Rev Jeremiah Wright - or WRONG?
 

I've searched for anything here on TFP about the racist rantings of the good Reverend - Spiritual advisor of Senator Barack Obama (as he described) - but alas, I have found none.

So I decided to start a thread dedicated to it.

Tell me something: should someone with this type of "spiritual advisor" - who listened to the counsel of and prayed with this "reverend" every step of they way - be the man who sits in the Oval office?





I say no, unequivocally.

Thanks for bringing this up. It has hit a nerve and I think many are reluctant to address.

By his own consistent and volatile rhetoric, Jeremiah Wright has proven himself to be nothing less than an unapologetic racist. For Obama to attend his church for twenty years, to have a close friendship with him, be married by him, have his children baptized by him, claim his example to be the inspiration for a book and much of his life philosophy, and to serve as an adviser to his presidential campaign, I think it's highly reasonable to consider who the real Obama is. Are Obama's core beliefs actually closer to that of Rev. Wright's?

This is the only response Obama gave on TV yesterday: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html#
His performance was less than strong, let alone presidential.

Rev. Wright has left the Obama campaign. This was the right move, but looks highly suspect and should have happened long ago when this was first brought up in 2007. I believe this will be a serious (but temporary) setback for the Obama campaign.

..

I believe it's going to destroy his race, but when I brought this up a couple weeks ago I was told it was so last years news, not an issue and I was racist for being upset over it.

I still think he will win for the Democrats. He will get pummeled for this in the general election.

I followed the other thread and was very disappointed at how eager some were to paint you as racist. Unlike in Rev. Wright's case, the term racist has become the easy cheap shot for shutting down opposition. There is a place for plain speech when addressing race. IMO Geraldine Ferraro was bludgeoned by the real racists labeling her as one ... that's the trick isn't it?

How many times does Obama have to disavow and disassociate himself from Wright's comments to appease those who are not likely to vote for him anyway?

One question that was never answered in the other theard that dealt with this? Why doesnt McCain (and any past Republican candidate of the last 20+ years) get the same scrutiny for his (their) actively seeking the endorsement of religious leaders like Pat Roberston and John Hagee who make equally bigoted or offensive remarks?

Because the people who care aren't likely to vote for him anyway ;)

Exactly, if the can dub you a racist then they expect no one will listen to you.

See, the reason it bothers me being called one, is that being labeled as one could kill me in the profession I am in.

That's why I take great offense to it. There are pros out there that mention something, like this, and will be tarred and feathered and they weren't the racist ones... just the ones that got dubbed the name.

pan...I guess you took nothing to heart from the last discussion....and you still have not identified the members who called you a racist.

SO please...,enough with the martyr act and give it a rest.

The only tangentially related issue that is worthy of further discussion, IMO, is why much of American hold religious leaders to double standards.

The moral outrage at statements by the likes of Wright, Farrakhan, Jesse Jackon, Al Sharpton and the dealthly silence at remarks by Pat Robertson, John Hagee, etc.

Serious? You think there is silence when those people talk? Anyways, that's besides the point.

Seeking an endorsement for 2 months is MUCH different in my mind than the close relationship Obama has with his pastor. This corrolation would have more weight if McCain had gone to Robertson's house every week for 20 years, gotten married in his garden, and made him his kid's godfather.

Unfortunately for you, this is not even close to the truth. 8 years ago I think he called Robertson one of the greatest threats to America. He's only no longer attacking Robertson to get the nomination.

So how are these similar? Other than you would have voted for Obama regardless?

Because this isn't about McCain, this is about Obama.

You want to start a thread on McCain and his endorsers then go ahead. But this is about Obama.

McCain doesn't say Robertson or Hagee are his spiritual mentors, he doesn't have them sitting on some religious board in his campaign, he doesn't say he turns to them for his spiritual guidance. Neither of them has gone on a trip to Libya in the 80's with one of the biggest, truest of RACISTS Louis Farrakhan as did Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

It's not so much Obama that bothers me over all this. It's the fact that one cannot express how they truly feel about this without being dubbed, implicated as, referred to as a racist and the issue is expected to drop because "only a racist would bring it up.... there's no substance to it except it shows you are a racist..... etc."

Another one of my favorites is "well, you are passionate about this and because of that you are a racist." I'm passionate about it because this is the fucking presidency we are talking about, the leader of our country and I have every right to question his moral character, his choice of spiritual mentor and the church he goes to without having to be attacked.

Seaver and pan....so why isnt Obama's response again yesterday enough:
What more do you think he should do to appease those who are disinclined to vote for him anyway?

Seaver...you would rather vote for a hypocrite like McCain who eight years ago called guys like Robertson and Hagee "agents of hate" but now seeks their endiorsement? It that a person of better character?

And I am not surprised you dont want to discuss the double standards. :)

I have as much right to speak as you do, don't like what I say, there's always ignore, I've used it on several UsTwo was there for 2 years with me.

How come others have seen me called racist but you haven't?

I do not single you out, I do not even mention your name.... so why are you hounding me?

This truly reminds me of the "How dare you question Bush, are you not a true patriot" hatespeak of the GOP not too long ago.

I blindly follow no man/woman, and I will question who I want about what I want when it comes to that person being the leader/figurehead of my country.

The Dems. better come up with more than "racist" as an answer or come Nov. the party will lose in epic proportions, and if the party cannot win this Nov. then the party may as well give it up, cause this election is handed to us on a silver platter and we are still fucking it up and wanting to lose.

pan: there are already 2 threads taken up with your complaining about being labeled "racist" for **the way** in which you brought this topic up.

get over yourself.


i think dc's questions are central at this point: how about addressing them?

pan...just as you have a right to speak here on anything within the rules....so do I.

Because for 20+ years he knew how hateful and racist this man is. He knew this man traveled to Libya with Farrakhan. He knew the radical hatespeak this man gave.... and yet he sought this man out. Got married in this man's garden, went to this man's house at least once a week for 20 years, had this man as Godfather of his kids and ONLY when it has begun to affect his campaign has he done anything about it.

If for 20 years I had as my guru and godfather of my children the Rev. Falwell/Robertson/Hagee, or George W or Cheney and I then distanced myself from them only at a time when I was running for office and the relationship was starting to bog me down...... I would be considered a hypocrite. You would come after me worse for dumping them at the last minute.

If Obama is soooooo shocked and morally hurt by what Wright has said, then why has it taken this to become an issue hurting his campaign for him to distance himself from Wright?

It's bullshit.

What's even worse is attacking people who this is an issue to.

Just as those that questioned my patriotism for my speaking out against Bush... I say to you your blind loyalty and attacks on my beliefs and how I feel about this issue are wrong and more apt to inspire me to rail against the man than to support him.

For 20+ years, this man (Wright) has also been highly respected among most clergyman in Chicago and within the predominantly white United Church of Christ....and recognized for the vast amount of work and commitment his church has given to the community.

You want to condemn Obama for Wright's comments and ignore the broader words and actions of the pastor..thats fine.

I look at the whole person before making judgement.

Obama spent 20 years in the company of someone who's immediate reaction to 9/11 was.....exactly what you saw above - no point in quoting the whole thing. If you can't understand why, after watching that video that this:

"I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another"

...is more than likely a bold faced lie from someone you want to be president, and you really think there's something wrong with those who would like to question this matter a little further, you're frankly hopeless.

You're immediate response to this DC, is about someone's (not entirely clear who) reaction to what Pat Robertson said (not entirely clear what) at some point in time (not entirely clear when). There's only one double standard that should be addressed here and that's the one your actively participating in.

I'd also like to point out that this historically feigned disgust at the any suggestion that a democrat might be unpatriotic is no longer necessary. This reverend is the 20 year friend of what will very likely be their presidential nominee. I'm not saying Obama is or isn't God Damning America, but certainly you can see why making that connection is not just "right wing fear mongering".

Mathew..I wont count you as an Obama vote :)

doubtful

Since I've been avoiding the political talk stuff I only heard about this guy a couple of days ago, and until reading this thread I didn't know just how deep Obama was with this guy.

Can you imagine the outrage if McCain's pastor was this guys white equivalent? The 30 link post missives by host? The name calling by the left posse?

All I can say to this is.......

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/7906/hahapx6.jpg

This will be the first REAL test of the Obama spin machine. I heard he is using the 'we all have a crazy old uncle type' defense.

Sorry, doesn't work for me. The whole 80's/Libya/Farrakhan thing and then to give Farrakhan an award does it for me, as far as Wright goes. As far as Obama goes, it bothers me his supporters and himself instead of addressing issues tend to say these questions are racist and how dare you attack this man and so on....

It also bothers me at the last minute Obama decides to distance himself, but the last 20 years he's been right there.

Sorry, if I'm a racist because I have questions and expect better answers than "racist.... well show me where someone called you racist (which does nothing but deflect the attention off the topic at hand.... which is not whether or not I'm a racist it's about why Obama didn't distance himself from Wright sooner.... again he did so only when it started hurting his campaign and why is it that anyone who asks has their character questioned.

I'm not the one running for office. I don't have to answer any questions because this is not my candidate. But the man running for office DOES need to answer the questions, his supporters DO need to answer the questions and not attack those asking or those supporters and that man will find the issue growing in strength and more issues come out from it and it will cost the man the election.

And to think not long ago I was told this wasn't an issue. Then all of a sudden it's an issue and the answers are still the same, attack attack attack... distance distance distance..... attack attack attack.

Geraldine Ferrero a racist???????? Yet Wright isn't? Wow....... Nov is going to be fun for the GOP.

A complete disavowal of the man, not just his comments, would go a lot further. Nothing short of that would work if this were a white candidate and a white minister and even then I don't think the black community would back off.

It is time for everyone in this country to wake up and realize that racism is NOT a one way street.

Someone who gets it........... Amen brother.

This has never had more meaning to me than it does now:

Sir...I would have less respect for Obama if he completely disavowed the man based solely on his words and at the exclusion of the 20+ years of service and commitment to the minority community in Chicago.

Just as I have loss respect for McCain (who I would not have voted for any way because of policy positions) for his hypocrisy regarding Robertson, Hagee, et al....calling them "agents of hate" in 2000 when trying to appear tolerant to the less self-righteous side of the GOP..then actively seeking their endorsements eight years later to secure the conservative GOP base.

Call me Seymour...Sir is so formal, don't you think? ;)

Maybe he does have 20+ years of service to the minority community (which I respect, btw) but that does not change the racist spewings of his recent past. I cannot help but wonder if the recent past is more the norm and we are just not hearing about it because there were no cameras there. This is only speculation of course but the guy had to know there were cameras there and that he would be recorded. It is customary to tone the rhetoric down a bit, not dial it up, in those cases. At best his words show very poor judgment on his part, at worst he is the black version of a white supremacists.

I stand by my statement that the black community would be up in arms over this and hard to win over at this point no matter what measures were taken.

This is not a thread about McCain but I will say I am no happier with some of his actions in this regard then Obama.

This thread is a mess.

For me this is simple: one of my own greatest personal heros is RFK. He was friggin awesome in a big way and helps to inspire me. Did you know that RFK was directly involved in McCarthy's insane Communist investigations? Not his proudest moment. Does that mean I hate communists? Obviously not.

While I think Obama will survive it, the press is going to give him EVERY opportunity to explain this one and spin it his way, it is going to be very fun.

Its nice to rub some noses in their own hypocrisy now and then.

Will, you ARE a communist. ;)

Exactomundo! I see RFK as a champion of civil rights, something I believe in wholeheartedly, but I choose not to follow his actions regarding communism because I disagree with them.

Look at me, someone called me a racist, look at me everybody, awww come on look at me, I was called racist, LOOK AT ME DAMNIT I WAS CALLED A RACIST.

But seriously pan, drag it back to the other 2 threads that are about you and at least leave one alone. You know for a guy who says 'this isn't about me' you sure have no problem making every thread that mentions race about you and what you may or may not have been called.

I always enjoy McCain's 'spiritual advisor', guess he can get away with it all:
Yeah he seems normal.
Such a lovely man, I wonder what he will say next:

What does the good Rev have to say about Jews:
What the fuck world is this guy living in? Yeah Christians don't get divorced and I'm the fuckin Pope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee

Yep second time I posted this, possibly third, I suppose pan will just say he'll be up in arms just as he is about Obama, but he's ignored it for two other threads, don't see why this one should be any different. I love wasting my time posting.

Unless a person has lived through "Jim Crow" the way many Black Americans in the Reverend's generation has, you should give the Reverend an opportunity to vent.

This is a non-issue. I understand the mental midget, Sean Hannity from Fox making an issue of this, but I am surprised by others who are.

Yes, if you make my concerns about me by calling me a racist and/or minimizing them or putting me on the defense.... I will be pissed and I will start bringing it up every chance I can to remind you that you are not addressing the issues but using attacks to try to silence the questions.

All the above shows me is that Hagee is a white ultra christianic Wright.... racism and bigotry go both ways.

But McCain doesn't seek Hagee as his "spiritual mentor". I can prove many times over where Obama has said that Wright was his.

Seeking one's political support is not the same as going to the church, going to his house once a week, marrying in his garden, naming him godfather to your children and not saying anything about his hatespeak UNTIL it looks like it may cost you votes.

So don't give me lectures how McCain's case is the same because......um it's not even close in my eyes.

You want to address the issue and leave me out of it? Let's do it. But so far it's just personal attacks, it's "look at what McCain does...." and no true responses over why didn't Obama stand up against Wright in 01 when Wright was going off? Why would Obama want to go to a church and call the leader his spiritual mentor, AFTER this man went to Libya with Farrakhan in the 80's (when we weren't to friendly and Farrakhan would come back and talk about how great things were planned with Khaddafi....).

Obama waited too late for me. I have gone to churches and been associated with people who were true racists and bigots and once I saw what they were teaching I left and distanced myself. I immediately disassociated myself.

Obama sits there for 20 years and does nothing UNTIL it looks like he may lose votes? Then and only then does he say.... um I don't approve of any of this.

So in 3 years after people in his cabinet fuck something up and his reelection looks doubtful will he stand up and say..... I don't approve of any of this.

Sorry. But I need more convincing to vote for this man.

I need someone with a bit of a backbone.

(I'm sure the response will only talk about how McCain does and did and says and blah blah blah..... ok so I vote for the lesser of 2 evils.... McCain he still has proven more backbone than Obama. I still know more about McCain than I do about Obama and I have never really been much of a McCain fan.)

Wow.... I truly never thought 2 years ago I'd be saying this but..... given the choices I like Hilary, she is closest to my stands and I think she'd lead better than either of the other 2.

I did like Obama somewhat until all the "ask that question you're a racist.." "Don't go there" and so on tactics. Makes me wonder what else he is covering up

I think it's the responses by his followers, the implications of racism, the flat out calls of racism, etc.

It is an issue tho.

Venting is one thing, going to Libya in the 80's with Farrakhan is something entirely different. And you should know that.

Pan, can you drop the victim act please? You keep bringing this up over and over and over. Let it die. The dead horse is kicked.

Really? Did you not say a week or so ago you'd most likely vote for him anyways? I'll find the post if you really need the proof. Even with all the bitching you've done about him in the past week or more.
Found said post
Again with the personal attacks, if it's a personal attack fuckin report it, if you don't want to report it, then too bad. I'm getting sick of you making every thread about you by crying "they called me a racist waaaaaaaaaaa"
Who was lecturing you? I posted a comment, guess your definition of lecture is as wrong as your definition of personal attack. Key words there in bold, just because you don't think it's the same doesn't make it so.
And again it's all about you and whether you were or weren't called a racist, jesus you enjoy things being about you for a guy who constantly says "this isn't about me"
Venting? You call what Hagee did venting?
But, but, I though McCain was Bushlite?
By your own words that's what you called him. You're a walking contradiction on this one pan, seriously, you're really not too sure what's going on. Maybe you should learn more about Obama then, possibly before you developed this hard on for the man and his church.

<a href="http://www.barackobama.com/"><img src="http://www.barackobama.com/images/widgets/Obama08_Badge2sm.jpg" border="0" alt="Barack Obama Logo" /></a>

Every wingnut accusation about this man just makes me more convinced my vote is in the right place. Thank you for your continued service to our country.

I wish Canadian politics was this much fun, the best we get is the Tory's attempting to bribe a dying MP, then there's the shitty Dion, what a train wreck he is.

But this talking about Obama is rather enjoyable, and if I was an American I'd give the man my vote.

You get decent health care and low crime rates. Be happy.

Great weed too, don't forget that. I am will, wouldn't trade being Canadian for anything, now if we can just solve this Harper dilemma here we'd be rocking.

Lets try the contrast here.

Pretend McCain had attended a pastor's service for 20+ years. He got married by said pastor, had his children baptized by said pastor. For 20 years this pastor actively sought to return segregation. He awarded people who advanced white supremecy, and made no secret of it. Upon running for president he simply shrugged his shoulders and said he doesn't agree with what said pastor would say.

Would you have the same opinion as you hold with Obama?

HIP HIP HYPOCRISY!

The "Chickens coming home to roost..." line is not racist. Many people have the view that American militarism is the reason why our enemies dislike us.

Referring to the US in terms of our society being racist in the past is not racist, it seems to me to be a statement of fact.

Having theories about why Black males are disproportionately incarcerated is a persons theory. If he thinks it is due to racism, we should prove him wrong not dismiss his position.

The US government has used drugs and other sting operations in the Black community to discredit people.

Given American history, he has a prima facia case for his arguments, I think people who disagree, have an obligation to prove him wrong, not just call him a racist. And then on top of that, falsly connect his views to Obama. Obama has enough legit reasons for him not to be President. This is a waste of time for the Presidential race.

I would be suspicious of (and maybe even a little disappointed with) any conscientious, politically-minded black man running for the democratic presidency in this country if he didn't have some involvement with black radicalism in his past.

What are the implications here? Really? Are you afraid that Barack is going to reveal his super-duper, double-secret black supremacy plan upon settling in at the White House?

Even though I rarely agree with you, I've always found your levity to be admirable.

The only interesting issue to me are the apologists hypocrisy.

If a Republican hung out with a white supremacist of the same flavor he wouldn't stand a chance of surviving politically. If it were to happen after an election, the same people saying its not a big deal in Obama's case would be calling for his resignation, loudly.

That's nothing more than a guess.

I don't see any evidence that the man is a black supremacist. That's the thing.

Largely, I find the white response to black advocacy to be reactionary.

Yeah, I'm sort of on board with this. I have not heard everything the man has said and I reserve the right to change my mind if I hear that he thinks other ethnicities are lesser people than blacks or something similar - but criticism of US policies past and present and mentioning that blacks have been hard done by is not overtly racist.

GWB hung out with Ted Haggard and Falwell regularly and took council from them. Falwell... the same guy who blamed 9/11 on abortion..

Flip side, same coin. In my book, they are/were just as crazy as Obama's nutcase pastor.

Not that I think Obama should be given a free pass on this, but lets take Bush to task too.

Pssst....Ustwo, I've got plenty of support for my opinion that the republican party is the party of white supremacists.....in this era....non-stop since Saint Ronald was our national leader.....and according to the late Lee Atwater, back into the 1950's:




Back in 1984, here was "Ron the uniter", declaring the exact opposite of what BofA CEO McColl said, above:
...and just to be sure he had his way, ole Ron appointed to the federal bench, a lawyer named Robert Potter, on record as a critic of busing. Potter, at no one's request, took the law into his own hands:
[quote]
http://books.google.com/books?id=FF4...cR04#PPA331,M1

I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm just enjoying the damage control teams :)

I don't see that any damage has been done. Not in my estimation. But then again, I'm not one of these people who expects a black man running for president to be Colin Powell or some reasonable facsimile.

Matt Yglesias thinks Obama probably got involved in Wright's church because he needed local credibility. He wanted to run for office, his skin was dark but he had no black "experience" - i.e. the normal American history for a black person (remember, he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia; his father was African, not American; and he was raised by a white mother) - so to signal the locals that he was one of them he joined one of their institutions. In other words, going to that church was political opportunism when it started, and he probably had to keep up his local appearance afterwards.

To my ears that sounds about right, because nothing I have heard about Obama personally indicates he actually believes the sort of crap that Wright has been spewing. Of course this does present a problem for Obama. As others have pointed out, this puts him in a bind - if Yglesias is right about why he went to that church, and I suspect he probably is. But it does come back to what I have talked about before, which is that people are trying to make Obama into something he isn't - he's a very talented, very charismatic, very smart politician - but he's a politician, and a pretty conventional urban Democrat at that (albeit more charismatic and clever than most). He's not the messiah. You may or may not like urban Democrats, and that's OK. But take him for who he is, and don't persuade yourself otherwise. People who invest their hopes and dreams in him are gong to be very disappointed when he turns out to have to get down in the dirt with other politicians to get anything done.

loquitor...what you are really suggesting is that Obama supporters take him for what you say he is.

Thanks, but I'll pass. I think that I, and most TFP supporters, are as well informed as you and can make our own judgment.

loquitor has been doing battle with one of these

http://www.treemo.com/files/treemo.desiree.17711.dd.jpg

about "people's perceptions" of obama for a few weeks now.
i dont get it.

This says all I think needs to be said:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/15/7702/

no, dc. I'm just telling you what I think he is. If you want to think otherwise, go right ahead. I still think you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

loquitor...I know the realities of politics and never set my hopes or expectations too high.

I just go with the man or woman who best represents my views and who I believe provides the best chance of moving the country forward...despite the enormous obstacles left by the Bush/Cheney legacy.

QFT. This is all we can do.

And for the record, I agree with every word of the editorial submitted by Secret Method.

That article is desperate and fringe. Read it, then go back and watch the video and think to yourself "i'm agreeing with the suggestion that not only is this guy highly patriotic, but the rest of the world are pinheads for not thinking so"

If the democrats loose this election, you can chalk it up to not necessarily this instance, but this childish denial/elitist attitude that infects that party.

I dont think the "rest of the world" are pinheads.....just the ones in the US who are trying so hard to portray Obama as guilty by association.

The fringe pinheads.

You're also telling us that that you're right and we're wrong. Not the most persuasive rhetorical strategy.

thats a perversion of the phrase "guilty by association". He was preached to by this guy for 2 decades. it's not pinheaded to question him on this. He's not guilty of anything - he might be the president.

Even on your worst ideological day, would you trust the guy in this video to run this country? I'll assume no. If I'm wrong, I'll concede....something, but I'll stop. If you wouldn't, why are you so comfortable having a loyal member/contributer of his "faith", assume that role without having to answer this beyond "yeah, he always talked about love and stuff when I heard him"

The other factor that scares me is his wife saying that she's never been proud of this country in her adult life until now. This to me sounds like they heard everything this guy has been saying.

Call it what you want to satisfy your own agenda. IMO its guilt by association. The pastor and wife are not running for president.

And its still a specious argument.

And I've yet to see anything that he might be 'guilty' of.

It's funny how it's just assumed that we should be threatened by this issue.

Obama picked up nine more pledged delegates from Edwards supporters in Iowa last night.
I guess they havent seen the news about the pastor or the wife....or perhaps they have a "childish denial/elitist attitude" when selecting their candidate for president.

It's been a long standing trend. ;)

if you think about it, the curious aspect of this affair is really that obama reacted. if conservativeland is once again a fringe affair and its inhabitants pissy because they cannot adjust to their new and richly deserved fringe status, it would follow that most of their ideological claims and strategies would also be fringe affairs--so the conservative "understanding" of racism as a type of sentence unhinged from any reference to material or historical reality--that is fringe stuff, and you would think that the days of its traction would be over. so it's a little surprising obama reacted, and that mostly because it gave the inhabitants of conservativeland a chance to pretend that theirs is not in fact a marginal, fringe area of the ideological world.

conservatives increasingly talk only to themselves.

Quoted for Truth.

I love how the left fringe has convinced itself that constantly talking bad about America is somehow going to make themselves popular.

I love how the right can only come up with junior high school-level observations to explain why some people don't think like them.

in fairness, it is generally a younger crowd that doesn't

i think this entire tempest in a teapot has unfolded on basically disengenuous grounds. in the ny times article yesterday which outlined the trajectory of this little affair--how it happened, when it happened, why now, that sort of thing--it is obvious how this took shape: pre-packaged from limbaugh, relayed through faux news and the reactionary blog-world....

there are two kinds of political power: the kind that you see reflected in the number of votes you can muster, and another which lay in the ability to shape the terms within which debate unfolds. i think the right is in for a very rude awalening in the coming elections on the former. i am a bit bewildered as to how they hang on to vestiges of the latter.

but in this amurica, land where money can buy you repetition can buy you legitimacy no matter how fatuous the content, the right maintains a degree of ideological power. this is a little flex, a testing of the waters (to impute a bit of tactical intent to this).

personally, i would like it to become as obvious as possible how this temepst in a teapot happened, who set the terms, how those terms were picked up and repeated, and in whose interests they operate, because it provides a little outline of the continued reach of the pestilence that is the conservative ideological apparatus.

and we wont be rid of it until their ability to shape debates is broken.

when all else fails, talk like that ^^^^

Honestly Roach, I have always respected you.

However, you keep trying to pin this as a strawman argument. This isn't a strawman, would you honestly take this approach if the situation was the reverse? Everyone on this thread has ignored my posts, in part because I honestly believe they have no answer to it.

It were strawman if you would not care if it were a conservative in my example. As it's clearly not the case it's not one.

i dont think your analogy holds any water, seaver.

and i dont think this thread worth the effort of explaining it, because i dont think the tempest at its center is worth the bother---the premise is ridiculous--the editorial that smeth posted above summarizes a bunch of reasons for it--i have others as well---but this issue is not one that i feel should be accorded the respect required to use it to construct arguments against the conservative style of not-really-dealing-at-all with racism in america.
it just isnt.

so if you want to have a discussion, start another thread.

I agree. There are many things about Obama's policy positions that I disagree with but I don't think we should judge him by his old reverend's remarks. This whole racism/sexism rift in the Democratic party is getting ridiculous.

The candidates over zealous supporters are looking for anything to denigrate the other side and the news outlets looking for ratings on slow news days are fueling the fire. I find it amazing that a black man has lasted this long especially one named Barack Hussein Obama. It would be a shame if he was brought down by his old reverand's remarks instead of his personal beliefs and policy positions.

This man has an extreme uphill climb getting past those who are inclined to not vote for a black man and/or those who associate his middle name with some sort of connection to terrorism.

It is absolutely a strawman argument promulgated and perpetuated by the right wing who would prefer to see Clinton as the Dem nominee; someone they believe would be easier to defeat in the general election.

The only persons perpetuating it here are those who would not likely be Obama voters under any circumstances. And even among some conservatives/libertarians here who are not Obama supporters, there are suggestions that the church/pastor are non-issues for judging Obama's fitness to serve.

I agree with Roachboy that it is probably not worth explaining, because I dont think you are likely to listen objectively...but I will try anyway.

The race/church/preacher issue is not resonating with most of those (Dem and Independent) voting in the Dem primaries/caucuses.

One only need to look at the demographics of the Obama voters. Among white voters, he is winning the young vote, the women vote, the Independent vote, the college educated vote, and the upper middle/upper income vote.

He is winning primaries and caucuses in states with very small black populations - Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wyoming.

This doesnt suggest he will win the hard core red states where he won the primary...but those demographics put several red states in play.

The only demographics he is not winning are seniors and blue collar white males...and these groups, if I could generalize, are more likely to have a hidden issue with race.

The exit polls suggest that he does not have an uphill climb with the demographic groups I noted for the general election, particularly among swing Independent voters - young, women, upper middle/upper income, college educated are more likely to vote Obama than McCain.

He may have an uphill climb with seniors..but offset by the fact that this group is also very much opposed to the continued occupation in Iraq which is at the core of McCain's campaign.

The blue color white males (Reagan democrats) will be the toughest for Obama, but can be convinced on pocketbook issues, where McCain has little to offer (extending tax cuts for the wealthy. no real plan to deal with rising health care costs. his history of anti-union votes, etc ).

The Death of Hope?

It's too awful to even contemplate.

What "scares" me is that the right wing "talking points", drummed relentlessly into the deluded "volk" who still so enthusiastically support this economic, military, and foreign policy "train wreck" of an administration, still believe that "their vote" will be enough to move the november election to or away from any presidential candidate.

Stu Epperson and Edward Atsinger III, prominent CNP officers, put together this nifty "noise network" of Salem News Radio's 1600 radio stations, AND townhall.com to champion and distribute, over and over and OVER, the "word" of Jesus/Bush, and the extreme conservative billionaire old christian white men message....

matthew330 posts the very talking points Epperson and Atsinger's "media properties" have rehashed, for weeks now...to the point matthew330 is concerned enough about them, to "share them" with us:

matthew330 and intense1.... you're "fed" this shit....and then you post it on here, and you want us to respect your "opinions". The problem, is that these are not your opinions. You did no independent research, and your opinions are not "shaped"....they're DRUMMED into you.

Was this information drummed into you, five years ago?

The subject of this thread is about a "non-issue" promulgated and spread by conservative christian zealots financed by the CNP leadership. The volks indignant about Jeremiah Wright have no intention of voting for Obama. They have a track record of supporting and voting for candidates with the most disasterous, racist policies imaginable.

Why do you believe and repeat the crap sponsored by the talking heads hired and promoted by CNP's Stu Epperson and Ed Atsinger III and their townhall.com Salem Communications, media properties?

Why, IYO and in the opinion of these conservative propagandists. criticism of and challenging the leadership by those who are in disagreement, characterized as "constantly talking bad about Amerika"?

Why is "the message" about "the left talking bad", "Jeremiah Wright", and "Michele Obama" coming so intensely from such a small corner of the internet, air, and print media, if these "ideas" are a spontaneous, "common sense" reaction arrived at independently by reasonable people from all walks of American life and community?

Funny, I've never heard of Eperson or Asssinger. I'll make you a deal Host...when I come up with something I feel certain no one else on this planet has ever said anything close to, I'll post it on the TFP. In the meantime, I'll consider myself properly fed.

Are you cool with me posting thoughtless and tedious direct quotes from at least 30 of my favorite chefs that say the same thing over and ove on every single thread, even though the thread itself may be completely unrelated?

Let me know what you think before I say something else that may waste another TFP readers time.

I

One thing I can tell you, Host, is that here in Charlotte, NC, there is no such consensus or approval of the public school bussing program, despite what reporters for "The Boston Globe" say.

In fact, I think most would tell you, with a few exceptions, Charlotte-Mecklenburg public schools are shining examples of how not to run educational institutions. Part of the problem is they keep worrying about where to bus this person and that person instead of.. you know.. teaching.

Oh, you mean like making wisecracks about my age or roachboy's posts?

By the way, I'm 42. Hardly part of the 'younger crowd.' :rolleyes:

My reaction to roachboy's post was as dismissive and irrelevant as his was to this thread, with the exception is wasn't veiled in collegiate language. The conservativeland reference is old and meaningless and intentional. It is meant to end a conversation that's not going the way you want it to.

Your post was more overtly insulting toward Seaver and deserved my response, so again...not impressed by your sudden "feigned" disappointment in my attitude.

matthew....I think enough has been wasted on what most here consider a non-issue, with the exception of those who would never vote for Obama or probably any Democrat.

But if you want to keep regurgitating the same old argument again and again....thats your right.

Thats what makes this country great :)

Ironically, its posts like Seaver's...:
....that are common among the right wing who get their panties in a knot when, God forbid, someone on the left express an unpopular opinion.

Good point. Isn't what makes the TFP great is if you have nothing to say about the thread topic at hand (because it's a non-issue or otherwise), you hit the back button?

Insisting it's a non-issue, and pointing out to me your friends here think so to, doesn't make it one.

BtW....what makes you think the conversation hasnt gone the way we (host, mm, secretmethod, etc) wanted?

You havent even convinced some conservatives and libertarians here with your argument that Obama is unfit to serve as president because of his pastor. You've been exposed for the guilt by association that you insist on perpetrating....because you, as someone who would never vote for Obama anyway, insist on making it an issue.

You've only convinced yourself and thats no loss to the Obama campaign.

I never said Obama is unfit, and you've successfully derailed this thread into meaningless bickering about what you think the "rest of you" think.

...and that is why the conversation hasn't gone the way you wanted. No one likes to be pushed into that corner.

The conversation has gone pretty much the way I expected because you (and others) have provided nothing to support your contention...whatever the hell it is now.

Did you read my post about the Obama demographics? Can you point to anything that says this stink about the church/pastor is influencing their decisions or is likely to in Nov?

You guys continue to make the same argument, again and again, and provide nothing to substantiate it. Why is that?

Host provides links that demonstrate how this has been perpetrated by right wing sites.

I provide data that demonstrates how race and the church/pastor has not been an issue for democrats or independents.

secretmethod provides articles that attempt to put it in context.

and you guys provide THE VIDEO..and say...SEE!

You lost yourself. See the OP for my point.

What did I miss in the OP:

Hell...you havent even convinced good conseratives like aceventura or good libertarians like flstf (forgive me if I am mischaracterizing your political persuasion) that this is the case. Go back and read their posts.

ace: This is a non-issue. I understand the mental midget, Sean Hannity from Fox making an issue of this, but I am surprised by others who are.

flstf: There are many things about Obama's policy positions that I disagree with but I don't think we should judge him by his old reverend's remarks

Or are you just pointing to THE VIDEO again?

This is boring. You need the last word more than me....enjoy.

the old "boring" standby defense when you cant explain your own position. :thumbsup:

precisely

...last word. I win!!

huh...and to think i was about to explain my posts to the little dear.


**what** a disappointment that i don't have to.

I blame poor nutrition and recreational drug use.

convenient timing, roach. Nice job getting this thread back on track and not taking the opportunity to belittle someone. If i didn't know better, I'd almost say you waited for it.

One hell of a moderator.

Wow, its all over the news today, too.

Topic: Reverand Jeremiah Wright.... and go!

hehe---thanks Will.

Oh, believe me, I am not disappointed with your attitude one bit.

Seaver stated that the only reason someone like me would say the things I do is to 'be popular.' I think my response was totally appropos.

Veiled in collegiate language? What exactly does that mean? I think he stated what he meant pretty clearly.

Well, I eat very well and, frankly, I've gotten much worse since I stopped smoking pot. :p

He does inspire people and has managed to get much more support from white groups than I thought he would. I think his personal demeanor and inspirational oratory skills have brought many to support him. Heck, I disagree with almost all his policies except health care and the war but I can't help but like the guy. Maybe it has something to do with his underdog status and over coming the negatives I mentioned previously.

I think he may have somewhat of a problem with some women voters in the Democratic primary though. They have been waiting for years to elect Hillary and see their chances being dashed by this brash newcomer. From what I have read in some of their blogs this has resulted in almost hatred towards him and are trying to use anything including the reverand's remarks against him.

The funny thing is, Hillary and him agree on almost all the important policy positions and yet there are some who say they will not vote for him if he is the nominee. I think this has a lot more to do with the fact he is beating Hillary than anything about his qualifications.

Okay, this is getting a bit ridiculous and personal. I didn't mean to but into your and Seaver's argument. I wasn't speaking of you in particular. I was making a reference to the old "if you're under 30 and a repub you have no heart, over 30..." It seemed like an appropriate time to make a light hearted attempt at political humor that may not have come across that way.

With regard to roach's response I meant what I said. He never addressed the OP directly and defaulted to conservativeland speak. We all know what he thinks about consertvativeland already. This thread is about Reverend Wright, what he said, and whether or not Obama's response to being 20 years in his company is adequate.

There's two components to this:

1. Are you defending what the preacher said? If so, do it directly. I know what roach thinks about conservativeland. Even if there's historical context to it to what Wright said and it can be justified with hours of historical debate, there is a vitriole to that tone that is not appropriate or rationale in this day and age for a president who subscribes to thought, IMO.

2. Are you with Obama in denouncing what he said? If so, isn't it a reasonable question to ask how he tolerated it and contributed to it financially for 20 years.