OK, corporate media, how about you talk about this non-stop for the next few weeks? Hello? We're waiting...
Here is a link:
They are absolutely certain they alone have The Answer, they've got reserved tickets to heaven and everyone else is damned.
What people don't get about the whole "why didn't Obama notice Wright's extremism" question is that Obama wasn't HEARING it. What he was hearing was that sophisticated mind, original thinker, knowledgeable scholar, and he was hooked. It's hard when you're always the smartest guy in the room. Makes you go looking for people as smart as you are to have really fulfilling discussions. Obama discounted Wright's whackier traits because they weren't important to him. He was far more interested in that fascinating brain. This is why it makes me sad that both men have been boiled down into caricatures of themselves and their relationship has become a two-dimensional one of crazy pastor dude saying stupid stuff around the clueless politician guy.
Unfortunately, most people know nothing about Wright -- so he could be defined an any and every way possible.
At the end of the day Wright has no influence on policy. He did not vote for the Iraq War. He has not voted for the massive redistribution of wealth in this country to the top .01 percent over the past few years. He is a side show and a distraction.
There is a reason that the GOP is running like the plague away from issues and away from its record, and instead trying to get voters to focus on the "shiny object".
There is no evidence in the slightest that McCain subscribes to or is influenced at all by the beliefs of Hagee. The same cannot be said of Obama and Wright.
Yes, Hagee is a horrible guy and yes John McCain should denounce him. But attempts to equate Hagee's relationship with John McCain and Wright's relationship with Barack Obama are don't pass the laugh test.
Meanwhile, we've got Straight Talker McCain, Mr. "Agents of Intolerance", who happily accepts the support of one of those agents. And that agent is ON RECORD as saying that God has "cursed" this country and our punishment was 9/11. Tell me, is God a just God? Because if He is, and if He has punished this country and "cursed" it as Hagee says, then isn't McCain embracing someone who says that a just God is damning this country? You can't have it both ways. If Obama can be held responsible for embracing someone with whacky political views, then so can McCain. You refer to the number of years Obama has known Wright as opposed to how long McCain has known Hagee. Setting aside the obvious question of whether this might must mean that McCain is only associating with Hagee for political expediency - which doesn't make Mr. Straight Talk look too good - then we must address whether McCain is associating with Hagee because he finds him credible and desires his approval. Well, if that's the case, then why is it significant that McCain just now came to this epiphany, as opposed to Obama having established a relationship of 20 years with his bugaboo? Is there some kind of warranty or statute of limitations involved? If Obama had chucked Wright after knowing him for only 5 years instead of 20 would you credit him then? Does McCain get some sort of probationary period which expires after he's been associated with Hagee after, say, one year? And if you indeed embrace such time limits, please tell me what they are and then elaborate on how you establish them. What makes the time limitation significant?
The rest of your post is an increasingly ridiculous spin that goes on for 300 words too long, but I'll try to quickly answer some of the more glaring questions:
1) Yes, McCain sought Hagee's support for political expediency. When you run for political office you seek endorsements. This is nothing new, and makes no impact on anybody's image of McCain.
2) No, McCain's acceptance of Hagee's endorsement does not mean that McCain embraces every thought that Hagee has ever said. That is a ridiculous claim on every level.
3) Likewise, Obama does not embrace every claim that comes out of the mouths of people who have endorsed him. However, his relationship with right is much more than an endorsement, it was routinely characterized by Obama as a "mentorship".
I'm sure the rest of your post made sense in your head before you typed it out, but it lost something in the translation.
However, your conclusions are by no way logical, especially any attempt to make one of a thousand political endorsements more significant than a twenty-year mentorship. You may spin a nice little web of words to reach your conclusion, but that doesn't make it logical in the slightest.
Good job on ignoring the rest of my post, too.
Either religious endorsements are important, or they're not. If they are, then Hagee's views are just as valid as Wright's. Pick one.
We can have a discussion about this if you like, but you're going to have to dig your head out of the sand and learn the facts here. Wright's relationship with Obama is not an "endorsement".
An intellectual like Obama would have wanted to know what it meant to BE a Christian, and would have found the robotic reliance on biblical literalism such as promoted by the likes of Hagee very off-putting. Obama can't park his brain by the door and go on faith alone. He has to know what it means to be a person of faith, and what it means to follow the tenets of your faith. Wright's entire career has been boiled down to his alleged "hatefulness", but no one yet has seen any statement by Wright which expresses hatred toward others. He believes strongly in redemption and in self-improvement and as Obama's spiritual mentor it would be these things he was expressing to him. It's not okay to impute hatred to him by saying he associates with some hateful people, because then not only do you shoot your own candidate in the foot for associating with Hagee, and you are also showing antipathy toward Jesus, who was well known for hanging around with some of the most objectionable people of His time.
Actually, just thinking about it, it seems to me that Wright's theology requires the classic Protestant virtue of faith, but also incorporates the Catholic requirement that there be good works. It's too late and there isn't enough space here to talk about the competing concepts of what is necessary to salvation, but it appears to me that Wright thinks you have not only to be a believer - just as evangelicals often declare themselves saved just for believing in Jesus - but that you must express your faith through good works and virtuous behavior. However, he's not a big one for deciding who's an abomination and who's not, which accounts for why gay couples are welcome to sit in his church holding hands if they want, and all are welcome no matter what the sins of their pasts. This theology must have seemed very attractive to the idealistic and hope-minded Obama.
I agree, which is why I didn't think much of the Bill Ayers incident. But there's a huge, massive, earth-shaking difference between "an association" or "an endorsement" and somebody who Obama characterized as his mentor for twenty years.
Do I think Obama will defer to Wright on policy issues? Of course not, and I've said this many times now. But no one is upset about Wright's position on policy. They're upset about the mindset that Wright has. And since Obama has only a little amount of experience and a slim public record, we have little to judge him on in terms of what his mindset is. His willing, active, and continued participation in a church like Wright's sends a strong statement.
Now, you can disagree with this point of view. That's certainly within your right. But if you truly want to understand why the media cares about Jeremiah Wright but doesn't care about John Hagee, that's why.
If you don't care, then by all means, continue to engage in ridiculous political spin.
But, as that's not the case, your attempts to attribute vital meaning to the man's preacher's words is an exercise in distraction. How about his chef? I want to know how he was taught to cook a steak -- I mean, a President has to eat, so how do I know that his chef wasn't some commie pinko liberal?
The difference in standards I see more in terms of Hagee, Haggard, Falwell, and Robertson than Imus though. No politician seeks out Imus for a political endorsement.
On the other hand, Falwell, Robertson, and Hagee have all said essential that America was punished by God on 9/11 -- that the attacks were justified BY GOD. One difference here is that Wright said we were damned because of our foreign policy -- the chickens came home to roost. Falwell, Robertson, and Hagee blamed it on the nation's "sinfulness". More exactly homosexuals and various and sundry other sexual "deviants".
Initially there was some condemnation of Falwell and Robertson's remarks. However, within a few years these two were both seen as politically useful to the GOP, so politicians were seen embracing them, and there was no media outcry. McCain sought out both Falwell and Robertson.
When you get down to it, Wright's biggest problem might have been the size of his congregation. Media types are a lot more reluctant to take on a religious leader with a few hundred thousand followers than one with a few thousand. Wright was seen as an easy target within a minority population. The fact that he was not a well know national figure also made it easy to tar and feather him -- and then to link him by association to the real intended target -- Obama.
Wright did not help either's cause on Monday by playing preacher at the pulpit rather than friend.
There is absolutely no question that there is a double-standard in terms of media coverage and outrage.
In terms of political value though, Hagee still could be a liability to McCain -- especially in a really targeted campaign. It doesn't take much imagination to see McCain lavishing praise on Hagee, and then have Hagee's comments about the Catholic Church. If there is a 527 that wants to pick this one up, it's not hard to see how this could do a lot of damage to McCain with Catholics. Those votes won't flip for the Democratic candidate, but if this comes down to a base strategy battle McCain will need a majority of the Catholic vote.
Some of those clips of Parsley, McCain's "spiritual mentor" could be even more damaging. Parsley is completely out of control in some of his sermons.
There is evidence that Barack Obama saw in Rev. Wright a spiritual mentor, and I think that is nobody's business. Out Constiution thinks it's nobody's business. In our history, and in our national ethos, we try to draw a clear distinction between the political and spiritual realms of our lives. It is one of the bedrock principles of America, is it not?
Obama has made it clear that he did not agree with Wright's earlier remarks, and he doesn't agree with these current ones.
If that doesn't suffice for you, then you are, in effect, choosing not to support someone because you don't like the way he/she chooses to worship G-d (or not worship, as the case may be), or because of the people they find who are able to help guide them in this personal act, are you not?
As for McCain and Hagee, I am surprised this does not bother you. You are correct that MCain seeks only a political endorsement, and he has no "relationship" with Hagee beyond that. While I understand the practical reasons for it, it seems pretty unprincipled to me to seek the political endorsement of someone you at the same time denounce politically. Are you saying it ought to have no impact on anybody's image of McCain were he to seek out the endorsement of, say, David Duke, because it was politically expedient?
On the other hand, Hagee does want the End of Times; and McCain was has been seen singing the number "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran".
On top of this Hagee has said some pretty despicable things about Catholics. If McCain wants to see a potential base of support completely peeled off, he probably would have been well-advised not to seek out Hagee's support. This is a man who claims that the Catholic Church is the "great whore" and that it was responsible for the Holocaust.
A lot of Catholics in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Dakota, California, New Mexico, Massachusets, and New York that have yet to learn about Hagee.
On the other hand Hagee has been a major Washington player. He wants to see nuclear Armagedon -- and the annihilation of all Jews in Israel who refuse to convert.
His views about Catholicism are absolutely despicable.
Yet McCain calls him an "honorable" man that he "respects".
Unlike McCain, Obama did not go up to Farrakhan, which is the closer parallel here, and he did not solicit his political endorsement.
Obama did not appear on stage with Farrakhan lavishing praise on him.
Anyone who has taken an ounce of time to follow Obama's history will know exactly where his views begin on issues and where Wright's end. The two men may share similar views about the role of religion to uplift people; but they clearly do not share the same political views.
There is a difference.
If the GOP had a track record to run on it would be running on those issues. Instead all that it has to offer is election year character assassination. That's exactly how we ended up with two Bush terms and the current national disaster that we're in. Eight more years of GOP rule and this nation will effectively be damned by debt that it can't get out from under, and middle and working classes will continue to find itself working harder and falling further and further behind.
Will Jeremiah Wright be appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Of course not. Wright will have no larger direct impact on policy in D.C. than Hagee. However, Wright does have a long history of passing on his views to Obama, who called Wright his "mentor". Unless the definition of that word has changed, that means Obama learned at Wright's feet, and has taken on Wright's wisdom as he espouses it.
Compare that to Hagee, who was sought as a political endorsement, who has not "taught" McCain anything, nor do the two men share any special bond, nor is their relationship characterized by more than anything but a typical political endorsement.
It's absolutely hilarious that all of you people who were decrying ABC's treatment of the Bill Ayers story, complaining about loose connections and how Obama doesn't share the opinion of people he's friends with, are now trying to claim the same thing between McCain and Hagee, because you're upset that Obama's spiritual mentor of 20 years has said some pretty offensive things and there's nothing even close to the same sort of baggage for McCain.
And it's not the GOP that's driving his issue, in the slightest. It's 1) the media, and 2) Wright, who took the time to appear on three different programs this weekend.
While in the Senate he's worked on bipartisan legislature with Grassley, Coburn (a strong social conservative), Lugar, and even McCain on issues ranging from nuclear non-proliferation to earmarks legislation. These may be unsexy issues, but they matter in real terms to long-term interests of ordinary Americans.
He's also been ahead of the curve on a number of issues including the Iraq war, energy dependence, and technology issues.
His non-political career inspires confidence as well. Unlike George W. Bush he didn't come from a rich, well-connected family -- and he didn't squander those opportunities and transform them into a litany of private financial disasters.
He's come a long way based on smarts, hard work, and a bit of luck. That's nothing to sneeze at in my view. He's a self-made man. We've had a few of those as president and many have turned out to be very good.
McCain, on the other hand, helped his wife's business associate, personal friend, and political mentor Charles Keating in series of deals that ended up resulting in a $120 BILLION dollar tax-payer bailout (the Savings and Loan Scandal). A bill which still has never been paid off -- just added onto more debt.
That's part of his political record.
More recently his unrestrained love of de-regulation has helped to create problems with the current housing crisis. His love of free trade has cut the legs out from underneath America's manufacturing sector. At a time when the dollar is low it would be kind of nice if we still had that manufacturing sector too. Thanks to people like McCain, many of those well-paying jobs no longer exist.
On Bush's tax cuts McCain was saying in 2002 that we "don't cut taxes during a time of war". Now that we're still at war and deeper in debt he thinks the Bush tax cuts are a great idea. In fact McCain's tax-cutting policies will add $5 trillion of new debt over the next 10 years. At a time when the national debt is swiftly approaching $10 trillion dollars the last thing most Americans need is more redistribution of the national wealth to the very top of the income scale and more public debt owed to China (assuming they will even continued to extend a new line of credit by buying more T-Bills).
McCain also signed off on what has been a major strategic blunder in invading Iraq. On economic and foreign policy he might as well be Bush.
As a career Washington politician McCain is part of the problem in my view.
As far as Hagee goes, he has been a major player in Washington Republican politics. He does more than just minister to Republican politicians -- he gets them votes and he has policy interests. Unlike Wright, Hagee WILL have the ear of the next president if he's a Republican. In terms of economic and foreign policy you need look only at the GOP's record to see how much of an asset that is to ordinary Americans.
As far as friendships go and religious practice go -- based on my own experience there are many areas where I disagree with my friends -- including some pretty heated political disagreements.
However, my friendships are not dictated by my political views. The same goes for my religious practice. That's the same standard that I apply to presidential candidates. To do other wise, makes absolutely no sense to me. Plus it would be counter productive and hypocritical.
I don't know why you feel confident steadfastly claiming that Hagee will have the ear of a Republican President. There's little evidence to suggest as much. However, all of that still ignores the influence that Wright has over Obama's mindset (which extends far more than just "friendship").
As for the rest, we're essentially talking about the differences between Republicans and Democrats, so obviously we won't find much common ground. But I'll go over a few points with you:
1) Yes, Obama's work on earmark transparency with Coburn is good. I don't know who is for nuclear proliferation (nor is it a partisan issue at all), but I don't doubt Obama's sincerity in working with Lugar. However, Obama has a far-left voting record with the exception of these one or two issues (as reported by the non-partisan National Journal).
2) The Senate Ethics Committee determined that John McCain had minimal involvement in the Keating scandal, and some members of the Committee felt that McCain shouldn't have been investigated at all. However, we'll see how much voters care about a scandal that took place over twenty years ago that is already exceedingly public.
3) The market correcting itself on account of de-regulation is far preferable to the market going haywire because of over-regulation (see: price controls in the 1970s). There is no magic formula to make the economy shiny and happy at all times.
4) America's manufacturing sector has been steadily declining since WWII. Free trade keeps us competitive in a global economy, and as dozens upon dozens of economists and newspaper editorials have demonstrated, has cost Americans little to no jobs. Demagoguery over trade is one of the most regressive and backwards aspects of this campaign, which is why before Obama and Clinton were pandering for votes in Ohio, they were both ardent free-trade supporters.
5) McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts, but now that they're in practice, allowing them to expire will result in a massive tax increase at a time when people need relief, not more of their money being wasted by the government.
6) McCain was criticizing Bush's handling of the war since November of 2003, before Obama was even elected to the Senate. To claim that he'd simply be a Bush clone is wildly disingenuous, except for the spinsters of the Democratic Party who believe that there is only one type of Republican: a Bush Republican.
7) I have nothing against Obama's upbringing. I think that McCain's upbringing is a great life story as well.
He even has a formal lobbying organization -- Christian AIPAC. As a mini-media mogul with several ownership interests I'm sure that McCain will do favors for him as well.
The person who brings big dollars and a lot of votes to a candidate tends to be the one that gets the attention when that person gets into office.
In terms of public policy Hagee will has a lot more POLITICAL influence than a someone else with a much smaller sphere of influence. Hagee's influence extends within the GOP as well, so it will be amplified.
As far as Wright's influence goes, he wasn't the one changing Obama's diapers when he was a baby. He wasn't the one who cooked him meals, or showed him the ropes when he was growing up. I'm sure that Wright has influenced Obama's views on THEOLOGY -- the notion of Jesus's resurrection and the idea of ministering to poor communities (although Obama's work as a community organizer PRE-DATES his meeting Wright). As far as Wright's ideas about AIDS and genocide my guess is probably NOT.
In terms of policy, I would spend a lot more time looking at the people that Obama actually brought on board as policy advisers. These are people who will have a policy role within an Obama administration. I'd be surprised if Wright even got a White House invitation any time soon. The two have clearly had a falling out.
1. The National Journal ranks really depend on how you define your terms. The idea of an independent Senate ethics office, for example, was viewed as a "liberal" issue. To my ears that just sounds like good policy. Some of the tax-policy also is just bizarre. Under the National Journals schema favoring any tax cut for the top income bracket is "conservative". In my view making HUGE long-term tax cuts during a time of war isn't liberal or conservative -- it just bad policy. I'm someone who tends to believe in balanced budgets. I have no problem cutting taxes when spending priorities are in the right alignment, when we've paid off debt, and when we're running surpluses. Whatever happened to fiscal responsibility?
2. Yes, the Senate Ethics Committee cleared McCain of any wrong doing -- just a slap on the wrist. When did the Senate Ethics Committee ever take the charge in reprimanding one of its own members? The committee is not independent, so there is no real accountability.
The real effect though of John McCain's policies and actions were that the U.S. taxpayer ended up having to spend $120 BILLION. McCain made a huge lapse in ethical, economic, and arguable legal judgment (it helps to have political connections sometimes - even if you're a politician) -- the bottom line is that the tax-payer got stuck with the bill for his transgressions.
3. There is such a thing as over-regulation. The right amount of regulation though introduces short-term inefficiencies, which off-set against massive corrections later.
A concrete example occurred during the late 1990s and early 2000 (this one is actually on Bill Clinton). During that period some old rules were changed so that accounting firms were able to also provide a wide range of consulting services to businesses that they audit. There were some voices at the time who were saying -- "this is absolutely terrible, the elimination of the wall between these auditors and the consulting companies creates a massive conflict of interest". Then what happened? We had the accounting scandals in 2001 and 2002 with Arthur Anderson, Enron, TYCO, MCI-WorldCom and others. People lost jobs, people lost life-savings, the impact on ordinary workers was absolutely devastating. It was pretty nasty for shareholders as well. Now yes, a few people went to prison, but there were also some who made out like absolute bandits.
This is actually a really dangerous example -- one that is further highlighted by the current banking crisis. When confidence in markets collapses it can absolutely savage an economy -- this is part of what happened in 1929. Some people will get absolutely obliterated. The super-rich and powerful though usually remain insulated from these shocks.
What's happened during the recent series of crisis though is that the people in the middle and the bottom of the economy have found themselves in WORSE shape with each of these succeeding crises. The people at the very top may see a stabilization of wealth, but with each successive boom, they're able to trim a little bit more of the top.
Our current economic balance is completely out of whack for everyone but the very, very top of the income scale.
3. Flatly untrue. Unionization in this country started declining in the mid-1970s (perhaps now we're getting back to were things were 100 years ago).
Median wages in this country from 1945 to 1970 tracked with economic growth. e.g. the economy doubled in size and so did the median wage. This was at a time when union membership in this country was at 35 percent.
In the period from 1970 to 2000 the economy nearly doubled in size BUT the median wage only grew 12 percent (the overwhelming share of economic benefits went to the very top of the income scale). This was at a time when unionization in this country was rapidly declining.
During this recent period from 2002 to 2007 we've actually had pretty good economic growth; however, for the first time in at least a century the median wage didn't rise AT ALL. In real terms the median wage has actually gone down in the period between 2001 to the present.
There is some good research that strongly suggests a combination of factors. 1. is the loss of unions. 2. tax policy is another major contributing factor to massive economic inequality in this country.
I should add that I'm not opposed to globalization per se, there are economic and national security benefits that are real. However, these policies over the long-term can be absolutely disastrous if there isn't some attempt to balance out the effect of job losses (worker training alone isn't sufficient).
Yes, many of these people eventually get jobs, but they'll go from having a nice paying $20 an hour job to one that pays them $8 with little prospect for future advancement. Never mind the effect of inflation on their wages -- in real terms they're losing out.
Some good papers on the topic . . .
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm...
http://www.economics.harvard.e...
5. That makes absolutely no sense.
Yes, tax cuts can be an instrument used to fuel economic growth (spending can be used for the same purpose -- it all depends how its targeted).
The kind of tax cuts that McCain is proposing go almost exclusively to the .001 percent. In 1993 Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate to 38 percent (it was at 33 percent from 1987-1992 from the mid-1970s to 1980 the top margin tax rate was FIFTY percent; in the period before the 1970s it was above 70 percent). At the time people said it would kill growth, it will trigger another recession.
That didn't happen.
In fact the Clinton years fueled a nice economic expansion. The manufacturing sector was screwed during the Clinton years, but on balance ordinary Americans did pretty well. People at the very top did very well -- even though they were paying a larger share of their incomes.
In all likelihood what you'll see if a Democrat gets in is an slight decrease in middle class taxes with a corresponding increase at the very top of the income scale (closing of loopholes, increase in taxes on investment income likely in the 20 to 28 percent range, return of the top marginal rate to what it was from 1993 to 2001).
Democrats will also draw down the war in Iraq which is a massive drag on the economy right now. Right now we need to be rebuilding infrastructure in the U.S. -- not blowing it up and then rebuilding it again for the Iraqis. We need to be investing that money in infrastructure and in alternative energy research on the home front. There is the potential of a real payoff here -- and it makes for smart economic policy. The GI Bill too is a good idea. The one after WWII created real wealth in this country. Other MASSIVE government projects like the Interstate Highway Act of 1956 under Eisenhower have produced huge returns in terms of tax-dollars spent to those received over the long-term. Plus it helped spur a nice economic expansion by creating infrastructure that was used by domestic industries.
Spending money on massive deficits and interest is wasteful spending if it becomes long-term policy. We need to return to something approximating balanced budgets. Right now we're paying about 8 cents of every tax dollar on interest on our debt. Under a Democratic president, it will probably increase to 10 cents in 8 years. With McCain, we're probably looking at something closer to 20 cents of every dollar just going to service the interest on our MASSIVE federal debt (that's as much as we spend right now on Medicare -- and oh, those costs are going up too). The reason for this is that McCain wants to give handouts to the super rich, he wants to increase military spending returning our military to the size that it was in 1992, and he wants to continue our current war policy (possibly broadening the war to include Iran). Earmarks account for quite a bit of domestic spending and only about 15 percent of the budget. So eliminating these altogether won't even go half way towards solving the problem.
The so-called fiscal conservative is going to be creating much larger deficits than either of the Democrats without any of the corresponding benefits for the middle class. That's the reality.
6. At a foreign policy level there is no difference between McCain and Bush. It is true that he made some criticisms of Rumsfeld in 2006, but he has been behind the curve throughout the war. Back in 2003 McCain was parroting the administration's b.s. about the "self-financing" Iraq War reconstruction, and the $50 billion price tag (off by at least a factor of ten). In terms of the Iraq surge he claims it's "working" even though there is absolutely no evidence of political reconciliation occurring any time soon in the country (the stated goal of the surge -- not just reducing violence temporarily). Name the place, McCain is Bush when it comes to foreign policy. Maybe he'll take a harder line with North Korea as he did in the mid-1990s so that a million or so of our allies in South Korea die, so that China has to deal with a massive refugee problem, and so that he can justify more military spending and tax cuts.
McCain and Bush part ways on social policy. On economic and foreign policy they are in lock-step.
7. I admire McCain's service and think there are admirable things about him. His political career though, suggests to my mind at least, that he is the WRONG choice for this country right now. I think he will be an absolute disaster for the working class and middle class. His foreign policy too is likely to make the U.S. even more isolated than we currently are.
Like a lot of people here, I've probably spent several weeks of my life doing my due diligence on the choices and issues that are at stake in this election.
For anyone to suggest that any our policies and ethnocentric attitudes might in any way be responsible for any of the various messes we're in is to subscribe to "radical anti-Americanism".
"Radical anti-Americanism" -- or, as it's known to left wingers, problem solving -- is to understand that our beloved country is seriously off-course. Righting it requires fearlessness and discomfiting honesty and --- are you sitting down? -- an adult attitude about things. Adult, as in accepting responsibility for your own actions when something goes wrong.
As opposed to, say, pro-Americanism, which is that history began on 9/11, flag pins, the Pentagon can do no wrong, watch this golf swings, Mission Accomplished!, freedom fries, single-bidding Halliburton to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure that Cheney ordered bombed and fervently embracing crackpot politicized white evangelicals who have absolutely no idea what Jesus Christ was all about.
Sure, let's have an honest discussion about our policies and our ethnocentric attitudes. Reverend Wright isn't it.
How did you end up with this false dichotomy that anybody offended by what Wright said is a Sean Hannity-esque soulless Republican? Because in case you haven't noticed, a lot of people are offended by what Reverend Wright said, and they're not all Rush Limbaugh.
I don't mind participating in this threads, despite being out-numbered 30-to-1, but if you expect to keep this site a place of honest discussion, then at least step out a little bit from your comfort zone and be honest.
I hear crazy things all the time like "9/11 was an inside job". My reaction to those ideas isn't outrage. It's more -- man, that person is a friggen idiot.
Even the Robertson and Falwell 9/11 statements are more along the lines of just shaking my head. I think immediately after 9/11 I was too concerned with other matters to really even get angry.
The ones that I'm worried about are the kind of folk who immediately assume that Wright's views must necessarily be shared by Obama.
To me that kind of thinking is just kind of odd. I understand it, but it worries the Hell out of me. It warns me that we are primed to repeat all of the mistakes of the past 8 years.
As to whether America is damned, well, it's sure feeling like that could be the case. And let's be honest and bravely dissect our own actions to see if they might have had anything to do with bringing us to this bad place. Whether we're capable of getting undamned is the question at hand.
Aids? Okay, so he 'misspoke'. Kind of like 'misspeaking' in suggesting that Saddam was in cahoots with al Qaeda, was behind 9/11 and had wmd he was about to use on America.
Be honest? You can't be promoting be honest and reduce everything Wright has said to his hyperbolic Aids charge, which, if factually incorrect, is just an emotional step or two from the Tuskegee experiments.
As to the "people offended by what Reverend Wright said", well, to be honest, those people are part of the problem. They're too gutless to be honest and much prefer keeping their complacent heads stuck in the sand or up their own arse. Racism pervades this country's culture and politics and, a lot of us believe, is the venal driving dynamic underlying the right's high-falutin' rhetoric.
It's always entertaining to watch you losers trot out drool like "false dichotomy", while your ideological platform is all about Malthusian economics and free markets and abhorrence to using tax dollars to assist (black & brown) disadvantaged Americans, yet you're all so in favor of pouring trillions into a fly-specked, dysfunctional entity like Iraq that can't even tie its own shoelaces, let alone pull itself up by its own bootstraps. Where is their Washington or Gandhi or Havel or Mandela or Garibaldi or Ataturk?
Yeah, let's be honest.
As I said, I'm all for a discussion about the our actions and the consequences of them. If you believe the best spokesperson for your side of that discussion is Jeremiah Wright, then so be it.
I'm not reducing Wright at all; in fact, you are. Wright believes in Black Liberation Theology, which itself is on the fringes of mainstream modern thought but not in and of itself "radical". Some of Wright's specific passages, which the AIDS example is the most flagrant, and since he repeated it this weekend, is also the most recent, are a bit more radical than mainstream. However, to view Wright as a typical American preacher who is taken out of context reduces the core of what Wright believes.
The problem here is that Obama attended a church for twenty years that espoused Black Liberation Theology. Again, this is not a problem and doesn't in any way disqualify him from office. But people might be put off by it, and you should be prepared for that.
As for the people who are offended, based off of Obama's press conference on Tuesday, you just said that Barack Obame is part of the problem and prefers to keep his complacent head suck up his own ass.
As for the people who are offended, based off of Obama's press conference on Tuesday, you just said that Barack Obame is part of the problem and prefers to keep his complacent head suck up his own ass.
Damn straight on that one. We're still a long way from finding the light in this country if the likes of Barack Obama has to publicly contort himself to stay in the running.
To my mind, if Senator Obama spent twenty years in a Christian church whose principal preacher's thing was fiery black spiritual empowerment and he came out of it the way cool and transcendental guy that he is, then, ipso facto, it was the right thing for him. And, hopefully, on November 5, ipso facto, the right thing for the rest of us. Even if folks like you are too dense to know what's good for you.
He solicited it and lavished praise on the man. Hagee has been involved in GOP politics for the past 30 years. It is extremely hard to believe that McCain was not aware of Hagee's views when he solicited this endorsement.