John McCain's campaign better hope this fall's general election campaign doesn't end up being close. There could be trouble if it is, since the candidate's behavior may have a substantial impact on suppressing already tepid volunteer and small-dollar-donor interest in his campaign.
We've already noted his somewhat excessive initial condemnation of the now much discussed North Carolina GOP ad discussing Jeremiah Wright. McCain simply objecting to its airing is not a problem. Stating clearly that he wants to run an above board campaign is fine too. And indeed, the ad's tone is not a good fit for the current mood and flow of the campaign season.
Nonetheless, McCain calling the North Carolina GOP "out of touch" is not prudent. McCain has likewise called the ad "offensive," yet he admits he hasn't even seen it. That is not going to wash.
There are two things legitimately offensive about the ad in question. 1) Jeremiah Wright's rhetoric and 2) Barack Obma's decision to willfully have his family attend the man's church for twenty years. The ad doesn't distort anything Wright says or use anything other than smiling pictures of everyone except Wright to convey the message. If that is "offensive" and "out of touch" than virtually any ad talking about Jeremiah Wright is going to be off limits according to John McCain.
The MSM establishment reaction has, of course, been relative horror at the ad itself. This confluence occurs whenever a Republican ad even touches on an issue affecting or involving African Americans. It just must be racist then, right? It is from those sly, trickster, Lee Atwater-loving, Karl Rove-adoring, Republicans after all.
Well, Peter Wehner lays out why that isn't the case at all:
[T]he ad in question doesn't mention race anywhere; rather, it includes a clip of Reverend Wright's incendiary words. Wright happens to be black -- but his race is not the reason he's in the ad. His words are -- and if Wright were white, his words and picture would still be used.
Moreover,
If the ads are racist, then does [E.J.] Dionne believe asking questions about Wright is racist as well? Are news networks racist for having played the clips in the first place? Are columnists who write on this topic playing on racial fears as well?
The point of view Wehner dissects is similar to that held by the Seattle Times editorial page, which boils down to something like: "this ad is reprehensible because it makes us uncomfortable."
It would be more appropriate for those feeling that way take their discomfort up with Obama and Wright. The man who said such things and the man who chose to listen to him for twenty years.
Many a liberals seem miffed by that last point, thus betraying their befuddlement with the sensibilities of church-going folks. Because relatively few people who have seriously attended a house of worship for a substantial amount of time are going to much understand Obama's decision making process that resulted in: "yes, I would like my family - and especially my children - to attend this church, pastored by this man." This is not exactly the outreach to the faithful Democrats had in mind after getting clobbered by church-goers at the polls in 2004.
Yet, the disconnect between the left-of-center establishment and non-urban America won't stop the gnashing of teeth among MSM types and liberals on this issue. Consider this, however: if John McCain attended a church pastored by the likes of the Seattle-area's own Ken Hutcherson for twenty years do you believe we'd ever hear the bloody end of it from the same people tut-tutting over the current Wright ad?
Which is all just another reminder of why having a Republican nominee with MSM sensibilities is really a peculiar place for the Grand Old Party to be. Thus, making inspiring state and local candidates such as Dino Rossi - and hopefully a worthy VP nominee -with the ability to infuse enthusiasm into the grassroots all the more important for the conservative cause in November.
UPDATE: link fixed.
UPDATE II: It would seem the McCain campaign, and perhaps the candidate, are getting the message, as evidenced by McCain's willingness to talk about Wright today.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 27, 2008 09:18 AM | Email ThisThe general theme of most lefty complaints seems to be, how dare anyone throw Obama anything but a soft pitch.
Obama has already lost the general. America is not going to elect an overt Marxist, with very little experience and affiliation with angry America hating people. The left knows this to be the case, so they are decrying any and all coverage of Obama that is negative. The MSM built this house of cards by propping up Obama on platitudes for many months. Visions of hope and change and well read speeches instead of reasonable vetting.
Now they reap what they sow. It's a hard pill for the left to swallow, but they need to realize that there is a reason why Fox has by far the largest viewing audience. Most of America doesn't think like the hard core lefties. And yet Obama has sided squarely with the Kos crowd.
By contrast, although McCain is far from perfect, he's actually going to be pretty much a centrist, by most standards, even more to the left. Lefties always talk about tolerance and reaching across the aisle. Well in McCain, that's what they get. And that's why Reagan Democrats, Dixiecrats, etc. don't even need to think twice as to why they will pick McCain over Obama.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2008 09:40 AMIf he continues this erratic behavior, he'll only highlight the reason he didn't appeal to a large contingent of us in the first place and We'll stay home in November.I hope he gets his head wired on straight and starts acting like the standard bearer for the Party instead of some rogue politician who'd prefer to throw his own party under the bus than the opposition.
Wise up Senator.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 27, 2008 09:41 AMIn that way, it was rhetorically clumsy and not something the McCain campaign should be associated with. Maybe that is why he asked that they stop running it, but only McCain (or maybe one of his advisors) knows for sure.
Does anyone besides a totally deluded lefty really think that we can sit-down with a terrorist like Ahmadinejad and come to a nice productive conclusion. Everyone knows how many summits we had with Arafat that all ended in the same old Palestinian terror.
Or on Domestic spending. It's trillions vs. billions. Yeah McCain is a statist, but Obama is an uber-statist. If government has to grow under one of these two fools, most would rather have it grow by billions than by trillions.
And you can bet that the angry black contingent will ratchet up their rhetoric as we get closer to the election. This will remind voters that for the Sharptons, the Wrights, the Jacksons, etc. it's not about post-racial, but about continuing the divide of racism. And this will turn-off average Americans.
The left can't do anything to erase the more extreme elements of Obama that have come to light. They are now evident as part of the fabric of the man. He is no longer electable.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2008 09:58 AMBut focusing on the ad is just a diversion for the MSM, a badly needed diversion. And even that backfires.
There will be no end to the entertainment provided by the Fairness Doctrine crowd. They don't realize that they are more than overt about their double standard. That's a blinding dissonance that is very hard for them to overcome.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2008 10:04 AMI realize how that shows absolutely no connection between Barry and Bill - I mean, of course the two people would be total strangers.
Still, maybe some of the more excitable members of the media might notice.
Posted by: steve miller on April 27, 2008 10:05 AMNo Eric, there are two things offensive about the ad.
1) They take Jeremiah Wright's sermons out of context in order to paint him as being far more radical than he really is. This isn't just dangerous to do in the state of North Carolina because of its high number of African-Americans. It's dangerous because Mike Huckabee (who got 30% of the primary vote in South Carolina, and whose supporters are very wary of McCain's anti-religious past) has also criticized the attacks on Wright as being insensitive.
2) Wright was a marine. Camp Lejeune is in North Carolina. You do the math.
Just because seeing an angry black pastor makes you pee your pants does not mean the rest of the country reacts to it the same way. You're really, really, out to lunch on this one, Eric.
Posted by: thehim on April 27, 2008 10:36 AMThat's about the most disjointed logic I've ever heard. Most Marines and former Marines like myself love this country and don't give Wright a pass because he was in the Corps 30 years ago. He and his ilk are summarily dismissed...and so are his associates much to the dismay of Barack Obama.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 27, 2008 11:00 AMRight now he does not have my vote. I'd rather spend my time and money getting Rossi elected. I'd also work to unseat Brian Baird in the 3rd district which George W. Bush carried in 2004, yet our state's pathetic GOP doesn't seem to have figured things out.
The national and state GOP need a massive house cleaning. It is time we dumped the statist, Rockefeller wing for good.
Posted by: AP on April 27, 2008 11:39 AMBeing a former Marine doesn't give Wright an automatic pass when he blows his stack behind his pulpit and talks about how he believes white people invented AIDS to destroy African Americans. Trying to spin the nasty lies coming out of Wright's mouth as being taken "out of context" only makes people more disgusted. It also pulls the curtain on who really makes up the modern left.
The left can only be successful if they can disguise what a bunch of radical socialists they are and how their ideas and programs have been total failures.
Year after year Democrats win elections by promising to give people stuff. The evidence shows Democrats only give people destroyed families, murdered unborn children, hopelessness, negativity and despair.
Democrats and their media machine push pessimism on the country day after day after day. Pessimism never does anything for anyone. Ask that dimbulb who walked around the White House in a sweater turning the thermostats down.
They've presented to the public a candidate farther to the left than George McGovern. In the internet information age Obama can only camoflauge who he is for so long. It's already unraveling thanks to his amazingly revealing comments about rural Americans.
Most sane people recoil in horror from people like Wright, and Bill Ayers. And by the same token they are put off when Hillary lies and then offers a slimy half apology. Americans don't like liars, and they don't like people who routinely don't have the common decency to apologize for their mistakes. Democrats fall into both categories.
The left deludes itself when it believes the country has moved left of center. It might feel that way if you live in New York, San Francisco, or Seattle.
The left can look down their noses at the rest of the country all they want. They can fill themselves with false confidence at Bush's approval ratings while ignoring the far lower poll numbers of their own Congress.
It would be absurd to attempt to predict the outcome of the November elections from this distance. I sure notice however that Democrats haven't seemed nearly as cocky lately.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 27, 2008 11:58 AMOH! Bama faces challenges on many levels.
I agree... with the Boston Herals no less!... with the premise (if not all the content) Voters will fall into (party) line come November.
However, he did come to the nomination with little or no help from the current party leadership, who are riding his coattails...not the other way around.
Posted by: John Bailo on April 27, 2008 12:43 PMCare to cite some examples Tom? Or do I smell what Rush refers to as a "seminar caller"? Maybe you have always voted Republican. Excuse me for being just a bit skeptical.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 27, 2008 12:50 PMI beleive you are correct that voters will fall into party lines in november. The question is who will still consider themselves a democrat or a repulbican? I do not see the clinton/obama feud discouraging anyone from staying a democrat. The McCain folks however seem to be going out of their way to make Paul supporters feel unwelcome. Why??? According to my LD chair it is because Paul supporters are not real republicans are an embarresment to the KC GOP.
From the stories I have read across the nation... His disdain for RP supporters is shared by most those in positions of power and in fact many go much further in their attempts at discouraging participation from Paul supporters.
I am left wondering whether Paul supporters will see this as a challenge to stick with it and oust these leaders or give up and leave the party. In either case I do not see them supporting McCain.
Posted by: Lysander on April 27, 2008 02:03 PMThe republican candidate with the most support from non church goers was Ron Paul. The Mccain crowd has not been courting this group at all. In fact they have been actively discouraging them.
Posted by: Lysander on April 27, 2008 02:07 PMLet's be clear about something in this discussion. You have about as much working knowledge of the thinking of church-goers as I do of regular pot smokers. Meaning, about nil.
You are a perfect example of liberals who quite literally don't understand what all the fuss is about.
The people liberals spend time condescending toward, calling "bitter," and wondering "what's the matter" with them have a different view. They go to church and over their adult lives have made choices about which house of worship they choose to attend (and expose their family too). And candidly, Barack Obama's choice of a pastor will raise questions in their mind about his decision making ability.
The issue has nothing to do with people urinating in their britches over loony comments from a pastor, whatever his skin color. They have to do with Barack Obama's choices as an adult and what they say about his character and fortitude.
Don't believe me? Ask Presidents McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 27, 2008 02:08 PMI did recently read that Ron is still campainging, and drew a crowd of 1500 in PA, but I'm not sure WHY he's still campaining.... at least as a Republican. I think I might have more respect for him if he just admitted he wasn't a Republican and declared himself to be Liberatrian or whatever. As it is now, he is just serving to be devisive and that benefits no one... not even him.
" Others in the party not affiliated with McCain's campaign predict that most of Paul's small-government followers will choose the least worst option in November. "
" "A large portion of those Ron Paul supporters are anti-Bush, anti-war Republicans," he said. "They'll wind up back with McCain because, while they may disagree on the war or be mad at Bush, the prospect of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is more frightening." "I hope so. Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 27, 2008 02:21 PM
Eric,
I do go to church, regularly. I am an evangelical, yet others here call me a liberal. I am not. I would call myself a moderate independent, but these days you either drink the Rove Kool-Aid or your a Liberal. You need to remember that the Church should not be beholden to any political party. The Republican party has not done very much for their evangelical backers. In fact, read David Kuo's book, and you would see that Rove and likes mock evangelicals behind closed doors. Then you have the Bill Kristol's of the world, or even more offensive, the Rush Limbaugh's of the world that wishes violence upon a city. The sooner evangelicals move beyond being beholden to a party the better. Jim Wallis' work with the Great Awakening in bring many different arms of the evangelical community should be where we are focused. People like Tony Perkins is finally recognizing that as evangelicals we are called to a mission that doesn't fit political party lines. When one combines the moral gospel and the social gospel, which is what Wallis' is discussing in the Great Awakening, you have the full gospel being preach. The full gospel not only concerns itself with souls, but also with feeding the poor, taking care of the elderly, visiting the imprisoned, and being good stewards of the earth the Lord has made for us. You really need to, yourself, broaden your evangelical roots to discover much more of the gospel than the strict, fundamentalist, non-denominational, Republican-based agenda you have concentrated on.
McCain has a preferential option for the left on damn near every issue of consequence.
Posted by: JDH on April 27, 2008 03:03 PMI don't disagree with large swaths of what you wrote, mostly about the gospel, though we probably disagree on what that means for public policy (and your read on Rove is wildly off in my view).
Nonetheless you describe a "strict, fundamentalist, non-denominational, Republican-based agenda." That's not my point at all. I dislike the kind of churches you're probably thinking of, at least for my own choices in a house of worship. Moreover, that's not the point of what I'm saying.
I've repeatedly added qualifiers to these discussions to note that a highly significant number, though certainly not all, church-goers are going to raise an eyebrow at Jeremiah Wright and why Obama chose to attend his church for twenty years. You are a prime example of a church-goer who isn't as concerned. That's fine.
I fear you've descended into stereotype in your presumption of what does and does not constitute a Republican-leaning church-goer (or even a relatively nonpartisan voter who is willing to cast a vote for the GOP at times). This issues is a lot bigger than what you describe. Why, for example does Barack Obama keep losing badly to Hillary Clinton among white Catholics, even those who don't attend services weekly?
John Kerry didn't just lose among the "strict, fundamentalist, non-denominational, Republican-based" folks you describe. He got creamed in general among the entire demographic group of voters who attend services regularly, which as you allude to is rather broad. Barack Obama may be on his way to performing even worse among them.
P.S. I'm aware of David Kuo's work. I think he missed the mark badly in my own experience with some of the same initiatives and same crowd of who he speaks.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 27, 2008 03:34 PMWhat I did take offense to in the 2000 election was postering of cars in the lot by some well-meaning, but misguided Religious Right folks (not sure if they were members or not) with a flyer that equated voting on issues such as gun control was a religious issue. The Second Amendment does not exist in the Bible and has nothing to do about moral stands. Whether one is for or against it, they have no business equating it with God's chosen person (Bush). It is Rove who has admitted that playing the God card was a strategy to get elected. It was also Rove who made fun of evangelicals behind closed doors.
My issue with the Jeremiah Wright issue is that it is the same, non-religious right-wing talk radio folks that are constantly raising the issue to divide Americans. I don't agree with Wright's Black Theology, which isn't the same as the ultra-Black Theologians (if one looks closely), but at the same time I didn't grow up under Jim Crow, like Reverend Wright. I didn't grow up black and know segregation. If you look at the actual, full sermons, you will see a different picture. The picture still may be unconfortable, but if speaking to a black congregation that has to live day in and day out in a community, how would you or I actually try to reach them. Reverend Wright's lifetime body of work has demonstrated that he did reach out to the community sharing both the moral gospel of bringing blacks to Christ, at a time of many blacks going to Black Radical Muslim theology, and the social gospel of making the community better place and thus shining Christ's Love in a forgotten world. It is easy for us to sit in predominantly white suburbia and throw stones. It may be quite different if we were called to be missionaries to the inner-city. What gospel would we preach there? Do you really think that the gospel preached at your church would reach the South Side of Chicago in its current form, or would it have to be revised to meet that audiences needs? It should be noted as we come up to Pentecost that one of the miracles of the Gift of Tongues and the Holy Spirit coming down and entering the masses upon that day was the speaking of the language of the Gospel to the visitors in a way they could understand it. It was a broadening of the gospel beyond its Jewish-Jerusalem base. When Paul went on his ministry journeys to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, he did not preach the Jewish Gospel. He preached a Gospel that would address the Gentiles needs. You are critical of Reverend Wright, but how would you preach to the South Side of Chicago? Would you be able to reach the number of souls Reverend Wright has reached through his ministry? Would you be able to also perform all the social gospel works that he has inspired his church to perform in the area? It is easy to be a critic on the outside. It is much harder to actually do the work where it needs to be done. Remember that Christ asked those that were ready to stone the woman that he without sin was free to cast the first stone. The mass walked away.
Posted by: tc on April 27, 2008 04:00 PMI don't doubt for a minute that Wright has brought many people to Christ who might not otherwise have done so. I also don't doubt for a second that his church has done much to aid and assist people in a troubled community.
None of that detracts, however, from the fact that Jeremiah Wright has repeatedly said some things from the pulpit that most people - my God, even the New York Times editorial page - would find reprehensible.
Why Barack Obama willingly chose to attend the man's church for twenty years (while claiming he disagrees with such statements) is going to be something that a fair number of American voters are going to have trouble understanding.
Lastly, I likewise attend a church where the pastor almost never talks politics and emphasizes service to the community (plus lives in a way to back it up!). I don't see what any of that has to do with the political issue at hand.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 27, 2008 04:14 PMYou have not been paying attention if you think the McCain / Gop establishment are ignoring Paul. Take a look at what just happened in NV this weekend! Or MO or FA or MN earlier. Or even at most an LD caucus in King County. Talk to my LD chair Ross Marzolf for a good idea what the typical response has been. That man spent quite a bit of time and preperation to attack Paul and only Paul at his little caucus.
Paul is still running because people are still supporting him. He has said as much many times. Why are people still supporting him? Because they think he best characterizes the small government that people expect the GOP to promote and most feel that McCain does not come close to even poorly representing such ideals. He in fact opposes them.
His continued campaigning will allow Paul supporters and Paul himself to make a presence at the national convention showing the country that the GOP is not a hopeless cause as shown by the McCain campaign but in fact a party that is deeply divided. You might think that not showing unity weakens the GOP. I think unity behind McCain weakens it far more. We are divided and that has to be accepted. Now the choice before you is do you fall on the side of pro government McCain or small government Paul?
Honestly though, there isn't much difference between McCain and the other two. McCain wants to close Guantanimo and smash the economy on the altar of faux Global Warming. McCain even admitted he didn't know anything about the economy.
But that doesn't mean for a second I won't keep fighting to expose the true Obama, a racist, elitist Marxist. As for Hillary, what can one say? It is truly an entertaining show with her and bill.
Two, three or four years from now, when the chickens of the disasterous shared policies of the three come home to roost, my hands will be clean and well as my conscience.
So to the refrains of "woe is McCain" let me say this "I feel your pain".
Posted by: pbj on April 27, 2008 04:34 PMA big part of the issue is the fact that Hannity and company are making this an issue by slicing and dicing the sound clips, and then replaying the most offensive pieces over and over. Do I understand the Black Church? No, I will be the first to admit it. I also know that what we here today of MLK is only the white-acceptable sound bites, like the I have a dream speech. What isn't played is MLK's own Wright-like sermons. Sunday morning is still the most segregated hour, and for that I do not blaim the black worshippers. I have been in the South on occasion, and not just the urban-modern cities, but places like Enfield, NC (Small-town south). It is we who are white that need to come to grips with America's racist past and tell our fellow white brethren, especially our white, evangelical brethren to get over it and knock it off. We, the white, evagelical protestants, need to be the ones that reach out. If we don't like the speech in the Black Church, then WE need to do something about the preception of segregation on Sunday morning. We may dismiss Reverend Wright as crazy or militant, but I for one have not walked in his shoes and seen the things he has seen. The question I ask myself is what would Jesus do? How would he Jesus I know, who ate with the outcass and undesirables of his time, do? What would the religious radical that claimed to be God incarnate to a Jewish people and Pharisee, which was very liberal and radical for the society, do? Huckabee was right. Jesus would not run for political office. You will notice that Mike Huckabee is not one who is jumping on the lynch Reverend Wright bandwagon. He grew up in the South and is a preacher. He knows a little bit more about this subject. He, I believe, is doing what Jesus would do. You see, it is perfectly fine to disagree politically. Heck, if you see the Wright-Moyers interview, one could clearly see that Wright doesn't necessarily agree with Obama with regards to Politics or political matters.
One final point, if Republicans want to make a difference to the independent voter, to the first time voter, to the young, then they need to get over this politics of division and politics of guilt by association. If you play Hillary, Bush, and Rove's game, you will end up with the same high negative she has and Bush has. Everyone here wants to bask in Reagon glory. Reagon did reach across the aisle. Reagan knew when to stand his ground and when to give ground to gain the most important points. Huckabee recognized this and for the Republican candidates was probably most like Reagan in this regard. His problem and why I ended up narrowing my Republican choice to McCain was his overall ability to win the nomination. He had too many hurdles, mainly number of other candidates, but also fund-raising, that doomed his candidacy. On the Democratic side, no matter what those here may say, the most Reagon-like candidate is Obama, from different aspects, like his oratory skills, and ability to listen to others (another gift that Reagan possessed). Maybe this is why Republicans are working so hard to get Hillary nominated, because they know they can play her divide and polarize game.
Posted by: tc on April 27, 2008 04:45 PM
Tsk tc. Back to Democrat propaganda camp for you! Didn't you get the memo? When trying to subvert your opposition, you absolutely MUST spell the names of their heroes correctly when you attempt to convince them that your guy is just like their hero.
It is REAGAN, not "Reagon". I know, as a deeply indoctrinated liberal, it took all the strength you had not to type "Ray Gun" like liberals tend to when mocking the gipper's Star Wars programs. Oh and that is another area where Obama differs with Reagan.
Usually the perennial themed "True conservatives vote for liberals" liberal articles come out in the MSM about two to three weeks prior to the November election. You are shooting your wad early my friend.
Of course Obama is absolutely nothing like Reagan. Regan never had a racist bone in his body. Reagan was for personal responsibility, not government handouts. Reagan believed in fighting terrorists like Iran, not sitting down to tea with them. He bombed their butts not butter their toast. Son, I served under Ronald Reagan in our military and Obama is NO Reagan. Obama is none of those things. And I will post, counterpost against you tit for tat night and day if necessary when you go down that road. Care to take me on tc? I got the entire week off. For every post you make I will counter it. Got the time buddy?
No "independent" and I mean NONE get on a blog and lay it on as thick for any candidate as you do. That is how one tells and independent from a partisan. You are a partisan trying to pick off some people for Obama by sock puppetry that frankly isn't even convincing.
Posted by: pbj on April 27, 2008 05:25 PMRarely are they able to be convincing. "Tom" above seems to be a classic example. It's highly unlikely a Republican would use a phrase like "hard line church goers".
Can anyone imagine wasting their time on a leftist blog or talk show playing similar games? This kind of behavior isn't even on our radar screens.
Why are so many on the left phony, deceptive, lying creeps? Don't suppose it has anything to do with them following in the footsteps of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Che would it?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 27, 2008 05:53 PMIt makes no difference if he is able to bring together blacks with rhetoric aimed at them if he simultaneously alienates others. Where I come from, that's not Christian, let alone responsible talk for a preacher.
And for Obama, it brings his judgment squarely in to the spotlight if for no other reason then such radical rhetoric is not presidential politics. Even if we grant that Wright was taken entirely out of context, which is unlikely in light of DVD sales of the sermons in question, there is no excuse for a presidential aspirant to be caught dead within a block of a pastor spewing such hate.
This alone is enough to disqualify Obama in the eyes of most people. Because it's either blind arrogance or blind ignorance and neither of those traits are what most are looking for in a president.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2008 06:10 PMSome have called his performance "charming" and "witty"... the word clown comes to mind.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 27, 2008 06:18 PMBaloney Eric. I grew up in rural Pennsylvania in a notoriously religious and conservative county.
You are a perfect example of liberals who quite literally don't understand what all the fuss is about.
I understand exactly what the fuss is about. What you don't seem to understand is that the fuss is meaningless. Obama's polling numbers have barely budged since the Wright tapes have surfaced. Why? Because the people who are freaking out about the things that Wright said are people who would never vote for Obama anyway.
The people liberals spend time condescending toward, calling "bitter," and wondering "what's the matter" with them have a different view.
Sure, many of them do, but none of those people would be voting for a Democrat anyway. The people who do recognize that something is the matter in small town America today understand that the roots for those problems lie with Republican governing philosophy. And they're fed up with being told that hating gays is more important than health care.
They go to church and over their adult lives have made choices about which house of worship they choose to attend (and expose their family too). And candidly, Barack Obama's choice of a pastor will raise questions in their mind about his decision making ability.
No, it won't. Most people in this country (like Mike Huckabee) understand that pastors in black neighborhoods have reason to be angry about what's happened in this country. And they recognize that because many of them are just as angry themselves over how much America has coddled corporations, wasted their tax dollars on senseless military adventures, and forgotten about them. Jeremiah Wright isn't even an afterthought.
The issue has nothing to do with people urinating in their britches over loony comments from a pastor, whatever his skin color. They have to do with Barack Obama's choices as an adult and what they say about his character and fortitude.
What's wrong with his choices? The fact that you haven't quite figured out how out of touch you are with black America by your surprise that black pastors speak like that is why we're all making fun of you. I've seen a black pastor in Seattle speak like that - at a "Say no to violence" rally no less. I love how you call me out of touch and then still hold on to this belief that a pastor in a predominantly black neighborhood says the things that Wright says. Have you ever even met a black person in your life?
Don't believe me? Ask Presidents McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry.
Didn't McGovern lose to Nixon? Are you going to argue that Nixon won because of his character? Are you really that dumb?
Posted by: thehim on April 27, 2008 06:33 PMI love how you call me out of touch and then still hold on to this belief that a pastor in a predominantly black neighborhood says the things that Wright says.
I love how you call me out of touch and then still hold on to this belief that it's shocking that a pastor in a predominantly black neighborhood says the things that Wright says.
Posted by: thehim on April 27, 2008 06:37 PMWhat does his color or his neighborhood have to do with his "God-damn"ing America?
It has a lot. There's still a lot of justifiable anger in black neighborhoods over how the American government has treated them. From slavery to Jim Crow to the drug war, predominantly black communities have long been on unequal footing. As I've pointed out several times already, even Mike Huckabee came out an defended Jeremiah Wright over this fact.
Those who continue to deny this reality in 2008 are now the fringe, not the "urban liberals" like myself who get it. For a long time, politicians have been able to score votes by playing on people's prejudices. What's happening this year is that the next generation of voters is fed up with it and fighting back. Things like this happen when times are tough economically.
Posted by: thehim on April 27, 2008 06:52 PMIt's hyperventilating hyperbole like that makes liberals look ignorant beyond belief. Perhaps tc can point to those who are calling for a lynching of Jerry Wright. You can make 10 valid points that are erased by one ignorant statement like that above.
on a side note: Why is Obama running from Clinton in debates? God forbid he be asked questions while running for president of the United States.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 27, 2008 07:08 PMYou couldn't be more arrogant and condescending if you tried.
I mean, really. I get it already. You know everything and it's everybody else who doesn't 'get it'.
Guess what? A lot of us do get it. And come November, people like you are still going to be wondering why everybody else is so schtoopid, because, gosh, 'everybody you know voted for McGovern'.
I've seen your type for years, and the end result of the candidates you support for the White House is always - always - the same. You lose because - hint - it's you that's out of touch.
Posted by: jimg on April 27, 2008 07:09 PMI think we have some broader disagreements about the role, history, and beliefs of the modern political parties. Your view of the Republican party appears constructed largely on a number of incorrect theories - long-favored in some corners of the MSM - that are dramatically coloring your thinking but which have much less basis in fact. That's a broader and more detailed debate than I have the time or inclination to engage in this evening.
One last point, however, on the Obama issue. I think at this point many a Republican would rather run against him in the general, even understanding the potent fundraising and idealistic-youth inspiring ability he has. Republicans aren't cheering for Clinton's nomination, they're cheering her continued presence in the Democratic nomination battle. Big difference.
thehim -
Listen, we're going to agree on very little besides some transportation policy and probably the Seahawks. Just because I don't buy your point of view doesn't make me stupid. If I turned that around I would think you are a real ignorant ass. But, I don't. I just think you're wrong.
I'm well aware of how black churches worship and conduct themselves. I've experienced it live and in person with my freshman roommate in college (thus, I've probably met an African-American or two).
The style isn't the issue. The content is. Just because other African-American pastors may use similar language doesn't make it right. And when even the New York Times editorial page calls Wright's statements racist it's a substantial problem for Obama.
For my own part, I have walked out of a church because of a Sunday sermon. I and my family later left that church, for reasons including that. So, please don't deign to lecture me on my understanding of how one does and does not conduct oneself when one disagrees with something from the pulpit.
You'd be better served arguing that general election polls in April (before the Democratic nominee is even decided) are relevant to understanding how the nation will respond to an actual general election campaign when the full electorate is actually engaged. Those, by the way, are about as insightful into the actual outcome - even if Obama wins in November - as polls last year showing Rudy Giuliani on track to capture the GOP nod.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 27, 2008 07:15 PMYou're probably right.
I mean, really. I get it already. You know everything and it's everybody else who doesn't 'get it'.
I'm far from along in "getting it." Most of America "gets it." That's why Republicans all across the country are losing elections.
Guess what? A lot of us do get it. And come November, people like you are still going to be wondering why everybody else is so schtoopid, because, gosh, 'everybody you know voted for McGovern'.
Do you really think this is going to be a good year for Republicans? McCain certainly has an opening this year. If Hillary Clinton pulls some shenanigans to wrestle the nomination from Obama, that will be a godsend to the Republicans. Otherwise, once Obama makes it official, this year will be a complete disaster for Republicans. This country despises the Bush Administration right now and the economy is in deep trouble.
As I keep having to point out, one would have to 50+ years old to even have a vague recollection of the election of 1968. The fact that you think the name George McGovern is relevant in this election year should be the best indication of how out of touch you are.
I've seen your type for years, and the end result of the candidates you support for the White House is always - always - the same. You lose because - hint - it's you that's out of touch.
Times are changing. Get ready for it.
Posted by: thehim on April 27, 2008 07:25 PMI wouldn't have said this 6 months ago, but I'd say the Republicans have an excellent chance of retaining the Whitehouse this year. It might be the Lincoln Chafee/Olympia Snow wing of the party, but given the options this year I'd take him 7 days of the week and twice on Sunday.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 27, 2008 07:38 PMSo do you think that Jeremiah Wright is different from the black pastors you've seen? Are you certain that nothing said by that pastor over the years would be as "controversial" as what Wright said? For 30 years of preaching, I seem to just be seeing the same few clips over and over again.
The style isn't the issue. The content is. Just because other African-American pastors may use similar language doesn't make it right. And when even the New York Times editorial page calls Wright's statements racist it's a substantial problem for Obama.
If the New York Times called his statements racist, they made a tremendous error. He has never uttered anything that one can argue is racist. I asked this at HorsesAss and challenged the stable of trolls to point out what he's said that was racist. All I got were a bunch of out-of-context quotes that were far from being actual racism. I'm telling you know, and you can believe me or be surprised later, that calling Jeremiah Wright a racist is going to backfire in a huge way.
For my own part, I have walked out of a church because of a Sunday sermon. I and my family later left that church, for reasons including that. So, please don't deign to lecture me on my understanding of how one does and does not conduct oneself when one disagrees with something from the pulpit.
I would never do that. But you're the one lecturing Obama on that. You're the one saying that one must abandon a church when they disagree with something from a pulpit. I don't find that to be realistic. I'm certain that people belong to churches for more than just what a pastor says. They belong to a church because it provides a sense of community. And in the part of this country where Jeremiah Wright preaches, this certainly carries more value.
You'd be better served arguing that general election polls in April (before the Democratic nominee is even decided) are relevant to understanding how the nation will respond to an actual general election campaign when the full electorate is actually engaged. Those, by the way, are about as insightful into the actual outcome - even if Obama wins in November - as polls last year showing Rudy Giuliani on track to capture the GOP nod.
But trends matter. And even with so much scrutiny on Wright, Obama's numbers have remained the same. Giuliani was a joke of a candidate, and as voters became familiar with that fact, he fell off the table. You seem to believe that Obama is going to do the same, but you're massively misreading where this country is at. They give a flying f*ck what Jeremiah Wright says or why Obama went to that church. They care about why they're a lot poorer than they were 8 years ago.
You're right that the polls will still move a lot, but they will start moving when the nation gets a better contrast between where the Democrat can lead this country and where the Republican can. If you actually think that Jeremiah Wright is going to factor into that equation, I have no qualms at all about ridiculing your intelligence.
Posted by: thehim on April 27, 2008 07:41 PMRick, I'm glad you said this because it gives me a good chance to demonstrate how out of touch all of you are.
I'm going to assume that you don't think George W. Bush is an empty suit. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Now that would mean that you:
1) Think Barack Obama is an empty suit
2) Think George W. Bush has more substance than Obama
If you think that holding those two beliefs don't place you square in the crazy nutjob segment of our population, than you really need to get out more...
Posted by: thehim on April 27, 2008 07:48 PMCorrect. He served 2 terms as Governor of Texas.
"Now that would mean that you:
1) Think Barack Obama is an empty suit"
Correct. Great reading apprehension skills since that is what I clearly implied in the post @ 51.
"2) Think George W. Bush has more substance than Obama"
Correct. Obama is a first term U.S. senator who's been running for the presidency for at least half of his term as Illinois Senator. I guess constituents be damned. Bush at least had a resume prior to running for President.
I guess the "crazy nutjob segment" of our population is in the eye of the beholder. Propping up an empty suit doesn't change the fact that it is still an empty suit.
Posted by: Rick D. on April 27, 2008 08:31 PMObama himself came out today and said that Rev. Wright is a legitimate political issue. So that kind of blow's your "stick to the issues," etc. defenses out of the water.
The reality is that for many Americans this is a legitimate frustration. Even as you say that whites can't understand black's frustrations, it would be easy to turn the tables on that argument and say that liberals can't understand why screaming "God Damn America" would be frustrating to conservatives. It's the same hide-behind-some-label nonsense.
But hiding behind labels, although that provides a convenient extension for today's Progressives has the exact opposite effect of the Progressives desire for unity and hope and change.
We're never gonna get where we want to be with preachers like Jerimiah Wright. Sensible Americans implicitly understand that concept, and that's why Obama has badly damaged himself, probably beyond electability.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 27, 2008 09:07 PMAgreed, that McCain has his own way of vetting Mr. Obama and it all goes to the same place - whether its him or the NC GOP.
John McCain is open to changing his views, but the MSM would lead you to believe he is not and is the third term of Bush, but they are totally in the tank for Obama, so they are being intellectually dishonest as they have always been.
thehim - Comparing Obama vs. Bush is sorry on your part. For one thing, Bush is not running again. About 80% of us agree that electing Bush twice was mistake. However, the sorry Democrats had a pathetic candidate in Kerry who was actually worse than Bush. The Democrats are the irresponsible party, while the Republicans are the stupid party. Even Barack Obama said that McCain would be better than Bush. Conservatives have been stupid lately and they are not always correct. For one thing, Conservatives appear to be for big government, which is a contradiction in their principles besides being stupid. Another case and point: Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by: KS on April 27, 2008 09:39 PMJeff B.,
Listen to the entire Palm Sunday sermon (e.g., GD Sermon). You are taking one phrase out of its context. If you want to fault the sermon, there is plenty to fault him about, but the GD part in context actually is correct (AGAIN WHEN PUT IN THE ENTIRE CONTEXT). It is no different than Haggee saying God brought Katrina upon America to stop a gay pride parade. It is no different than numerous times that Pat Robertson has stated that God will come down on America for its sins. Rev. Falwell has stated the same. Frank Schaffer had an excellent piece regarding his father Francis Schaffer, one of the fathers of the Pro-Life movement, invoking the curse of God upon America for its actions. No, Rev. Wright's issues in the Palm Sunday sermon are the falsehoods, like Aids being a white man generated disease put upon the black man. Look it was a Palm Sunday sermon with the subject being how when Jesus rode into Jerusalem as the hero, the triumphant King, but a few days later the people turned upon him and cursed him. Reverend Wrights main point is not to put your trust in government for the answer. God's kingom is not of this world, which is what the people of Jerusalem were seeking. In essence, his sermon backs up the more Republican viewpoint that government can't and shouldn't be the answer to societies problems.
Eric's original topic was addressing a potential danger zone for McCain, e.g., how to stay above the fray. Eric and others here have missed a more serious danger zone for McCain that I wish someone would correct him on. I am not talking about the confusion of Shitite and Sunni, although he should know better. I am talking about his lack of economic knowledge that make his make foolish statements. Over the weekend, he was promoting his tax cut proposals against both Democrat's proposals. He unfortunately equated raising the Capital Gains tax as hurting the millions of people who have money in pension funds and 401K's. He stated that raising the Capital Gains Tax will hurt pension and 401K owners. Maybe he doesn't fill out his own taxes, but he, as a Senator, that has to vote on these things year in and year out, should know that pensions and 401K's do not fall under Capital Gains. Someone needs to show him a 1040 form and note to him that pensions and 401K's are deferred salary income and show up on lines 15 and 16. Capital Gains is noted via Schedule D and shows up on line 13. Pensions and 401K's are taxed upon distribution at the same rate as regular income and not at the lower Capital Gains rate. His people need to correct him on this, so it doesn't blow out of proportion and be used to negate the real issue to be discussed (e.g., which taxes would be beneficial to lower vice which areas should receive special deductions).
Posted by: tc on April 27, 2008 09:53 PMHe said that on Fox News Sunday. He was focusing his message to the radical fringe that actually believes it. As I've pointed out numerous times, Obama's numbers have stayed steady despite the Jeremiah Wright nonsense.
The reality is that for many Americans this is a legitimate frustration. Even as you say that whites can't understand black's frustrations, it would be easy to turn the tables on that argument and say that liberals can't understand why screaming "God Damn America" would be frustrating to conservatives. It's the same hide-behind-some-label nonsense.
I totally understand that there are people are frustrated by a black pastor screaming "God Damn America". None of those people are going to vote for Obama anyway. That's the point. As a political issue, all it could potentially do is motivate the far-right loony-toons to vote. Otherwise, it doesn't turn an Obama voter into a McCain voter.
We're never gonna get where we want to be with preachers like Jerimiah Wright. Sensible Americans implicitly understand that concept, and that's why Obama has badly damaged himself, probably beyond electability.
I've asked this over and over and over again, but I can't seem to get an answer. If Jeremiah Wright is so badly damaging, then how come it's been all over cable news for weeks and yet it has done little to Obama's polling?
Sensible Americans understand that there's a lot of anger in African-American communities. Sensible Americans understand that as a country we've far too often failed African-American communities in this country. And sensible Americans know that a few 30-second snippets do not define anyone, let alone someone like Jeremiah Wright. As is always the case with you guys, you're being fooled by those who count on your inability to think for yourself.
Posted by: thehim on April 27, 2008 10:17 PMGood lord tc, in what context is it appropriate to say white people invented AIDS to kill black people? Please explain.
Posted by: pbj on April 27, 2008 10:44 PMHe never said that "white people" invented AIDS to kill black people. He said that the government invented AIDS to kill black people. That's obviously still insane, but by changing what he said to "white people," you're changing it from being anti-government to being outright racist. And this is how so many people here have been fooled into thinking that Wright is a racist when he's not.
Posted by: thehim on April 27, 2008 10:50 PMI hope he answers.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on April 27, 2008 10:51 PMWell sensible Americans agree there's lot of anger in amongst African Americans. Case in point, Wright's sermons. The question is why. And more importantly, what are African Americans going to do about that. We all get angry. But the sensible among us know that even if anger is justified, it's not necessarily going to get us what we want, or excuse us from our behaviors or responsibilities. Most of what happens to us is a result of our own choices. Smart African Americans have moved on from anger and victim self denigration, and listening to preachers who feed them such nonsense and simply joined the rest of America. Just like smart Irish, Italians, Asians, etc. Only fools will sit there angry forever, blaming everything on some other skin color and waiting for the government to create change that ultimately can only come from each individual.
I don't know what polls you are looking at, not that polls mean jack shine anyway, but Obama has clearly been hurt by Wright. But I'm sure that right up until election night with the usual wrong MSM exit polls, you'll be believing what you want to hear, and thinking that most of America thinks Reverend Wright is just dandy.
Wait a minute. Aren't you liberals always telling us how we must take Rev Wright in context? Who in Rev Wright's mind runs the government, the black folk? Is that why he always says the country is run by rich white men?
No one has been "fooled" into thinking anything at all. Rev Wright has said over and over as nauseum that RICH. WHITE. PEOPLE. RUN THE USA OF KKK!
You are a damn apologist for the racist.
There is NO context under which reasonable people can look at Rev Wright and conclude anything other than he is a racist.
You say "Obama's numbers have remained the same." Well, you can parse national polls numbers lots of different ways. But since Obama's star began to dim he has lost every big state contest to Clinton, by significant margins. Moreover, the white working class voters he began to make inroads with in Virginia and Wisconsin are now back off the wagon. National polls - conducted in many a state that has already voted - can say one thing, the results of individual primaries are saying another.
Put a different way, if your read on the electorate were entirely correct, Darcy Burner would be a Member of Congress today...and it wouldn't have been close.
Posted by: Eric Earling on April 28, 2008 07:08 AMWhat Reverend Wright has to say goes beyond this election, the same with Obama's race speech. No matter who is President, we can't start to address some of society's problems until we have an honest review of our history. We all like to put on our rose-colored glasses and see the world our way. We want to deliver our culture to those who are not like us. We need to wake up. For example, instead of assuming America style democracy for Iraq (Neo-con vision), maybe we should have taken time to understand the centuries old tribal strife that has plagued this region before invading. Sadaam had squashed dissent for a couple of decades. Did we really think the Shites were just going to forgive and get along with the minority Sunnis? Did we think the Sunnis would give up majority power to the Shitites? Did we think the Kurds, who Sadaam's Sunni's attacked viciously would just roll-over to the new Shitite regime? It is like Reverend Wright talks about in his interview with Moyers, where white missionaries would come to Africa and force their European hymns and culture upon them and expect them to follow their religion in the "white" way. You can see this example in the Pacific Islands also, like Hawaii. I think again of the movie Amazing Grace and the scene where William Wilberforce when below deck on the slave ship to see the true horror of the slave transportation, or the scene where Wilborforce's Pastor, John Newton (author of the song Amazing Grace) is describing the horrors he witnessed as a slave ship captain and how it brought him to see the light. I think of the gall of the one Parlimant member offering up his N----r to cover his part of his poker bet to Wilberforce and how it made Wilberforce never play poker again. The Republican party has fallen so very far from its Abolitionist roots.
Posted by: tc on April 28, 2008 09:22 AMBecause Jeremiah Wright -- the respectful word "Reverend" seems grotesquely out of place now -- is shouting out the slander catechism of the Left. His sermons say exactly what other Leftists say in calm voices, over and over again. Mr. Wright just does it with real, raw hatred, and every new slam is cheered on by his jubilant congregation. His is not a lone voice. He just sings the music to fit the words.
We have been nursing a viper in our national bosom. Seven years after September 11, 2001, this is the moment of truth, when the Left must finally decide what side it's on. Wright's sermons may signal the end of the Obama campaign, and they may mean the breakup of the Democratic Party as we know it. I don't see how any centrist Democrat can still belong to this partyif Obama is its nominee. Jeremiah Wright may mean the historical end of the Civil Rights Era, because fifty years after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Left's presumption of victimhood and innocence is now gone.
Read more here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_moment_of_truth_for_the_le.html
Posted by: JDH on April 28, 2008 10:09 AMAbsolutely. But the weight of what to do certainly falls on not just African-Americans, but the rest of us as well. When you understand that the disparities in our justice system are a big part of the problem here, you understand that this is a problem that the African-American community can not fix on their own.
We all get angry. But the sensible among us know that even if anger is justified, it's not necessarily going to get us what we want, or excuse us from our behaviors or responsibilities. Most of what happens to us is a result of our own choices. Smart African Americans have moved on from anger and victim self denigration, and listening to preachers who feed them such nonsense and simply joined the rest of America. Just like smart Irish, Italians, Asians, etc. Only fools will sit there angry forever, blaming everything on some other skin color and waiting for the government to create change that ultimately can only come from each individual.
Sure, and the problem here is that you've only been listening to a few snippets of Jeremiah Wright's long tenure and convinced yourself that he disagrees with you on this point. He doesn't. He strongly believes that African-Americans need to make smarter choices. He strongly believes that African-Americans need to reject the impulse to be racist in response to racism. He preaches the importance of family, faith, education, and responsibility. He does absolutely everything you demand black leaders do.
The reason that you think Jeremiah Wright is a racist is not because he's actually a racist. It's because people who don't want Obama to be President are trying very hard to do whatever they can to beat him. I'm warning Eric (and the rest of you) that this strategy is going to backfire in a huge way. Jeremiah Wright is not the radical you think he is and now that he's speaking up, that's going to become very clear.
Posted by: thehim on April 28, 2008 10:22 AMNo you can't Eric. Numbers are numbers. If Jeremiah Wright hurts Obama, you'd see that reflected in the polls. You can't "parse" that any other way.
But since Obama's star began to dim he has lost every big state contest to Clinton, by significant margins.
Um, no. He won Texas. And he was never in contention in Pennsylvania or Ohio to begin with.
Moreover, the white working class voters he began to make inroads with in Virginia and Wisconsin are now back off the wagon. National polls - conducted in many a state that has already voted - can say one thing, the results of individual primaries are saying another.
Show me the polls, Eric.
Put a different way, if your read on the electorate were entirely correct, Darcy Burner would be a Member of Congress today...and it wouldn't have been close.
Baloney, you're comparing a legislative district with the nation as a whole. And I never once said that Darcy would definitely win in 2006. Polls matter. Not to mention that the mood of the electorate continues to change very rapidly. The anti-Republican sentiment of young people right now is something that hasn't been seen in generations.
Posted by: thehim on April 28, 2008 10:29 AMNo, just stupid. I have three daughters and we use Hillary as an example of the type of woman they should make sure not to grow up to be like. Why would I want daughters that cannot tell the difference between a lie and the truth? Hopefully, people don't actually see Hillary as a role model.
While I may not agree with everything McCain believes in, he is our man for this year and I'll be supporting him. Especially given the fact that Obama/Hillary is who he will have to face. I just find it incredible that with all of the amazing people we have in the United States that these three are the best we can come up with for President.
Posted by: Matt Miller on April 28, 2008 11:04 AMThen how do you explain Wright's continuing rhetoric? He spoke at both the NAACP convention and the Press Club over the past couple days. In both cases he continued to make racist remarks. It's pretty hard to keep denying that racism is in the man. He really believes there are black brains and white brains. If a white man said that, his career would be over. This kind of double-standard is finally coming to a head in this country. Past racism does not justify future racism, and especially not one-sided divisive classist racism.
And what good does it do for Christian values, or American values to promote family values in a back-handed way for one's parish, which is really aimed at his race? Wright's church has a stated tenet that blacks should not give in to what he calls "middleclassness." Can you explain to me how that is an example of him doing everything that conservatives, or for that matter reasonable middle class Americans would like him to do? And if not, at least explain why the rest of America should not find that offensive and creating antagonism amongst his flock towards us in the middle class, be we whites or other middle class blacks who don't agree with Wright?
Polls?
How about these two:
Survey USA
PPP Poll
You will probably try to explain these away as primary polls, but primary voters are general voters too. You might think that everything will all fall in line nicely on the Democrat side come November, but McCain is so moderate that for many, he represents a fine Democrat choice in November.
For example, I have a close friend. Latino American second generation. Long time Democrat voter, his whole adult life. He says if Obama gets the nomination, he's voting for McCain.
He's never once made a racist remark. Criticizing the American government is not racism.
It's pretty hard to keep denying that racism is in the man. He really believes there are black brains and white brains.
Please post a link to that quote.
And what good does it do for Christian values, or American values to promote family values in a back-handed way for one's parish, which is really aimed at his race? Wright's church has a stated tenet that blacks should not give in to what he calls "middleclassness."
Please provide a link to that. You're either completely mischaracterizing something or just making it up.
You might think that everything will all fall in line nicely on the Democrat side come November, but McCain is so moderate that for many, he represents a fine Democrat choice in November.
Not if he panders to the Republican base. This is why McCain is stuck. He can't continue to be seen as the moderate while the Republican rank and file are demanding more war and more irresponsible economic stewardship.
For example, I have a close friend. Latino American second generation. Long time Democrat voter, his whole adult life. He says if Obama gets the nomination, he's voting for McCain.
Good for you. Many of my friends feel the same about Hillary. They will vote for either Obama or McCain. McCain was a smart choice for the Republicans this year. He's the best candidate you've had for President since George Bush Sr. and the only person running for the nomination who has a prayer. But the party will still make it difficult for him to win. The wildcard is Ron Paul and his support base. If they decide to support the Libertarian, it be devastating for McCain.
Posted by: thehim on April 28, 2008 12:42 PMNo. What I'm doing is paraphrasing the infamous quote from an elitist New Yorker after the 1972 election. The one who couldn't possibly understand how Nixon was re-elected ... because everybody she knew voted for McGovern.
And I'm using it because it goes right to the core of how a lot of liberals - including you - are acting in the run up to November.
However, I do thank you for admitting your arrogance and condescending attitude. At least you recognize you're being a jerk.
Posted by: jimg on April 28, 2008 12:54 PMAnd this year, you're going to the one sitting around wondering how Obama was elected - because everyone you knew thought the black pastor was so scary.
Posted by: thehim on April 28, 2008 01:03 PMAnd this year, you're going to be the one sitting around wondering how Obama was elected - because everyone you knew thought the black pastor was so scary.
Posted by: thehim on April 28, 2008 01:03 PMYour wrong Rev Wright is doing his pal Barry no good at all.
Here is the exact quote:
“Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality,” he said. Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five. White people clap differently than black people. “Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style,” he said. “They have a different way of learning. And so on.
Any brain scientist will tell you this is hogwash. Blacks are not right brained any more than whites. Some humans might be more right brained than others, but it is not based on color. Reverend Wright does not explain how black scientists use their left bains. Maybe you can explain? But clearly he believes there is some fundamental difference between blacks and whites. Do you believe this? If so, why?
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 28, 2008 01:44 PM
TheHim asked a question: Which comments at the NAACP were racists? I would ask, if you read the Moyers interview, which comments in there were racist? Here is one quote from the Moyers interview from Wright:
BILL MOYERS: So, when Trinity Church says it is unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian, is it embracing a race-based theology?
REVEREND WRIGHT: No, it is not. It is embracing Christianity without giving up Africanity. A lotta the missionaries were going to other countries assuming that our culture is superior, that you have no culture. And to be a Christian, you must be like us. Right now, you can go to Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, and see Christians in 140-degree weather. They have to have on a tie. Because that’s what it means to be a Christian. Well, it’s that kind of assuming that our culture, “We have the only sacred music. You must sing our music. You must use a pipe organ. You cannot use your instrument.” It’s that kind of assumption that in the field of missions, people say, “You know what? We’re doing this wrong. We need to take Christ and leave culture at home. We need to learn the culture of people into which we’re moving, and preach the methods of Jesus Christ using the culture that we are a part of.” Well, the same thing happened with Christians in this country when they said, “You know what? Because those same missionaries who went south, they didn’t let us sing gospel music.” That was not sacred–
I know it is troubling for you that Wright keeps up this rhetoric. It's troubling for everyone, especially Obama. Obama could defuse this at any time by thoroughly denouncing this guy. But he has not. I think it is befuddling to you because like the rest of us, you can't figure out why Rev. Wright keeps opening his mouth, when if nothing else, it's clearly keeping him in the spotlight and detracting from Obama's campaign.
You claim it is a right wing conspiracy, but it is Wright that keeps saying really foolish things. Did you also hear Wright's discussion of accent vs. mispronunciation as he mocked Kennedy's accent?
You probably ought to tune it to what Wright is saying and stop defending him or trying to reframe his remarks. He's not doing Obama or Democrats and favors. And by demanding quotes, you show your unwillingness to be informed about what Wright is saying.
I think the reason is they've lost control of an election process they felt that they had in the bag. They figured they had it made. The media carries their water by bashing the economy. They hope the Iraq War takes a turn for the worst. And they position McCain as too old, and "Bush 3".
Suddenly something Democrats never counted upon to not be able to exploit rears its head in a totally unexpected way. Race.
Desperately they want Rev. Wright to shut up and go away. Obama claims he wants a "discussion about race". Well, he may end up getting one and Democrats surely fear the worst. That the light of day will be shined on one of their dirtiest secrets. Democratic policies for the last 40 years have devastated African American families.
Couple the dangers for Democrats surrounding the race issue with Obama having revealed himself as a big city elitist snob and the left's ill-considered ethanol disaster spells trouble for Democrats with a capital T.
It could be the Dems worst nightmare.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on April 28, 2008 02:59 PMFirst off, I don't claim knowledge on this subject, I am not a brain expert. Do you claim to be a brain expert? Are you speaking with first hand knowledge?
Second, we do know that African culture is Polyrhythmic in its music. There is a lot of overlapping beats. Add to this thought, this bit of information from a drummer on how the different beats and rhythms going on within a drummer opens the brain to a flow between left and right brains. Add to this a look at African culture on how do they teach their practices like dance, hunting, and other survival skills. One begins to see there is a cultural difference. You may call it hogwash. I call it an interesting concept and a learning point that one may want to explore. I do know there are different learning styles. This can be seen in schools, even among the same race of people. When schools try to box everyone into the same learning style, a certain percentage of students do get left behind. Whereas, teachers that can adjust their teaching patterns to include multiple teaching styles do reach a broader cross section of students.
Regarding Post 83:
I am not claiming any right wing conspiracy. You also state that Obama could defuse this at any time by denouncing Wright. Obama has repeatedly denounced the statements that many find offensive. What more are you asking? Has McCain denounced Hagee the person? Has Hillary denounced the partners of the SF law firm that she went to work for out of law school who defended Black Panthers and two were professed communists? How about Bush denouncing Bob Jones for his past remarks? How about the people hear denouncing Rush Limbaugh for calling for riots upon Denver? Is he really wanting to put the Denver police and general public in harms way for his own jollies? Where is the denouncement from the right on Limbaugh's rantings? Imus got in trouble when he stepped over the line, but Rush goes on his merry way. Rush is yelling Fire in a crowded theater. If you are going to hold Obama to a standard, then you better hold everyone else to the same standard. He who is without sin can cast the first stone.
Headlines of articles I've read that somehow mention the wrong rev and/or tie him to Barry and pals... so far... just within the last 24 hours! ...and this is only the primaries!
-Social Conservatives Still a Political Force
-Hillary Shows McCain How to Beat Obama
-Clinton, Obama & the 'Tragedy of the Commons'
-As Wright Speaks Out, New Problems for Obama?
-Wright Has Knocked Obama Campaign Off the Rails
-For Obama, a Voice of Doom?
-Rev. Wright Defends Himself to NAACP
-Rev. Wright's Newest Rants
-Rev. Wright: "I'm Coming After You"
-Rezko, Wright, and Ayers --Not A Law Firm
-The Racial Thing
-Wright Says Criticism Is Attack on Black Church
-Obama's Battles
-Obama's Big Disconnect
-Wright to Obama: 'Coming after you'
-Wright finds way back to spotlight
-Would Obama prefer that we cling to him?
-The Democrats' civil war promises to be a long hard slog.
-The audacious Obamas
-Yes, We Can Hold Obama Accountable
-Obama no longer the darling of his party
-Now the left finds Wright unacceptable?
-"Silence is tacit support."
-Wright adds fuel to Obama's 'firestorm'
-Wright praises Louis Farrakhan
-Official Obama blogger flies Communist Party flag
-Obama's website quietly ditches Hamas supporter
-Obama aide says he didn't mean to blaspheme Jesus
-Obama 'money man' bailed out by 'Israel apartheid' activist
-Extremoids bait Obama on Weatherman tie
-Obama's many Marxist pals
-Jeremiah Wright Still Unashamedly Racist
-Obama Opens The Door and McCain walks Through
-Memphis Blues -- The Obama Variations
-The Wisdom of Reverend Wright
-Barack Obama: The Community Organizer in Chief
-Another Obama Marxist
-Wright equates 'God Damn America' with criticism of black church
-Ayres and Obama:It's Not the Crime, It's the CoverUp
-Reverend Wright's 'Brainy' Theories on Race
-Obama's Weird Idea of 'Bi-Partisanship'
-Rev. Wright Vs. Obama: One And The Same
-What Does It Say about Obama ...
-Why Is the MSM Silent on Bill Ayers?
-Ever Get the Feeling Barry Isn't Being Completely Honest With Us?
-Obama Misdiagnoses the Problem
-Obama's Ayers evasions don't hold up
No. Everybody I know looks at the election this way:
On one side, the choice is a lawyer married to a lawyer and? Another lawyer married to a lawyer.
And on the other side is a genuine war hero who's married to a younger, big-breasted blonde who's made her fortune off beer.
I'll take my chances, thank you.
Posted by: jimg on April 28, 2008 03:28 PMYou didn't answer the question, citing no knowledge but then go on to an elaborate defense essentially stating that blacks are rhythmic. Nice stereotype. I didn't realize that dancing and hunting were survival skills in modern America.
Obama has denounced Wright's remarks, but not Wright. At what point do Wright's remarks become so incendiary that he can no longer afford to be associated with the man at all? That's a good political question, and one that his campaign doesn't seem to be handling too well. From the way Wright is going, it looks like it's going to come to that pretty soon. Go read the left leaning pundits. Wright is not doing Obama any favors, but you have yet to admit that and would rather use straw-man arguments to change the subject to Rush Limbaugh.
Nice try.
Macaca.
The crying about Wright's nasty rantings being "cherry picked" and "taken out of context" exposes you for just how dishonest you are. You might ask Trent Lott what happens when someone on the right makes a truly innocent comment.
Am I enjoying seeing the left's "chickens come home to roost"? You bet. Every minute of it.
@79
And what I'm pointing out to all of you is that the reaction of most Americans is to be annoyed with a media that focuses on horseshit like this rather than the things that matter. Wright can talk all he wants from now until October, but the more the media focuses on him, the more people will tune out the media.
@87
On one side, the choice is a lawyer married to a lawyer and? Another lawyer married to a lawyer.
And on the other side is a genuine war hero who's married to a younger, big-breasted blonde who's made her fortune off beer.
Good luck with that. This isn't 2000 or 2004. People are looking for a little bit more out of their commander in chief than whether or not their wife has big hooters.
@81
oh, and lee...get a job.
Got one. Why don't you get a clue?
Posted by: thehim on April 28, 2008 04:38 PMWow, the economy is doing just fine, but it's the media that's making it look bad to help Democrats? And I'm the one who's out of touch? My lord.
Posted by: thehim on April 28, 2008 04:41 PMHere is a great example of a commentator who is very much of the left, and who just yesterday was like you, defending Rev. Wright, now doing a complete reversal.
And what does it say about weeks of apology for the words of a racist like Wright followed by a sudden expeditious departure? This looks a lot more like a practical fleeing of a sinking ship than an ideological reversal towards a man who sells the most pernicious sort of racism. A Reverend bent on feeding his flock the kind of divisiveness that makes it much harder for Americans to unite under common values.
Classism has always been an important underpinning for the Marxist intellectuals that form so much of the ideology of the left, but it's a long way from the politics of the haves and the have-nots to the the outright hate of black against white pedaled by Rev. Wright.
I'll say one final thing here before I sign off. Hillary Clinton has the power to hand this election to John McCain. There are ways that the nomination fight could unfold that could throw even my own vote to Bob Barr (or whoever wins the Libertarian nomination). But if the Democrats rally behind a single nominee, McCain is toast.
Posted by: thehim on April 28, 2008 04:49 PM