I guess many of Wonderboy's supporters now feel it's okay to drop pretensions from the election season and speak truth.
That would be why his one-time minister, Jeremiah Wright, has spoken out forcefully in an interview this week, claiming that 'the Jews' are keeping Obama from contacting or being seen with him.
Yet, Wright claimed that Wonderboy is his sixth 'son,' just like his own children. That they evidently met again, secretly, during the campaign season last year, after the candidate had publicly dissed the anger-filled church leader.
No word yet from the White House on how to spin this one. But it does seem as if there's something in the Chicago water supply to make black religious leaders utter amazingly crude and offensive comments about Jews, doesn't it?
Showing posts with label Wright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wright. Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2009
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Obama Leaves His Church- Finally
This past weekend's announcement by the freshman Senator from Illinois that he is leaving his church of longstanding membership, Trinity, in Chicago, probably raised as many questions as it answered.
For example, along the lines of questions during the height of the outrage over Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright's racist and anti-American remarks, some now wonder why Obama waited so long to leave the church.
He spent a considerable amount of time and effort attempting to defend the very person and statements over which he now has left.
Further, in his statement announcing his departure, he used words to the effect that he was making no judgment on the church.
Really? That sounds awfully mealy-mouthed and tepid coming from a candidate for our nation's highest office, doesn't it?
He leaves a supposed community of his faith, but attempts to trivialize it by saying he's leaving over nothing.
Either he is separating from the congregation's and ministers' positions, or he's not. Which is it?
Is he so flighty as to leave the bastion of his faith for no particular reason? Or so cowardly that he won't condemn that with which he no longer wishes to be associated?
And, to top it all off, he informed the press that he won't be choosing another church until next year- safely after the voting in November.
As usual, Obama runs from trouble and shows no spine on even the smallest issues.
Is this who you want as President?
For example, along the lines of questions during the height of the outrage over Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright's racist and anti-American remarks, some now wonder why Obama waited so long to leave the church.
He spent a considerable amount of time and effort attempting to defend the very person and statements over which he now has left.
Further, in his statement announcing his departure, he used words to the effect that he was making no judgment on the church.
Really? That sounds awfully mealy-mouthed and tepid coming from a candidate for our nation's highest office, doesn't it?
He leaves a supposed community of his faith, but attempts to trivialize it by saying he's leaving over nothing.
Either he is separating from the congregation's and ministers' positions, or he's not. Which is it?
Is he so flighty as to leave the bastion of his faith for no particular reason? Or so cowardly that he won't condemn that with which he no longer wishes to be associated?
And, to top it all off, he informed the press that he won't be choosing another church until next year- safely after the voting in November.
As usual, Obama runs from trouble and shows no spine on even the smallest issues.
Is this who you want as President?
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Obama's Lingering Minister Problem
In this recent post, I discussed the visual and audible nature of Obama's recent attempt to distance himself from his hate-filled former minister, Jeremiah Wright.
In this post, I want to touch on the failure of the content of Obama's speech to explain his lingering problem- credibility.
As I, and many others, see it, Obama refuses to acknowledge that Wright's remarks last week contained no new hate speech- merely repetitions of hate-mongering comments which he has made over the past twenty years.
Viewed in this light, Obama's decision to 'throw Wright under the bus' becomes the height of political calculation. Despite the Senator's insistence that now he finds Wright's comments objectionable, he will not acknowledge that the statements to which he referred last week were not new, merely re-affirmations of old hate-speech.
If these statements did not necessitate Obama from referring to Wright as an 'uncle,' and refusing to disown him, a month ago in his speech in Philadelphia, then why would the same comments now force Obama to disown him?
That's the question those of us not already under the control of Obama pixie dust ask.
How can it be that Obama suddenly finds Wright's years-old statements, which were merely repeated last week in Washington and Detroit, now objectionable?
It all goes to judgment and maturity. This issue is not, and never was, strictly about Wright's hate-speech, but, rather, Obama's acceptance of it until it became a political liability.
Now that Obama has responded with last week's remarks which marked an about-face on this issue, it will remain with Obama until November's election. By reacting in so contrasting a manner to no new Wright statements, Obama has unwittingly played his hand as a politician seeking to appeal to all voter segments- radical blacks, moderate whites, and upscale, guilty white liberals. The very real possibility that the second group might bolt from Obama's voter base, especially in advance of the Indiana primary, forced him to bet that the first and third groups won't mind if he abandons his minister of twenty years.
All very indicative of the fact that Obama is no 'post-partisan' Presidential candidate, but just another typical, uber liberal Democratic Presidential candidate making fast and ever-changing political calculations regarding with whom he will still associate, as he seeks to assemble a voting coalition for November.
In this post, I want to touch on the failure of the content of Obama's speech to explain his lingering problem- credibility.
As I, and many others, see it, Obama refuses to acknowledge that Wright's remarks last week contained no new hate speech- merely repetitions of hate-mongering comments which he has made over the past twenty years.
Viewed in this light, Obama's decision to 'throw Wright under the bus' becomes the height of political calculation. Despite the Senator's insistence that now he finds Wright's comments objectionable, he will not acknowledge that the statements to which he referred last week were not new, merely re-affirmations of old hate-speech.
If these statements did not necessitate Obama from referring to Wright as an 'uncle,' and refusing to disown him, a month ago in his speech in Philadelphia, then why would the same comments now force Obama to disown him?
That's the question those of us not already under the control of Obama pixie dust ask.
How can it be that Obama suddenly finds Wright's years-old statements, which were merely repeated last week in Washington and Detroit, now objectionable?
It all goes to judgment and maturity. This issue is not, and never was, strictly about Wright's hate-speech, but, rather, Obama's acceptance of it until it became a political liability.
Now that Obama has responded with last week's remarks which marked an about-face on this issue, it will remain with Obama until November's election. By reacting in so contrasting a manner to no new Wright statements, Obama has unwittingly played his hand as a politician seeking to appeal to all voter segments- radical blacks, moderate whites, and upscale, guilty white liberals. The very real possibility that the second group might bolt from Obama's voter base, especially in advance of the Indiana primary, forced him to bet that the first and third groups won't mind if he abandons his minister of twenty years.
All very indicative of the fact that Obama is no 'post-partisan' Presidential candidate, but just another typical, uber liberal Democratic Presidential candidate making fast and ever-changing political calculations regarding with whom he will still associate, as he seeks to assemble a voting coalition for November.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The Real Obama Finally Speaks
By now, you, like I, have read and heard countless interpretations of this week's biggest political news cycle. That is, Jeremiah Wright's appearances at an NAACP function, and at the National Press Club, and his one-time mentee, Democratic Presidential candidate Obama's desperate attempt to finally distance himself from this ravingly lunatic, hate- and racism-spewing minister.
As I discussed these events yesterday with my business partner over lunch, I expressed my one signal reaction to Obama's first halting rejection of Wright and his speech. Ironically, my partner had read the transcript, so he couldn't compare his own reaction.
That reaction of mine is this. Unlike every other speech I have seen Obama give, this one bore none of his trademark lilting, rhythmic, preacher-like enthusiasm-building or even clever writing.
Instead, I think we saw the real Obama- groping for words, unsure, shocked, off-balance, unfocused, dazed, overwhelmed and feeling abject desperation.
Gone were the rolling tempos of Baptist preacher-like constructions in his verbiage. Instead, he looked down, up, and around a lot. As if searching in vain for somewhere or someone to supply him with the politically 'right' response, now that his staff's cost/benefit calculations had unmistakably shown that Obama now had to throw his former pastor, Wright, under the bus. And then implore the driver to floor it.
Maybe the insecurity, fumbling and lack of focus we saw on Tuesday and Wednesday in Obama's speeches on the subject reflected his own shock at having been revealed to be just another politician after all.
Sure, some of the usual Democratic strategist suspects championed his speeches and argued that he was 'Presidential,' decisive, and mature. But the truth is, his former mentor/minister deliberately and callously labelled Obama as a politician 'doing what politicians do.'
Thank you for that, Jeremiah. You finally seem to have spoken truth to power-on-the-make.
As I discussed these events yesterday with my business partner over lunch, I expressed my one signal reaction to Obama's first halting rejection of Wright and his speech. Ironically, my partner had read the transcript, so he couldn't compare his own reaction.
That reaction of mine is this. Unlike every other speech I have seen Obama give, this one bore none of his trademark lilting, rhythmic, preacher-like enthusiasm-building or even clever writing.
Instead, I think we saw the real Obama- groping for words, unsure, shocked, off-balance, unfocused, dazed, overwhelmed and feeling abject desperation.
Gone were the rolling tempos of Baptist preacher-like constructions in his verbiage. Instead, he looked down, up, and around a lot. As if searching in vain for somewhere or someone to supply him with the politically 'right' response, now that his staff's cost/benefit calculations had unmistakably shown that Obama now had to throw his former pastor, Wright, under the bus. And then implore the driver to floor it.
Maybe the insecurity, fumbling and lack of focus we saw on Tuesday and Wednesday in Obama's speeches on the subject reflected his own shock at having been revealed to be just another politician after all.
Sure, some of the usual Democratic strategist suspects championed his speeches and argued that he was 'Presidential,' decisive, and mature. But the truth is, his former mentor/minister deliberately and callously labelled Obama as a politician 'doing what politicians do.'
Thank you for that, Jeremiah. You finally seem to have spoken truth to power-on-the-make.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Lanny Davis Fans the Flames
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal carried an explosive, devastating editorial by Lanny Davis, one time counsel to Bill Clinton, regarding Obama's minister problem.
Davis is an explicit Hillary acolyte and campaign supporter.
Rather than let the Obama minister issue go, and potentially allow the Democratic party to get it behind for the general elections, Davis is signaling that Hillary will go to the mat now and until the final bell for the nomination.
Here are the key passages from Davis' editorial,
"Clearly Mr. Obama does not share the extremist views of Rev. Wright. He is a tolerant and honorable person. But that is not the issue. The questions remain: Why did he stay a member of the congregation? Why didn't he speak up earlier? And why did he reward Rev. Wright with a campaign position even after knowing of his comments?
As I read and reread these words, I keep thinking: If my rabbi ever uttered such hateful words from the pulpit about America and declared all Palestinians to be terrorists, I have no doubt I would have withdrawn immediately from his congregation.
In his eloquent Philadelphia speech, Mr. Obama likened Rev. Wright to a beloved, but politically extremist, family member with whom one profoundly disagrees but whose rage one understands.
But this comparison just doesn't work for me. I don't get a chance to choose my family members. I do get a chance to choose my spiritual or religious leader and my congregation. And I do not have to remain silent or, more importantly, expose my children to the spiritual leader of my congregation who spews hate that offends my conscience.
Mr. Obama made a choice to join the church and to ask Rev. Wright to marry him and his bride. He said for the first time a few weeks ago that had Rev. Wright not recently resigned as pastor of the church, he would have withdrawn. But that only reraised the same questions: Why didn't he act before the resignation?
If he did not want to withdraw from the church – and I truly try to understand his personal difficulty doing so – then why not at least speak out publicly and say, in the famous phrase of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy: "No – this is unacceptable."
Furthermore, after knowing about some of these sermons and having serious problems with some of their messages, why did Mr. Obama still decide to appoint Rev. Wright to his official presidential campaign religious advisory committee?
Attacking the motives of those who feel this discomfort about Senator Obama's response or nonresponse to Reverend Wright's comments is not just unfair and wrong. It also misses the important electoral point about winning the general election in November: This issue is not going away. If many loyal, progressive Democrats remain troubled by this issue, then there must be even more unease among key swing voters – soft "Reagan Democrats," independents and moderate Republicans – who will decide the 2008 election."
Davis is an explicit Hillary acolyte and campaign supporter.
Rather than let the Obama minister issue go, and potentially allow the Democratic party to get it behind for the general elections, Davis is signaling that Hillary will go to the mat now and until the final bell for the nomination.
Here are the key passages from Davis' editorial,
"Clearly Mr. Obama does not share the extremist views of Rev. Wright. He is a tolerant and honorable person. But that is not the issue. The questions remain: Why did he stay a member of the congregation? Why didn't he speak up earlier? And why did he reward Rev. Wright with a campaign position even after knowing of his comments?
As I read and reread these words, I keep thinking: If my rabbi ever uttered such hateful words from the pulpit about America and declared all Palestinians to be terrorists, I have no doubt I would have withdrawn immediately from his congregation.
In his eloquent Philadelphia speech, Mr. Obama likened Rev. Wright to a beloved, but politically extremist, family member with whom one profoundly disagrees but whose rage one understands.
But this comparison just doesn't work for me. I don't get a chance to choose my family members. I do get a chance to choose my spiritual or religious leader and my congregation. And I do not have to remain silent or, more importantly, expose my children to the spiritual leader of my congregation who spews hate that offends my conscience.
Mr. Obama made a choice to join the church and to ask Rev. Wright to marry him and his bride. He said for the first time a few weeks ago that had Rev. Wright not recently resigned as pastor of the church, he would have withdrawn. But that only reraised the same questions: Why didn't he act before the resignation?
If he did not want to withdraw from the church – and I truly try to understand his personal difficulty doing so – then why not at least speak out publicly and say, in the famous phrase of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy: "No – this is unacceptable."
Furthermore, after knowing about some of these sermons and having serious problems with some of their messages, why did Mr. Obama still decide to appoint Rev. Wright to his official presidential campaign religious advisory committee?
Attacking the motives of those who feel this discomfort about Senator Obama's response or nonresponse to Reverend Wright's comments is not just unfair and wrong. It also misses the important electoral point about winning the general election in November: This issue is not going away. If many loyal, progressive Democrats remain troubled by this issue, then there must be even more unease among key swing voters – soft "Reagan Democrats," independents and moderate Republicans – who will decide the 2008 election."
This is great stuff, and especially coming from a liberal Democrat like Davis. If a Republican continued to make these points, he'd be accused of race-baiting and simply trying to prolong the coverage of a campaign non-issue for Obama.
But Davis makes the point that Democrats haven't really taken the time to consider just how weak this example of appalling bad judgment may make Obama in the general election.
And how implausible Obama's 'explanation' is, even to other Democrats.
Further, Davis carefully separates Obama's views on race, etc., from his ministers', so that he, Davis, can zero in on the real issue- Obama's bad judgment. And questionable choice of advisers, lieutenants and would-be appointments.
It is, in my opinion, a masterstroke.
Of course, Davis' editorial is, in some sense, a measure of how desperate Hillary's campaign is to derail Obama. To have an unofficial campaigner, a Clinton veteran at that, carry this water for Hillary would really seem to raise the stakes on this issue, and the Democratic nomination fight, in general.
When all is said and done, Hillary's 'take no prisoners' quest for the Oval Office is tearing her party apart, and she and Bill obviously could not care less.
For conservatives, this is free entertainment with a special kick.
Monday, March 31, 2008
What Obama & The Liberals Don't "Get" About The Situation with His Minister
The recent firestorm involving Obama's (hastily retired) church minister who was seen on DVD excoriating whites and the US has been completely misunderstood by liberals and, most notably, the candidate himself.
It's not about the minister. It is about how Obama reacted, or did not react, over the 20 year period.
Various liberal pundits keep dredging up Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson or Billy Graham in order to defend Jeremiah Wright. I've seen Alan Colmes, the not-too-bright foil for Fox News' Sean Hannity, squawk about these white ministers several times now whenever Jeremiah Wright is the subject of discussion.
What Colmes, and his ilk, don't grasp is that Americans are not as concerned about what Wright did or said. They know where he stands, what he said and what he did.
It's Obama whose judgment people now question.
See the difference?
In all of Obama's attempts to make this issue go away, he has yet to provide a convincing explanation for his judgment and inaction.
He briefly touched on it in his "race" speech, veiling his inaction behind a generic reference to others not leaving their church just because they had a minor difference of opinion with 'something' that their minister said.
On The View last week, he ducked the issue entirely, putting so many conditions in the way, at Barbara Walters' behest, that his reply became totally absurd and silly.
But what Amercians wonder is this- is Obama insensitive to racist speak and actions?
Is the Senator who helped drive Don Imus from the air waves last year for one show in which racist words were uttered going to do nothing while his own minister rails against whites and the US over the course of twenty years?
Is this an example of the judgment Obama will use if elected President?
Wright will be who he is, and Obama is not responsible for him.
Obama is responsible for his own actions and reactions to Wright's racist and anti-American speech.
If I had just one question to ask Obama, it would be this:
How do you reconcile your hounding Don Imus off the air for a limited amount of admittedly racist comments, yet have no explanation for your tolerance and accommodation of your minister's racist remarks over two decades- remarks of which you admit you were aware?
We're not questioning the character of Obama's minister, per se. We're questioning Obama's judgment and choice of advisers.
It's not about the minister. It is about how Obama reacted, or did not react, over the 20 year period.
Various liberal pundits keep dredging up Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson or Billy Graham in order to defend Jeremiah Wright. I've seen Alan Colmes, the not-too-bright foil for Fox News' Sean Hannity, squawk about these white ministers several times now whenever Jeremiah Wright is the subject of discussion.
What Colmes, and his ilk, don't grasp is that Americans are not as concerned about what Wright did or said. They know where he stands, what he said and what he did.
It's Obama whose judgment people now question.
See the difference?
In all of Obama's attempts to make this issue go away, he has yet to provide a convincing explanation for his judgment and inaction.
He briefly touched on it in his "race" speech, veiling his inaction behind a generic reference to others not leaving their church just because they had a minor difference of opinion with 'something' that their minister said.
On The View last week, he ducked the issue entirely, putting so many conditions in the way, at Barbara Walters' behest, that his reply became totally absurd and silly.
But what Amercians wonder is this- is Obama insensitive to racist speak and actions?
Is the Senator who helped drive Don Imus from the air waves last year for one show in which racist words were uttered going to do nothing while his own minister rails against whites and the US over the course of twenty years?
Is this an example of the judgment Obama will use if elected President?
Wright will be who he is, and Obama is not responsible for him.
Obama is responsible for his own actions and reactions to Wright's racist and anti-American speech.
If I had just one question to ask Obama, it would be this:
How do you reconcile your hounding Don Imus off the air for a limited amount of admittedly racist comments, yet have no explanation for your tolerance and accommodation of your minister's racist remarks over two decades- remarks of which you admit you were aware?
We're not questioning the character of Obama's minister, per se. We're questioning Obama's judgment and choice of advisers.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Obama's Race Speech Fails
Having seen the speech and heard a day's worth of commentary on Obama's attempt to quell the mounting furor over his minister and spiritual adviser's well-publicized and documented racist and anti-American speech, I must conclude that he failed.
Sure, as I told the liberal son of a friend last night, Obama convinced his own party's left wing, and probably the slightly-left-of-center members, as well.
But, despite naming the fear, in hopes of conquering it, he almost certainly has lost the 'Reagan Democrats' of mid-America. They are the middle-class, sometimes blue-collar, often male voters who swing about the center of the American political spectrum.
Listening to the more balanced black commentators yesterday, including Fox News/NPR's Juan Williams, it was obvious that even they felt Obama erred grievously by failing to have left his church and minister years ago, upon hearing the latter's anti-white and anti-American statements.
A liberal friend of mine agreed with me that Obama has now lost the election by failing to explicitly and totally sever himself from the repugnant minister. But, in reality, she said, he lost when he continued to sit in the church's pews and silently accommodate and tolerate such speech. Interestingly, she asked,
'How, as a partly-white American, could he sit there in silence and have half of himself damned by this minister?'
As I recollected to my friend's son last night, Michael Dukakis' turning point came in a debate, when he failed to say he'd want the death penalty for the hypothetical rapist of his wife, should such a person be caught. Americans found his carefully-couched, legalistic reply to be unnatural and suspect.
In this campaign, I believe we are witnessing a similar moment for Obama. This is his Waterloo.
For what it's worth, his speech reflected the perspective of someone with whom, frankly, I seem to share very little in the way of views of our country.
Again, speaking with my friend's liberal son, I opined that while Obama is contending that race is a paramount issue in today's America, I simply don't agree. It's nowhere on a list of my top five or seven issues most in need of address in America today.
In fact, this young man with whom I spoke is, himself, the son of a multi-cultural couple, and speaks his mother's non-English language fluently. He attended a first-rate private high school, and one of the best Ivy universities. He surely is not the victim of racism in today's America.
What Obama construes as racism is, I believe, more a function of poverty stemming from America's uneven, locally-funded and controlled educational system. Confusing the two is a horrendous mistake.
By, among other things:
-comparing his minister to 'everyone else's' minister, rabbi, or priest in making statements with which he disagreed,
-using his own grandmother as a source of racial slurs,
-claiming that the race issue will be used by conservatives as they have used 'fear' tactics in other campaigns,
-claiming that the race issue leads to legitimate, wider debate of Obama's other favorite campaign topics,
I think Obama pointlessly and ineffectively made his speech a grab-bag of topics which both elevated the minister, rather than disowned him, and blurred the focus of his statements.
In the end, his explicit refusal to repudiate his relationship with the racist minister will assure that this issue has a life as long as Obama's candidacy.
Sure, as I told the liberal son of a friend last night, Obama convinced his own party's left wing, and probably the slightly-left-of-center members, as well.
But, despite naming the fear, in hopes of conquering it, he almost certainly has lost the 'Reagan Democrats' of mid-America. They are the middle-class, sometimes blue-collar, often male voters who swing about the center of the American political spectrum.
Listening to the more balanced black commentators yesterday, including Fox News/NPR's Juan Williams, it was obvious that even they felt Obama erred grievously by failing to have left his church and minister years ago, upon hearing the latter's anti-white and anti-American statements.
A liberal friend of mine agreed with me that Obama has now lost the election by failing to explicitly and totally sever himself from the repugnant minister. But, in reality, she said, he lost when he continued to sit in the church's pews and silently accommodate and tolerate such speech. Interestingly, she asked,
'How, as a partly-white American, could he sit there in silence and have half of himself damned by this minister?'
As I recollected to my friend's son last night, Michael Dukakis' turning point came in a debate, when he failed to say he'd want the death penalty for the hypothetical rapist of his wife, should such a person be caught. Americans found his carefully-couched, legalistic reply to be unnatural and suspect.
In this campaign, I believe we are witnessing a similar moment for Obama. This is his Waterloo.
For what it's worth, his speech reflected the perspective of someone with whom, frankly, I seem to share very little in the way of views of our country.
Again, speaking with my friend's liberal son, I opined that while Obama is contending that race is a paramount issue in today's America, I simply don't agree. It's nowhere on a list of my top five or seven issues most in need of address in America today.
In fact, this young man with whom I spoke is, himself, the son of a multi-cultural couple, and speaks his mother's non-English language fluently. He attended a first-rate private high school, and one of the best Ivy universities. He surely is not the victim of racism in today's America.
What Obama construes as racism is, I believe, more a function of poverty stemming from America's uneven, locally-funded and controlled educational system. Confusing the two is a horrendous mistake.
By, among other things:
-comparing his minister to 'everyone else's' minister, rabbi, or priest in making statements with which he disagreed,
-using his own grandmother as a source of racial slurs,
-claiming that the race issue will be used by conservatives as they have used 'fear' tactics in other campaigns,
-claiming that the race issue leads to legitimate, wider debate of Obama's other favorite campaign topics,
I think Obama pointlessly and ineffectively made his speech a grab-bag of topics which both elevated the minister, rather than disowned him, and blurred the focus of his statements.
In the end, his explicit refusal to repudiate his relationship with the racist minister will assure that this issue has a life as long as Obama's candidacy.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
On Race & Obama's Minister
Let me state my conclusion up front and clearly. In my opinion, Obama's church's minister probably has, and/or will, cost him his chance to become President in November of this year.
Over the past week, the just "retired(?)" minister of Obama's church, Jeremiah Wright, has once again ignited a firestorm. I write 'once again, because he was identified as a racist minister as long ago as last March.
Here are two YouTube videos from that time period. One is of Sean Hannity interviewing Wright on Hannity & Colmes, while the other, a month earlier, shows Tucker Carlson discussing Wright's explicitly racist themes.
Hannity & Colmes interview with Wright March 2007
Tucker Carlson February 2007
More recently, these two clips were added on YouTube. The first is a video of Wright's anti-white, anti-Hillary diatribe.
This next clip appears to be the taping, while in a car, of a radio address by Wright.
I was unable to locate the video in which Wright, shortly after the 9/11/01 attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, rails against US foreign policy and echoes Malcolm X by saying that the 'chickens have come home to roost.'
Why did it take so long for the mainstream media to finally identify Wright's racist themes? Why has it taken over a year for Obama to address this issue?
This isn't about freedom of religion, or the explanation of a race-neutral church to the rest of America.
This church had on its website, until, it has been reported on Fox News, just this week, information about it's insistence for church members to propagate 'black values.'
The problem for Obama, as I see it, is to explain to Americans why the pastor whom he says converted him to Christianity and has been a close confidant for over a decade holds explicitly racist, anti-American views. And why Obama has, in full knowledge of this, continued to participate in the church and associate with the minister.
If I had five minutes in which to question Obama, here are some questions which I would ask:
-Do you agree with your minister's expression of your church's precepts in explicitly racist tones?
-Do you feel that by associating with this church and minister, and its racist views, you are expressing your own values to the American voting public?
-If you continue to support this minister's views, by not explicitly denouncing them and leaving his church, does he not provide an example of the sort of advisor you would choose as President?
-Is your support of this minister an example of your judgment of people and values which you would carry over to your administration, if elected President?
-If you don't feel it is fair to judge you by this minister, his words and values, then how are the American people supposed to gauge what you have done that does provide evidence of your judgment, values and choices of advisers? Are they to assume that you will dump any now-inconvenient and inconsistent prior advisers, or repudiate similar actions or beliefs, in order to win votes?
Last night, on Fox News, an Obama apologist kept exhorting the on-air anchors to 'give (Obama) a chance to explain himself' in his speech later today.
Frankly, I don't think that speech will matter. What is to 'explain' about Wright's recorded anti-white, anti-American speeches? Nothing. They speak for themselves. So does Obama's lack of response to their known existence.
He didn't leave his church a year ago, when these issues were raised. He didn't repudiate the minister.
It seems very clear that Obama is now caught precisely in the race-trap he sought to avoid. Many who ardently support him are anti-white racists. If a white candidate for President had a church and minister which had identical themes and 'values,' only substituting the word 'white' for 'black' or 'african american,' he'd be hounded out of the Presidential race and his party by the (liberal) mainstream American media.
At this point, even if Obama can paper over this mess among his party's voters, and still beat Hillary, I think it will turn many centrist, blue-collar Reagan Democrats against him. Obama's apologies or late attempts to distance himself from his racist minister may play well to the upper-income white Democrats who feel guilt for prior anti-black racism, but it probably won't work with middle-class white voters.
By failing to have openly denounced his church and its minister as soon as they espoused racist and anti-American themes, Obama has opened himself up to justifiable criticism of his judgment, awareness of the actions of those he claims are close to him and advise him.
When we choose a President, we ultimately choose his/her character and values, because we don't know exactly what challenges our country will face on that President's watch.
As Obama attempts to dance and weave away from this crisis, he exhibits a character which is, in my opinion, fatally flawed for a person who would be President.
Dick Morris opined on Hannity and Colmes last night that the Democrats mistakenly have chosen Obama as their Presidential candidate before appropriately vetting him.
I think Morris is right, and this issue with Obama's minister and church are a prime example of that.
Over the past week, the just "retired(?)" minister of Obama's church, Jeremiah Wright, has once again ignited a firestorm. I write 'once again, because he was identified as a racist minister as long ago as last March.
Here are two YouTube videos from that time period. One is of Sean Hannity interviewing Wright on Hannity & Colmes, while the other, a month earlier, shows Tucker Carlson discussing Wright's explicitly racist themes.
Hannity & Colmes interview with Wright March 2007
Tucker Carlson February 2007
More recently, these two clips were added on YouTube. The first is a video of Wright's anti-white, anti-Hillary diatribe.
This next clip appears to be the taping, while in a car, of a radio address by Wright.
I was unable to locate the video in which Wright, shortly after the 9/11/01 attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, rails against US foreign policy and echoes Malcolm X by saying that the 'chickens have come home to roost.'
Why did it take so long for the mainstream media to finally identify Wright's racist themes? Why has it taken over a year for Obama to address this issue?
This isn't about freedom of religion, or the explanation of a race-neutral church to the rest of America.
This church had on its website, until, it has been reported on Fox News, just this week, information about it's insistence for church members to propagate 'black values.'
The problem for Obama, as I see it, is to explain to Americans why the pastor whom he says converted him to Christianity and has been a close confidant for over a decade holds explicitly racist, anti-American views. And why Obama has, in full knowledge of this, continued to participate in the church and associate with the minister.
If I had five minutes in which to question Obama, here are some questions which I would ask:
-Do you agree with your minister's expression of your church's precepts in explicitly racist tones?
-Do you feel that by associating with this church and minister, and its racist views, you are expressing your own values to the American voting public?
-If you continue to support this minister's views, by not explicitly denouncing them and leaving his church, does he not provide an example of the sort of advisor you would choose as President?
-Is your support of this minister an example of your judgment of people and values which you would carry over to your administration, if elected President?
-If you don't feel it is fair to judge you by this minister, his words and values, then how are the American people supposed to gauge what you have done that does provide evidence of your judgment, values and choices of advisers? Are they to assume that you will dump any now-inconvenient and inconsistent prior advisers, or repudiate similar actions or beliefs, in order to win votes?
Last night, on Fox News, an Obama apologist kept exhorting the on-air anchors to 'give (Obama) a chance to explain himself' in his speech later today.
Frankly, I don't think that speech will matter. What is to 'explain' about Wright's recorded anti-white, anti-American speeches? Nothing. They speak for themselves. So does Obama's lack of response to their known existence.
He didn't leave his church a year ago, when these issues were raised. He didn't repudiate the minister.
It seems very clear that Obama is now caught precisely in the race-trap he sought to avoid. Many who ardently support him are anti-white racists. If a white candidate for President had a church and minister which had identical themes and 'values,' only substituting the word 'white' for 'black' or 'african american,' he'd be hounded out of the Presidential race and his party by the (liberal) mainstream American media.
At this point, even if Obama can paper over this mess among his party's voters, and still beat Hillary, I think it will turn many centrist, blue-collar Reagan Democrats against him. Obama's apologies or late attempts to distance himself from his racist minister may play well to the upper-income white Democrats who feel guilt for prior anti-black racism, but it probably won't work with middle-class white voters.
By failing to have openly denounced his church and its minister as soon as they espoused racist and anti-American themes, Obama has opened himself up to justifiable criticism of his judgment, awareness of the actions of those he claims are close to him and advise him.
When we choose a President, we ultimately choose his/her character and values, because we don't know exactly what challenges our country will face on that President's watch.
As Obama attempts to dance and weave away from this crisis, he exhibits a character which is, in my opinion, fatally flawed for a person who would be President.
Dick Morris opined on Hannity and Colmes last night that the Democrats mistakenly have chosen Obama as their Presidential candidate before appropriately vetting him.
I think Morris is right, and this issue with Obama's minister and church are a prime example of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
