The truth does not win; the truth is just what is left when everything else is wasted
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes
NavigationOur writers |
 |
Change Election in Danger of Being HijackedRon,
All's fair in love and
Ron, All's fair in love and war, and apparently politics as well, but nobody is hijacking anything and I think you ought to give the people a little more credit than that, even I, a certified 'US basher" thinks higher of the American public than that. Besides, as I mentioned, all's fair, isn't the democratic machine, particularly the Obama team trying to push the geriatric theme about McCain? Relax, sit back and enjoy the show.
Submitted on Thu, 2008-03-13 20:24
reply Don't blame the Republicans
Don't blame the Republicans for bringing race or gender into this contest. The Democrats did it by choosing the candidates they have. It cannot be ignored, and they had to know that. To attempt to ignore racism/sexism as an issue to be dealt with, given the choices offered, simply shows Democrats to be delusional. Kennedy knew his religion would be an issue. He did not blame the Republicans for making it an issue. He understood the reality of the situation. He dealt with it. He did not cry and whine that "those mean old Republicans are picking on me, unfairly, just to win an election." I agree, there are overarching issues, besides race or gender, which should be the real focus of this year. Issues that are much more important, for both the US, and the world as a whole. Too bad it will be during this election. But, it was not the Republicans who caused this, anymore than it was the Republicans in Kennedy's time. In my opinion, voting against, either of them, just because they happen to be female, or black, is misguided. But, it is equally as misguided to vote for either of them, just because they happen to be female, or black. However... whether you believe such a choice to be right, or wrong, there will be people who do exactly that. Every vote counts, no matter whether the decison of a voter is based on a gay rights stance, or a gun rights stance, or an economic policy, or an abortion rights stance, or McCain's too old, or Obama's too young, or Hillary's too ugly. We all make our minds up, based on whatever we feel is most important. And, as Americans, we have the right to base our choices on whatever we feel is important. We are ALL right, as long as we pull the curtain shut and make a choice.
Submitted on Thu, 2008-03-13 20:36
reply 
 Democrat Party's circular firing squad
[quote]So who is skewing the matter in the direction of race and gender? [/quote] The ironic answer of course, is the Democrats. Those most vocal in making an issue of race and gender have been the movers and shakers of the Democrat party! Joe Biden's patronizing statement, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Bill Clinton's damning with faint praise by drawing comparisons between Obama's campaign and Jesse Jackson's failed campaign. Ferraro complaining the only reason Obama is where he's at is because he's NOT white. Let's just forget about his highly effective ability to connect with people and attribute it to his skin tone, right? Obviously Ron is behind in his reading. So here's an article to bring him up to date. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23605070/ [quote]Racial issue bubbles up again for Democrats After the Democratic primary in South Carolina turned racially divisive in January, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama essentially declared a truce and put a stop to fighting between their camps. But this week, race has once again begun casting a pall over the battle between the two. ...race, as well as sex, have been unavoidable subtexts of the Democratic campaign since the two candidates began seeking to be the first African-American or the first woman to lead a party’s presidential ticket. In the primaries and caucuses this winter, too, Mrs. Clinton has enjoyed substantial support from women, while Mr. Obama has increasingly drawn overwhelming votes from blacks. Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said Wednesday that they were concerned about her standing among blacks, once a core constituency for her and her husband, but that they also believed that black support for Mr. Obama was a foregone conclusion at this point. Mrs. Clinton’s reluctance to sideline Ms. Ferraro, who made her comments last week to The Daily Breeze in Torrance, Calif., left the specter of race hanging over the Democratic contest. “When you hear the lack of total denunciation of Ferraro, when you hear Rendell saying there are whites who will never vote for a black, one has to wonder if the Clinton campaign has a Pennsylvania strategy to appeal to voters on race,” Mr. Sharpton said in an interview. “I would hope Mrs. Clinton would make it clear that she is not doing that.” At the same time, each has used the issue against the other. Mr. Obama’s advisers suggested that Mrs. Clinton was playing the sex card last fall after a brutal debate where several male contenders criticized her.[/quote] No need to whine about Republicans playing the race and gender cards, Ron. Your Liberal compatriots don't seem to need any help. Republicans don't have to do anything except sit back and watch this circular firing squad in action.
Submitted on Thu, 2008-03-13 21:16
reply Coming To His Senses
Chris; "...even I.. think higher of the American public than that." There may be hope for you after all. Just look away from the dark side.
Submitted on Thu, 2008-03-13 22:08
reply
obama a racist or merely tolerant of them?
Obama himself has a lot to answer in the arena of racial politics. The title of his book "Audacity of Hope" comes from the sermon of the pastor Rev Jeremiah Wright at the church of which Obama is a long-time member and major financial supporter. This same pastor serves as an advisor on the Obama campaign. While there is nothing to prove that Obama shares the same racist views, the fact Rev Wright continues to advise Obama and the lack of repudiation of his views taints Obama as a closet racist.Rev Wright has the following credits to his name:· Claims AIDS was developed by the Government to commit genocide on black people.· Says it is more appropriate for black people to say, “God D**** America” instead of “God bless America.”· Gave a lifetime achievement award to Farrakhan· Says black people should not think Bill Clinton helped them. He did to black people what he did to Monica Lewinsky!It’s not an evil Republican conspiracy to inject race into the debate. Obama is doing fine by himself and will continue to be vulnerable to legitimate exploration of his views and the relationships which shape them.
Submitted on Fri, 2008-03-14 11:21
reply
obama a racist or merely tolerant of them?
Obama himself has a lot to answer in the arena of racial politics. The title of his book "Audacity of Hope" comes from the sermon of the pastor Rev Jeremiah Wright at the church of which Obama is a long-time member and major financial supporter. This same pastor serves as an advisor on the Obama campaign. While there is nothing to prove that Obama shares the same racist views, the fact Rev Wright continues to advise Obama and the lack of repudiation of his views taints Obama as a closet racist. Rev Wright has the following credits to his name: * Claims AIDS was developed by the Government to commit genocide on black people * Says it is more appropriate for black people to say, “God D**** America” instead of “God bless America.” * Gave a lifetime achievement award to Farrakhan * Says black people should not think Bill Clinton helped them. He did to black people what he did to Monica Lewinsky It's not an evil Republican conspiracy to inject race into the debate. Obama is doing fine by himself and will continue to be vulnerable to legitimate exploration of his views and the relationships which shape them.
Submitted on Fri, 2008-03-14 11:25
reply Thanks Much Guys!
Et al on the matter heading up this thread,
Thanks guys for so perfectly illustrating my points!
Alan correctly states that the issues of race and gender are implicit in the two candidates themselves, and the elect ability of either a woman or black man is a legitimate matter of concern. But that does not address the fact those issues do not address the public’s well established belief that the country is, and has been for some time, on the wrong track, and that change has consistently been the uppermost issue with the electorate. Nor does it obviate the bone obvious fact electing a woman or a black man offers no substantive address to the problems of the economy, the Iraq War, or to America’s leadership role in the world.
Alan, at least, has the good grace to admit that:
[quote] I agree, there are overarching issues, besides race or gender, which should be the real focus of this year. Issues that are much more important, for both the US, and the world as a whole.[/quote]
Which is to say the debate IS being skewed.
My point exactly!
I did not hold forth on how the skewing started, but did inquire who would benefit. Both Alan and Iron Mike agree it benefits the Republicans, whatever other agendas it serves.
Chris proposes that I: “Relax, sit back and enjoy the show.”
Sadly, for too many Americans this election is NOT being experienced as an ‘entertainment’. Unlike, say, the 2000 go round?
Finally, Iron Mike applies the coup de grace. He devotes a substantial post circling exclusively around the issues of race and gender.
[quote] You can bet, in many and various ways, the right wing machine will echo with increasing force these attempts to reorient the debate.[/quote]
Right On Iron Mike! A better Q,E.D. I could NOT have asked for!
Submitted on Fri, 2008-03-14 17:10
reply You're welcome
[quote=ronr327]
I did not hold forth on how the skewing started, but did inquire who would benefit. Both Alan and Iron Mike agree it benefits the Republicans, whatever other agendas it serves. I did hold forth on how it started. And it appears you must agree, since you deflect from, rather than contradict, the contention that the Democratic party initiated race and gender, by choosing the two candidates they did, and then the Democrats themselves dragged the issues of race and gender into the conversation with their bickering. Although inevitable, given the two frontrunners for the nomination, race and gender have been injected into the 2008 election year by the Democrats. Not the Republicans. Therefore, Ron, you have still not convinced me that my contention is incorrect, namely: The Democrats are too stupid to grasp an election being handed to them on a silver platter. If they lose this election, it will be entirely of their own making. They could have run a monkey for President this year, as long as it was a white, male, Protestant, monkey, who could stick to the issues of economy, war, peace, domestic issues, foreign policy, and issues that actually matter. But, nooo. Instead, they are going to step on their own cranks and hand the whitehouse over to the Republicans. Again. Idiots.
Submitted on Mon, 2008-03-17 21:11
reply Iron Mike Propaganda!
Iron Mike, You might have started another thread for the Reverend Wright business. But then that would not serve quite so effectively in turning the discussion here to race and gender. Silly Me! This Wright business is an old, old story, and is being knee jerked into the public spotlight by right wing nuts one more time. [It won’t be the last!] Our blissfully complicit MSM is following along with their usual Pavlov's dog response - this has been all over MSNBC today, and I am sure elsewhere in the cable universe as well. It will be of no little interest to me to see how the often the name John Hagee floats up in this current effluvia.http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_mccainhagee_connection_1.php The Reverend Hagee most publicly endorsed, McCain, with McCain right on stage at the time, welcoming the endorsement. A little of Hagee: [quote] On Jews: It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God’s chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.And:How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for his chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings he had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.On gays: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are — were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.Hagee, of course, is also a virulent anti-Catholic, who has suggested that the pope is the anti-Christ, and that Adolph Hitler’s anti-Semitism was the result of being educated at a Catholic school.[/quote]Ahh what tangled webs we weave! Of course, I am beginning to believe, in Iron Mike’s world ‘tangles’ cannot be seen.
Submitted on Fri, 2008-03-14 17:38
reply NeoCons
This appeared in The Times today. May be of interest.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3564320.ece
Submitted on Mon, 2008-03-17 20:13
reply Ronr Looks For Webs Where None Exist
bonr; McCain's realtionship to John Magee and Obama's relationship to Reverend Wright don't compare, but let's try. John Hagee is a Texas pastor. John McCain is from Arizona. McCain had not met him before the incident occurred and certainly did not attend his church. He quickly disavowed the over-the-top statements made about Obama's middle name being Hussein. If only Obama had done likewise. Obama has been a member of Reverend Wright's church for 20 years. The reverend presided at Obama's wedding and his children's christening. Obama benefitted politically from the church when he was a local politician. He referred to Wright as his "spiritual mentor" in his book. Wright was a member of Obama's election campaign. Obama asked him not to make speeches. Obama only disavowed the reverend when his taped vitriol hit the news. Even then, he sugar coated it so as not to anger his Black constituency. How tangled a web is that?
Submitted on Mon, 2008-03-17 20:21
reply
Ron caught is his own web
Obama is down 5 points since last Friday as the full impact of the Jeremiah Wright debacle is fully realized by the Democrat faithful...and makes them take a second look. As Tt rightly points out, there is a HUGE difference between Obama's realationship with Wright and McCain's relationship with Hagee. Jerimiah Wright was Obama's "Pastor" for 20 years! Do you REALLY understand what that means?
[quote] pas·tor /ˈpæs
–noun
1. 2. –verb (used with object) 4.
[Origin: 1325–75; < L pāstor shepherd, lit., feeder, equiv. to pās-, base of pāscere to put to pasture, feed + -tor -tor; r. ME pastour < AF
 ] [/quote]
Obama used Wright's speeches in the title of his book, Audacity of Hope. Are you really so naive as to believe that Obama was unaware he was a member of a church whose own web page clearly identified their pastor ascribing to the tenants of "Black Liberation Theology?"
What is Black Liberation Theology you ask? [quote]Jeremiah Wright cites James Cone, a distinguished professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary, whom he credits for having "systematized" this strain of Christianity. Here is a quote from Cone, explaining black liberation theology: Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. . . . Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.[/quote] You don't stay in a church, and appoint your spiritual guide to your campaign without knowing what he stands for and who mentors the mentor. How about a closer look at the statements of the man who's a spiritual mentor to the "candidate of change." [quote]The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism. "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation. [/quote] Yes, the candidate of change and unity has disavowed the statements of his pastor...without explaining how a man like Jerimiah Wright could have such a profound influence on him FOR 20 YEARS and his decision to run for president. Now Ron, you can say that I am spreading Propaganda, but that suggest that something I'm saying is factually wrong. Did I say ANYTHING that was NOT true??? If it's truth, can truth be propaganda and still be truth? Or more important, when did you stop caring about the truth and why?
Submitted on Tue, 2008-03-18 00:35
reply Iron Mike
Iron Mike, Sounds like the preacher would be a better nominee for the Democratic party than either of the two knotheads they have in mind at present. At least he's upfront with his beliefs, not hiding behind a false facade, just to get votes. All he's missing is a "melt every gun in the country" plank.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-03-18 02:32
reply Snake handlers
I should not be so negative. I wish race and gender was not an issue in this land. Unfortunately, it is. It is inescapable. However, I will try to be more positive. I have a good friend who goes to, what he terms, a "snake handler" church. It's not really that bad, but, suffice to say, his views and the preacher's don't mesh perfectly. He told me this morning he can empathize with Obama. He suggested Obama could look at Preacher Wright the same way he looks at his Snake Handler. To wit: The church is right around the corner, so it's convenient. I like church. I like the music, the singing, and the ceremony. I like the sense of community. The preacher says a lot of stuff that I disagree with, but I just ignore those portions and make up my own mind. The nonsense spouted (since I am intelligent enough to simply ignore it) does not negate the good feelings I get from attending God's House with other members of my community. Does everyone in the country have to agree with every word said by their preacher? Does every Catholic have to agree with everything said by the Pope? I thought we tossed that antique notion out with whalebone corsets.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-03-18 02:46
reply
Not guilt by association
Alan, [quote]The preacher says a lot of stuff that I disagree with, but I just ignore those portions and make up my own mind...Does everyone in the country have to agree with every word said by their preacher? Does every Catholic have to agree with everything said by the Pope? I thought we tossed that antique notion out with whalebone corsets.[/quote] Let's say you agree with 90% of the preacher's doctrine. How offensive does the other 10% have to get before you become uncomfortable enough to leave? How about a virgin sacrifice? What's the limit? How offensive does the 10% have to become before it offsets the 90% message of love and forgiveness? Jerimiah Wright's Black Liberation Theology is so blatantly racist, vile, divisive and offensive. It's so "off the chart" offensive that I find it incomprehensible that that Obama would fail to see that and distance himself if he is truly a candidate that wants to unite the American people. This is not a matter of "guilt by association." When we elect a President, we are voting a person who best represents what WE believe in. We are electing a governing philosophy. It is fair to inquire about what influences the candidate's philosophy---especially when it is the candidate himself who publically puts forth his Pastor as his spiritual mentor---the Pastor who convinced him to run for President--the Pastor he quotes frequently in his book---the Pastor he appointed to a position in his campaign We are known by the company we keep. The people closest to us are the people with whom we identify most closely. It's not guilt by association--it's common sense. Ultimately, my ONLY point of agreement with Ron is who will benefit---McCain. The Democrats made race and gender issues in the campaign and the Democrat nomination is starting to implode. Obama lost 5 points since last week and these issues are not going away as fast as Rev Wright's abrupt African tour sabbatical. Obama is giving a speech on race relations today and we'll see if the Obamaton faithful rally to his support. I predict utter chaos in Denver, Hillary gets the nomination, independants turns to McCain as their next president.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-03-18 10:48
reply Mike
The saddest part, to me, is not that Obama sat and listened to, without storming out and denouncing, Preacher Wright's vitriole, but that there is an accepting audience, of any size, within this country for such a message. Unfortunately, there is an "other side of the coin, flip side, ultra right wing, white power," audience which buys into the Zionist/Trilateral Commission conspriacy theory as well. (I know. I have to work with one of those kooks) Yes, Obama stepped on his own crank by remaining a member of the church for 20 years. Yes, it will haunt him and may destroy his chance at the Democratic nomination. But, it does not really matter, because, even without this faux paux, he stood no chance to become President. But, then again, neither does Hillary. Mike, you asked what percentage of disageement with the preacher should cause you to walk out of a church? You're asking the wrong guy. I walked away from the all religion thiry years ago. And it did not take a hate-filled sermon to drive me out. Personally, I had hoped, eight years ago, that Colin Powell had run for President. There is a man with character. Unfortunately, he now bears the taint of having to tow the line for Bush, even though he probably knew better and disagreed, in the runup to the war. Had he run and been elected, we could have permanently dispensed with race as an issue in Presidentail elections years ago, and we may not now be in Iraq.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-03-18 15:03
reply The alan peterson Scandal
ap; You referred to two black men as "knotheads"? How racist can you get? I'm going to tell Fox News on you.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-03-18 16:53
reply knotheads
[quote=Ttrryosborn]ap; You referred to two black men as "knotheads"? How racist can you get? I'm going to tell Fox News on you.[/quote] Actually, no. I was referring to one young black man and one ugly white woman. Both spawned by the Father of all Knotheads, the Democratic Party.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-03-18 18:33
reply Accepting Audiences?
ap, Willing audiences exist everywhere for every cause. Look at what we read on OD.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-03-18 16:56
reply T
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it) this place is very mild and tame compared to some blog sites. At least most of the people who post here can count to twenty, even if they have to take off their shoes. (With apologies to Solve)
Submitted on Tue, 2008-03-18 18:37
reply Once More into the Breach!
Well, well back in business Could you have crafted a more lame and foolish line of argument? “If its truth, can truth be propaganda and still be truth?” OF COURSE IT CAN! It Is the very nature of the ‘art’. Take bit here, a bit there, put them together, hold them up so they catch the light just so, stir in some emotional hyperbole, and VOILA! PROPAGANDA! But let’s to the O.E.D.: [quote]2. Any association,systematic scheme, or concerted movement for the propagation of a particular system of doctrine or practice. 3. The systematic propagation of information or ideas by an interested party, esp. in a tendentious way in order to encourage or instill a particular attitude or response. Also, the ideas, doctrines, etc., disseminated thus; the vehicle of such propagation.[/quote] [Please note: the truth or falsity of the ‘information is NOT broached] And something of my own from the blog site: [quote]Rhetoric is the art of political discourse. Propaganda might be understood as rhetoric’s bastard stepchild. It dishonors itself as political discourse because it is understood to be intentionally fraudulent, and generally relentless about it to boot The beau ideal of rhetoric is understood to be use of fact, logic and reason to make an argument, and only then to rise to eloquence and the evocation of emotion. Propaganda selectively culls facts, burlesques logic, leans very heavily on emotion, and occasionally even rises to eloquence.[/quote] In short ‘facts’ become ‘tools’ to be manipulated in pursuit of what historically has come to be seen as a ‘game’ of nefarious persuasion. In the immortal words of the ET Drew Barrymore: Gimme a Break! [quote] As Tt rightly points out, there is a HUGE difference between Obama's realationship with Wright and McCain's relationship with Hagee.[/quote] YES! Let’s explore this. To begin with, to any a casual observer, the opinions of the Reverend Wright and those cited above held by the Reverend Hagee appear equally objectionable. [Note: your casual reference to the anti-Catholic one, while ignoring the rest, is explicitly propagandistic!] For more (MUCH more!) Readers can consult the following: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/about/search_google.html?q=John+Hagee&simplesearch.x=26&simplesearch.y=19 http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03072008/transcript1.html http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/transcript1.html or this from today’s Salon: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/17/wright/print.html You make your ‘case’ exclusively on ‘guilt by association’. How do the views and actions one person become the presumptive responsibility of another. Nowhere do you adduce any evidence that Obama himself has subscribed to these opinions of Reverend Wright. In fact Obama has addressed these opinions of the Reverend Wright explicitly in the past and rejected them. From Wikipedia: [quote] On his comments about 9/11, Obama has said[14]: The quotation is from a thoughtful April 2007 NY Times article. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print This very morning [3/18/08, Morning Joe] Pat Buchanan has traduced the above evidence on MSNBC, saying Obama’s claim to be ignorant of Wright’s opinions Is not credible, when Obama has made no such claim!. Buchanan’s morning ‘spin’ is a flat out lie (but good Propaganda?) Obama has described the Reverend Wright as his spiritual advisor, not his political advisor, his foreign policy advisor, his national security advisor, his military advisor, nor a consultant on American history, at the same time emphatically disavowing the Preacher’s views on those particular matters that have come to dominate the current discussion. McCain, on the other hand, has been embraced by Hagee, and publicly WELCOMED the embrace. Hagee has an explicit political, domestic, and foreign policy agenda, as the above references VIVIDLY demonstrate. Yet to this day, to my knowledge McCain has spoken out only against the anti-Catholic matter. And the MSM has pushed on NONE of this! [At the same time loosing a veritable fire storm of attention upon Obama and the Reverend Wright] Is somebody playing games: OH YEAH! BIG TIME! And the MSM has been sucked in: BIG TIME! Who benefits? And just think, little more that a week ago we WERE PRIDING OURSELVES ON HOW WE HAD GOTTEN PAST THIS THESE THINGS. And nowhere does anyone appear to be attending to the question I raised. How does whether not there may or may not be a black man or a woman in the White House as of January 2009 impact in any substantive way all those questions we have said are the most important ones in this moment: the state of the economy, the Iraq War, the nature and direction of American leadership in the world, and the widely [~2/3 majority] held notion that country is on the wrong course needs to find a new and better directions? I believe we can to BETTAH! So, for the record, lets’ examine for a moment the particular things the Reverend Wright has said that have been sent roiling through the pubic mind over the past few days. [quote]The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation. [/quote] To begin with you might note there are several undeniably factual statements there [your ‘truth’?] Secondly , these things were a part of a rhetorical ‘in the moment’ flight common in the work of preachers like Jerimiah Wright. Nonetheless this material and its like, have been specifically disavowed by Obama in the past, and again in today’s Philadelphia speech – and a most impressive speech it was. Quiet, even understated, but a thorough intellectually, rigorous and inclusive treatment of a set of complex issues Obiter Dicta, if relevant to the question if ‘chickens coming home to roost': I have also been bemused for a long while by the question of why attempts to understand what is going in the heads of your enemies equate to a justification of what those enemies decide do about it. Wherein need it be that figuring out where your enemies ‘heads are’ is anything more than simple prudence and common sense. What military or intelligence agency would be considered base line responsible if they did NOT explore the question?
Submitted on Tue, 2008-03-18 19:46
reply Ron,
Ron, You really have to reach around, under, over, and sideways to defend Obama's association with Wright, while criticizing McCain's encounter with Hagee. I'll bet you're damn good in a game of Twister. I'll make it simple. Obama comes off looking like a shitheel in this one. McCain does not even have to duck.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-03-18 22:53
reply Ronr Lays At The Feet Of A New Hack
bonr; I have mentioned on ocassion the tendency of many on OD to lay at the feet of hacks. In Reverend Wright you have found a new set of toes to kiss. I will never cease to believe how eager OD contributors are to tout any hack with an axe to grind at the US.
Submitted on Tue, 2008-03-18 22:09
reply Speaking of ducking
tt, [quote]McCain does not even have to duck.[/quote] Why don't we see quotations from Hagee to let us see what may or may not have to be ducked? After all, given all that is out there now about Wright, I chose to quote some of the most objectionalbe anyway. Of course I don't subscribe to these things, but at least I managed to present some of what I would dismiss. Fraidy Cat?!?
Submitted on Wed, 2008-03-19 00:46
reply McCain Still Standing
ronr; Why doesn't McCain have to duck the words of Hagee? Because Hagee was not his pastor of twenty years. McCain never referred to him as a "spiritual mentor" and McCain was forthright enough to disavow his bile without qualifications. How does that compare with Obama? Personally, I think this is just political gotcha. Everyone else has had to dump supporters who spoke out of turn (Hagee, Geraldine Ferraro...). Now it's his turn to throw someone under the bus. For Obama, the only thing worse than doing so is not doing so.
Submitted on Wed, 2008-03-19 17:03
reply Come on, be honest... You
Come on, be honest... You don't see a substantive difference between a fleeting incident versus a twenty year relationship? That is why Obama is screwed, while McCain doesn't have to give it another thought.
Submitted on Wed, 2008-03-19 01:03
reply Alan, I'm surprised!
[quote]Come on, be honest... You don't see a substantive difference between a fleeting incident versus a twenty year relationship? That is why Obama is screwed, while McCain doesn't have to give it another thought.[/quote] YOU be honest! Fleeting incident! Before television cameras McCain WELCOMED the embrace and endorsement of Reverend Hagee. Have you even begun to investigate the material cited? If McCain doesn't even begin to 'have to give it another thought', any even marginally objective individual would understand it to be a failing of our media in minature akin to its (and ultimetely our) failure to substantively question the administration's drive to war with Iraq 2002/2003.
Submitted on Wed, 2008-03-19 05:48
reply Thanks
[quote=ronr327][quote]Come on, be honest... You don't see a substantive difference between a fleeting incident versus a twenty year relationship? That is why Obama is screwed, while McCain doesn't have to give it another thought.[/quote] YOU be honest! Fleeting incident! Before television cameras McCain WELCOMED the embrace and endorsement of Reverend Hagee. Have you even begun to investigate the material cited? If McCain doesn't even begin to 'have to give it another thought', any even marginally objective individual would understand it to be a failing of our media in minature akin to its (and ultimetely our) failure to substantively question the administration's drive to war with Iraq 2002/2003.[/quote] I now fully understand the depth of your bias. Thank you for enlightening me.
Submitted on Wed, 2008-03-19 15:18
reply
Deluded Obama supporters ignore the truth
Before television cameras Obama WELCOMED the embrace and endorsement of Reverend Wright...his pastor of 20 YEARS and appointed Wright to a position in his campaign. YOU be honest and acknowledge the difference! Wright's radical, racist, vile and divisive "Black Liberation Theology" is so over the top and his relationship with Obama is so long--two decades, it completely ECLIPSES anything Hagee has ever said and his fleeting relationship with McCain. It is completely incredible that Obama could be pastored by Wright for 20 years without hearing and being fully aware of his pastor's guiding philosophy. For the media NOT to focus on Wright would be completely irresponsible. It's also interesting to note that Obamas affiliation with Wright's church may have been as much about politics as spiritual mentoring. Wright pastored the largest black church in Chicago! Could it be that Obama intentionally used his affiliation to leverage votes in the black community? Nope that's just too cynical for the "candidate of change." [quote] Ron: "Of course I don't subscribe to these things, but at least I managed to present some of what I would dismiss."[/quote] Nice. You don't subscribe to these things, but you are willing to dismiss them. Most people who do not subscribe to these things are eager to CONDEMN them.
Submitted on Wed, 2008-03-19 11:18
reply
Interesting observations by Dick Morris
Interesting observations by Dick Morris that are right on point. PASTOR WRIGHT: THIS TOO SHALL PASS By DICK MORRIS Published on TheHill.com on March 18, 2008. [quote]He needs to get out of this mess with subtlety, the kind Bill Clinton should have used to escape the Monica Lewinsky scandal — but didn't. As the controversy continues, Americans will gradually realize that Obama stuck by Wright as part of a need to get ahead. They will chalk up to pragmatism why he was so close to such a preacher. As they come to realize that Obama doesn't agree with Wright but used him to get started, they will be more forgiving. While he lets this fact sink in, he needs to continue to distance himself from Wright by characterizing that kind of anger and animosity as a thing of a generation past. He needs to compare the progress of which whites are proud in discarding the racism of our forebears with his own pride at being a post-racial candidate. He needs, again and again, to reject what Wright says and emphasize his belief in America and the validity and morality of the American Dream. As the controversy matures, he can increasingly depict those who fan its flames as trying to live in the past and re-fight the civil wars of race that have divided America. All these themes were evident and articulately presented in Obama's Tuesday speech on race. What Obama needs not to do is to resort to the kind of Clintonian fudging that animated his interview with Keith Olbermann. By saying “I wasn't there” and “I didn't know” and “I didn't hear him say it,” he will invite contempt and derision. If he were to continue in that vein, he would buy himself a controversy akin to that which drowned John Kerry in the facts and allegations of his service in Vietnam. People will surface to say, “I sat next to him, and Wright said such and such,” and Obama will be hostage to everybody's subjective memory. But if he handles the situation with subtlety and lets what he cannot say — that it was opportunism that led him to stay in that church — sink in among the electorate, he can and will survive this battle. And let's remember one other thing: The Democrats will increasingly realize that he will be their nominee and, in continuing this battle, they are eating their own.[/quote]
Submitted on Wed, 2008-03-19 15:49
reply I agree
I agree. I thought the "I wasn't there, I never heard him say things like that" comments were, and are, a stupid defense. Ask Roger Clemens. There will always be someone who will step forward and say, "Yes you were." Or someone will have another video with Obama sitting in the front pew. Cut the strings, don't waffle, and denounce the preacher in no uncertain terms.
Submitted on Wed, 2008-03-19 16:19
reply Returning the favor
Alan, [quote]I now fully understand the depth of your bias. Thank you for enlightening me.[/quote] Likewise.
Submitted on Wed, 2008-03-19 18:19
reply So put your money where your mouth is !!
Ok so cut the crap. WHO is going to gain the Democrat nomination ?? Surely you can all now say who you think it will be and why ? And who will win in November ?? A friend of mine - well versed in USA politics - thinks John McCain has a better than sporting chance. His argument is that the Democrats have done the most stupid thing possible: fielded one candidate who has no experience of anything; is very Left wing, and has probably got where he is more because of his colour than his ability, as Ferraro said last week. Yet the other candidate behaved as if the nomination was hers by right and is in any case too much an echo of a deeply shameful past. She is loathed by large sections of her own party (the Clintons are nothing if not selfish), hence the lack of backing from the Kennedy's. As he remarked it isn't much of a glowing choice. McCain by contrast positively shines. Leaving aside party politics but just judging the candidates on merit it would seem that it ought to be McCain.
Submitted on Wed, 2008-03-19 19:58
reply Owly
Very peceptive. You win a cookie. Of course, there is still plenty of time, between now and November, for someone else to step on their own crank.
Submitted on Wed, 2008-03-19 21:02
reply Demo Divisions That Spell Trouble
owly; The Democrats themselves are making it tougher and tougher to win in November. Since neither Obama or Clinton will win a majority of delegates prior to the convention, it will be up the the super delegates to decide the nominee. Regardless of the outcome, there will be hard feelings. If Hillary wins, Blacks will claim that the nomination was stolen from Barak in a back room filled with white guys. They will not turn out in November. If Barak wins, Hillary's female constituents will claim they were robbed of their historic moment and not show up at the polls. Between now and November, McCain will let the voters know since experience was an issue in the Democratic primaries, he has more experience in Congress and foreign affairs than both Hillary and Obama put together. How much more experience will he have once one candidate is eliminated?
Submitted on Thu, 2008-03-20 00:01
reply
Don't underestimate Obama
[quote]...one candidate who has no experience of anything; is very Left wing, and has probably got where he is more because of his colour than his ability,...[/quote] I'm no fan of Obama, but I believe he legitimately achieved monumental support for more than his colour. He won significant white demographic voting blocks based on an emotional appeal for change that the American people are ready to hear after 5 years of a fatiguing and expensive war. Not being a Democrat, I tend to vote with my brain instead of my emotions. So clearly I support McCain as the most experienced candidate capable of handling foreign policy issues. I don't particularly care for all his domestic agenda, but 75% agreement with McCain is better than 5% agreement with Clinton and 1% agreement with Obama. As the Democrats continue "Operation Chaos" through the Denver convention, McCain is making a world tour and looking VERY Presidential as he meets the movers and shakers on the world stage.
Submitted on Thu, 2008-03-20 01:28
reply
Don't underestimate Obama
Really ??
Thank you for the cookie Alan, but my trainer does not approve ! And Iron Mike while I appreciate what you say I just wonder - looking at events from a huge distance and not understanding (nor being very interested in the fine detail of US politics) - if what Ferraro said was actually all that wide of the mark. Obama seems to me to have said very little of substance, save he doesn't like the Iraq War which has got dim ronr so orgazmic. But what else has he had to say ? And what of his record in the Senate and indeed earlier ? My question is quite simple: is this a man of substance, integrity with ideas, policies and a will, or is he just another light-weight ?? And isn't part of the reason for his momentum simply because he is black ? There ain't no 'guilt' like white liberal guilt. One merely has to read some of the drivel on here to understand that.
Submitted on Thu, 2008-03-20 09:55
reply
Obama still an empty suit!
Owly, No argument from me. I have been consistent in my criticism of Obama as an "empty suit," but one with the eloquence of a Harvard education. However, his appeal across racial and cultural barriers is undeniable---at least until it came under suspicion as the result of the Rev Wright debacle. At that point, the enamored media FINALLY started to look critically and the man and his policies. Endorsements by Farrakhan and the New Black Panther Party, ties to American Socialist Party in Chicago, it's all bubbling to the surface. The latest poll I saw yesterday had McCain in a dead heat with any Democrat candidate. While the odds are against her, the Clinton machine will fight to the bitter end and if Obama wins, he will be bloodied and vulnerable in the general election. I'm looking forward to supporting the candidate of change....John McCain.
Submitted on Thu, 2008-03-20 10:37
reply Comment from the UK Press
Interesting Mike. Have a read at this from the Daily Telegraph. Kind of shows the basic problem with the Clintons. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/mar08/clinton54.htm
Submitted on Thu, 2008-03-20 21:05
reply Hillary Plays Catchup
owly; Is it possible for Hillary, or Obama, to gain a majority of delegates prior to the convention? It is very unlikely. Hillary would have to take 80 percent of the remaining delegates and Obama would have to take about 60 percent. He is expected to lose in the last remaining big state Pennysylvania. So far, Obama has lost in all the big states with the exception of his home state of Illinois. Whether he could carry them in November is now debatable. Without California and New York, he couldn't possible win the general election.
Submitted on Fri, 2008-03-21 00:42
reply On the necessity of the influence of ‘theology’
Et al, Just want to deal with Iron Mike's apparent fright that the election of Obama will leave us inevitably in the grip of Black Liberation Theology and/or some other form of ideological zealotry The association of Barack Obama with ‘Black Liberation Theology’ is through a claim by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright to have been influenced by it in Wright’s own thinking. The only association to be demonstrated here is Obama’s association with the Reverend Wright as a spiritual/religious advisor, and a much valued friend. NOT with any commitment to the theology itself. I deplore the agency of ideological zealotry and ideological intoxicants in human history – arguably the most dangerous and pernicious theme in our story. There is, as a matter of simple logic no necessary connection between views held by one party and some other party, however, close those two individuals may be on other grounds. But, worst case scenario, how ‘necessary’ must the connection between ideology and action become if the leaders of the society openly espouse that ideology, and no meaningful opposition exists. Back to work guys! No more chasing you own tails. Consider China! ON THE LARGEST POSSIBLE STAGE, THE LEADERS OF TODAY’S CHINA ,WHO REMAIN PROFESSED DEDICATED MARXISTS, AND WITH NOTHING TO STAND IN THEIR WAY, SUPERINTEND AND DIRECT AN ECONOMY THAT IS ANYTHING BUT MARXIST! So much for the necessity of connection between zealotry and action! Obama, beyond his association with the Reverend Wright - has never, by word or deed, indicated sympathy with ‘Black Liberation Theology’, nor with any other ideological intoxication 'out there'. How easily do you think you can ‘sell’ the idea he is a zealot who will necessarily visit some alien 'theology' upon us? So far Iron Mike's ‘arguments’ have consisted of nothing more than a presumption that such a connection between ideology and actions will materialize. Back to work guys! No more chasing your own tails.
Submitted on Fri, 2008-03-21 17:51
reply Obama's speech
I listened to Obama's speech defending himself regarding his association with Rev Wright and was very impressed with both the content and delivery. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU&eurl=http://botherer.cream.org/ At least he is not a creationist!
Submitted on Fri, 2008-03-21 17:58
reply
Obama a racist?
[quote]...Obama, beyond his association with the Reverend Wright - has never, by word or deed, indicated sympathy with ‘Black Liberation Theology’[/quote] He sat in the pews for 20 years nodding his head. Oprah by contrast left the church as the result of her non-acceptance of Black Liberation Theology. That suggest one one of the following. Is it... 1. Agreement? Take your pick and he is still indicted. His "clarification" suggests Option #1 - Agreement. [quote]"Obama Helpfully Clarifies That His Grandmother Is a "Typical White Person" In Philadelphia this morning, Barack Obama confronted the remains of the Jeremiah Wright brushfire, the smoldering embers of this anecdote of his grandmother using racial stereotypes that made him cringe... and promptly spilled gasoline on those embers. 610 WIP host Angelo Cataldi asked Obama about his Tuesday morning speech on race at the National Constitution Center in which he referenced his own white grandmother and her prejudice. Obama told Cataldi that "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know (pause) there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way."[/quote] I see. So if Clinton had made a comment about the reactions of a "typical black person" it would not raise any questions about racism?
Submitted on Fri, 2008-03-21 18:31
reply Obama Taking His Pick
IM; Is Obama possibly racist for sitting in church for 20 years and listening to his pastor rant? Is he a bad judge of character? Neither. Obama is an opportunist. You forget that Obama was an unknown local politician up until a couple of years ago. Being a member of a large congregation was an advantage to him in local politics. He said nothing about Wright's vitriol because it was polictically expediant to say nothing and nobody cared. It worked. Obama got ahead. Now that he is in the big leagues (US Senate, the race for President) that strategy is coming back to bite him.
Submitted on Fri, 2008-03-21 21:53
reply
Opportunist with poor judgment
[quote]Is Obama possibly racist for sitting in church for 20 years and listening to his pastor rant? Is he a bad judge of character? Neither. Obama is an opportunist.[/quote] So what you're saying is he doesn't lack character. He just lacks judgment? Gee...that sounds like just what we need in a candidate of change. ;-)
Submitted on Fri, 2008-03-21 22:15
reply |
For a long time, more or less two thirds of the American people have indicated they believe the country is on the wrong course and needs to change direction. Nearly every poll has highlighted change as the electorate's principle concern. For the matter to now begin to turn on the question of whether or not we might elect a woman or a black man President betrays this well expressed concern, and the country's interests.
No one proposes that electing a black man will solve the problems of the economy, the Iraq War, and the leadership role America should pursue in the world after 9/11 - let alone the finding the right direction for the country. Nor is anyone proposing electing a woman President would accomplish those ends. Electing some particular woman, or some particular black man, perhaps, but that is another question.
So who is skewing the matter in the direction of race and gender?
Who would benefit?
Clearly the Republicans.
A choice between a woman and John McCain, or between a black man and John McCain drains attention away from the real issues of concern. You can bet, in many and various ways, the right wing machine will echo with increasing force these attempts to reorient the debate. And of course our Main Stream Media will be all too easily suckered into aiding and abetting this ‘game’, not least because it fits in so readily with their flogging of the horse race aspect of elections.
In 1960 Kennedy famously offered: I am not the Catholic candidate for President, I am a candidate for President who happens to be Catholic. So now Hillary Clinton is not the woman candidate for President of the United States, but a candidate for President of the United States who happens to be a woman, and Barack Obama is not the black candidate for President, but a candidate for President who happens to be black To turn the debate on the point of race or gender turns it away from the question of the where the country is going and how it is to get there. The REAL concern of the electorate at this moment.