian out far too soon. Never underestimate the ability of the Republicans to lose. 1996 should have taught us that.
Juan McCain/Jack Unkemp 08. Please God, America needs Hiltery. Never thought I would say that. Never thought it would be true but Hiltary is of all the current options the best option for America in the long-run.
Your words, not mine.
Thanks, I know the history of both parties. You proved in the Rossi thread that you can't even do basic arithmetic without blaming the Dem's for something.
I think Obama's church is no different from most of the extreme left today, spewing America hatred. It's what they teach in schools, universities, sell in the movies and in rap music.
You might as well be against free market capitalism with that broad of a statement. People buy what they want, people buy music cause it sounds good. Some people buy music for the message (see Christian music or the Sun City song ). I doubt anyone buys music because they hate America and what it stands for.
People spewing America hated? Last I checked that's still covered by the 1st Amendment.
And the most outstanding point is that this hatred of American is voiced from the urban metropolises, where Democrats rule
Why don't you just come out and say how you really feel instead of dancing around the issue.
Here Katomar, let me do it for you:
Vote Democrat = You Hate America (and all it's Freedoms).
and where the black community is most egregiously manipulated as a voter block, and by the media.
Again Katomar stop dancing around your point, you think black people are stupid and can't think for themselves.
With people like Katomar representing the GOP it's no wonder sane people are leaving the party in droves.
But you can't vote FOR a Democrat and still love America.
It's like what I read in a tag line from someone at free Republic.
God's not a Republican but Satan certainly is a Democrat.
Posted by: Steve on March 17, 2008 11:35 PMOprah once belonged to Rev. Wright's church. She left. Senator Obama has to explain why he continued the relationship. I don't count him out and he may be able to overcome questions the same way that Bubba and Hillary went on 60 minutes to discuss bimbo eruptions and saved their campaign for the presidency.
I disagree that former Rep. and Veep Candidate Jack Kemp is a loser. He just doesn't appeal to you. I suspect the candidates that would appeal to you probably have a snow ball's chance. This election is about getting indies like me to vote for the nominee.
Like it or not, there is a huge negative perception about republicans and race. I said perception and sometimes perceptions may not be fair. There are some republicans that have credibility in working with all types of people, Jack Kemp is one of those. It might be the experience he gained with a NFL team. I believe his son ran or still runs a family values foundation in Bellevue. Senator Obama's problems with the bigotry of his pastor does not erase the very serious issues many voters of all colors have with some republicans on race. Just read a few posters here, they are helping to contract the republican base and eliminate hope of gaining indies. Cato is not right about Katomar, but he is on target with others including some of your "leaders."
I don't know how much time you have spent in Europe. Billary is like New Labour. Google New Labour and start reading about what is happening in Britain. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it in a number of ways.
Posted by: WVH on March 17, 2008 11:44 PMI don't think you do. And I can do basic arithmetic, geometry, algebra, linear equations, calculus, probability and statistics (calculus based, not the pansy version for non-science majors) and differential equations just fine thank you. Is it my fault you were trained by a union teacher and can't to simple division? Oh and there are approximately 300 million people in the US, not 3.3 million as you stated in the Rossi thread.
Posted by: pbj on March 17, 2008 11:46 PMMonkeys had AIDS long before it jumped to Humans. Reagan ignored it because it's was a disease that afflicted homosexuals in large numbers.
What if you claimed that AIDS was God's punishment for Homosexuals? Who would ever think the person who said those kind of remarks would be considered a trusted Spiritual Advisor? None of the past Presidents would ever invite Jerry Fawell or Pat Robertson to the White House.
You are a racist if you state that white people aren't human, they haven't evolved yet.
What if you claim a certain race is stupid and easily manipulable like Katomar did @ 119? Would that be racist?
By your very definition certain members of my race are racist. The Hasidic population purposely excludes themselves from "normal" society, they show allegiance to God (not America) by wearing certain clothing that separates them from "normal" society, Hasidic's constantly invest money back into the Jewish community and in some cities the Hasidic community even have their own hospitals.
Hasidic Jews eat only certain kinds of foods that are blessed by a member of their own religion, they shop at stores owned by other Hasidic Jews, and they exclude the non-Hasidic community from attending their services. Up until the 1948 we as a race did not even have a homeland. <