A few months ago I pointed out the e-mail smears floating around on the internet about Barack Obama being an extremist Muslim or a racist Christian. Both rumors appeared to be completely unsubstantiated as Factcheck.org pointed out.
Recently, however, a great number of clips of sermons from a Reverend Wright have surfaced which seem to show that there was a much greater anti-white and anti-American sentiment being preached at the Church, and to much applause and cheers by the members.
And what the Factcheck.org folks failed to mention was that this particular pastor that was dismissed as just one controversial one of many was closely associated with Obama, a fact that was reported the previous summer in great detail by the NY Times:
In the 16 years since Mr. Obama returned to Chicago from Harvard, Mr. Wright has presided over his wedding ceremony, baptized his two daughters and dedicated his house, while Mr. Obama has often spoken at Trinity’s panels and debates. Though the Obamas drop in on other congregations, they treat Trinity as their spiritual home, attending services frequently. The church’s Afrocentric focus makes Mr. Obama a figure of particular authenticity there, because he has the African connections so many members have searched for.
...
He has said that he relies on Mr. Wright to ensure “that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible.” He tends to turn to his minister at moments of frustration, Mr. Wright said, such as when Mr. Obama felt a Congressional Black Caucus meeting was heavier on entertainment than substance.
...
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”
The NY Times notes that Wright strongly influenced Obama's writings, with one of his sermons being the inspiration for the title of the "Audacity of Hope."
It seems a strange person with political aspirations to be so closely associated with, especially since it was obviously no secret that he regularly cursed America and blamed whites for nearly everything up to and including attempting genocide against people of color by creating/disseminating AIDS. It seems even stranger that he remained so closely associated with the conspiratorial anti-American whackjob for so many years while quickly rising through a political career.
While he somewhat distanced himself in the past, saying they didn't agree on everything, with the release of the far more inflammatory rhetoric being plastered all over the web and the media, he's finally firmly and clearly denounced the Reverend's statements. But as was noted last summer by the NY Times, it was something the two had discussed as something that may become necessary as opposed to it being a candid denunciation.
While Obama has been quick to deny, and many of his supporters quick to defend, the occasional incidents which had an appearance of being unpatriotic, including statements by his wife, this association makes it harder to believe that they were all just misstatements or being pragmatically patriotic through action, not shows of patriotism.
I've been quick to defend him on some issues, such as the radical Muslim accusations, the lapel flag pin fiasco, and the idiotic middle name focus. Some of his actions have been confounding for a presidential candidate though, where a deep devotion to one's nation is typically considered a prerequisite, even if it is in the pursuit of improving it with recognition of its flaws. The Pledge of Allegiance issue in particular seemed to show his utter disregard about the importance of appearances, especially in pretty basic ceremonial activities. It means something to people, and disregard of that makes them wonder.
Being so closely associated with someone who was so blatantly unpatriotic and openly anti-white will just help affirm these doubts in the minds of many, and create doubts in the minds of those who might have otherwise dismissed everything else. He could have and should have distanced himself from this loon years ago. Instead he waited until the absolute last minute and after it could easily be depicted by his political opponents as a denunciation of convenience... which even I am starting to see it as.
This is just baffling to see with a presidential candidate. But it's starting to make scenes like this seem less like flukes:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... 2008 is the Dems' to lose, and they're spectacular at doing so.
Green Zone Follies
Baghdad , 20 Feb 08, “There is nothing new here to report. The troops are clearing out one nest of patriots only to have them move down the road. The DoD is fudging on the death tolls and they never mention the lunatics, the drug use or the semi-mutinous grunts, the constant attacks on the Green Zone with mortars and rockets and so on, and on. I am considered useful so I get to stay here. At least I get good food and relative safety unlike the foot troops. Now, the nutty Cheney wants to hive off more troops to invade Pakistan to help out their vanishing dictator. Never happen, Dick.
And here is just a personal vignette of an experience I and my psychologist buddy had with the Republican probable nominee, Senator McCain. He came here, as you might know, to “inspect the situation.” Jesus, what a farce! There he was, walking around a marketplace with more armed guards than Bush has, and wearing a huge bullet-proof vest. Anyway, after he “inspected” the market, he came to the Green Zone for some rigged conference with the lying generals. My buddy and I were going to visit another friend when we saw guards, etc, in front of a rec room door. Curious, we went into another unguarded room, opened several doors and guess what? There was the Senator all by himself, sitting on a folding chair by a card table. We were a little awed so I said ‘Hello, Senator. Sorry to bother you.” He looked at us like we were cows and kept blinking. Finally, he smiled and said, ‘Hey, there, soldiers! How is it going? Is it going good?” and my friend the shrink said, “Why yes, Senator. Everything is great!” And McCain smiled at nothing and looked around the room.
“Well…I’m glad to hear it. You are the General?” And I said, a little sarcastically, “Why no, Senator, not quite yet.” And he looked at me like I was a sheep or something, smiling s silly smile. “Oh” he said to the table, “Let’s hope it gets a little cooler here. Have you been here long?” My friend said, “Too long Senator.” “Why that’s good, General,” the Senator replied to the ceiling. Then his lips moved but he said nothing. He looked up and smiled. My wife’s grandfather did just that. And the Senator may have been sitting right near us but believe me, he was somewhere else. Then he began a conversation with someone who wasn’t there and my friend took my arm and said, “I think we should get the hell out of here,” and we started to go back the way we came when some civilian came in. “It’s time to go to the meeting, John,” but McCain just smiled and kept on talking to the table. The civilian said, “All right, gentlemen, time to go. The Senator is very tired and has jet lag.” And when we left, the Senator was talking complete nonsense. Later, one of the staff personnel told both of us that the Senator had “a little accident” and he had to change his pants. Jesus H. Christ! This nut is going to be a President? My friend, who is a pro, said he was very obviously suffering from pre-Alzheimer’s and believe me, although I am not trained, this one was a pure space case. They must know this. I guess they give him a shot of something before he gets out in public but if you saw him with a vacant stare, talking to himself, you would not have to be a professional shrink to know that putting this pathetic man into the Oval Office would be a worse mistake than putting Bush in. At least as far as we know, Bush doesn’t talk to the walls and wet himself.”
Uh, nice threadjack attempt.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I think it is necessary to live and relate to people living in segregated communities of color before passing judgment on these kinds of statements. I mean there are plenty of parts of the country where we find just as bizarre to see people equating "talking like a patriotic" and putting your hand on your heart with loving your country.
Asking peoples of color to love EVERYTHING about the country and not simply pour everything of themselves into bettering the country seems to be punishing us/them for the country's past transgressions against us/them.
Black nationalism may seem bizarre and racist from an empathetic perspective, but while I don't agree with much of its ideology, I can certainly understand where it comes from and why it's definitely not as bad an the type of mainstream jingoism that gets passed off as "patriotism".
We have just as much right to our own visions of what America should be. It would be nice to have someone representing a perspective that have been completely barred from the presidency up until now, and the fact that it worries or bothers you, Glock, makes me welcome it more. After all, I've had to cope with that same feeling about the person in the Oval Office for my entire life.
I'm not judging or asking "peoples of color" anything. I'm pointing out that a candidate for President is causing himself a huge image problem while running for an office where devotion to one's nation is typically considered a must-have quality... not that they have to like "everything about it." Despising it isn't something that sells well to voters... and associating with people who apparently despise it ain't good for the image.
This pastor yahoo has every right to hate America and openly curse it and accuse people of all sorts of wild conspiracy theories becasue of the color of their skin. But I sure as heck wouldn't vote for him. The fact that Obama took this long to firmly denounce him was a bad move on his part, and honestly just baffling for a presidential candidate. I can fully understand why someone who feels crapped on by their country might despise it. But such a person will have one heck of a time selling themselves to most voters who don't feel that way.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Well, I'd rather vote for an realistic optimist than a pollyanna. Obama clearly loves the country and wants to deliver a positive future for it. I don't see how anyone could glean anything else from his record or words even through "guilt by association". That he understands and respects the resentment that some have for the country would make him a better president. Of course, you are completely right and it will probably weaken his candidacy. But that's the problem with our society, not with Obama.
I saw the piece on Fox tonight. Most of you know I am a Romney guy and not too fond of McCain. I thought that Obama might deliver on Martin Luther King's promise to judge people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. I really thought that electing him might be the start of the end of affirmative action just as JFK's election allowed Catholics to be elected. After watching his pastor, I am not so sure. Who you choose to surround yourself with is a factor.
The Rezco connection is also one in which I am concerned. Obama had an opportunity to back out of the house situation when it became clear that he was getting a deal and Rezco was buying influence. I could even chalk that up to his age and inexperience. When he kicked back $106, 000 to Rezco we find out that they were equal partners in the house buy, but Rezco wanted to make it difficult for the feds to seize his assets. The 10" purchase was a sham because the fence ended up on the property line. Rezco could not have conveyed off 10' because that would have reduced his square footage under 5000 sq feet which was necessary for R2 zoning. So now it is not only his pastor, but his biggest patron. Then we find out that Michelle is connected into the Health Facilities Planning Board through her job at the University of Chicago Hospital. She is being paid $326,000 (a jump from $122,000, for what? To keep the Health Facilities Planning Board (Rezco) away from the University of Chicago Hospital. And please don't tell me she is a great Ivy League Lawyer either. My daughter was the Reseach and Writing Editor of the Columbia Law Review and argues appeals and in front of the 7th Circuit for the City of Chicago. And don't suggest that I am a racist either. I have a white grandson and a black grandson. I just don't believe that one should have any advantage over the other.
Although B. O. is one of the world's most genuine fakes, and the (so-called) United Church of Christ has an unscriptural stance on lgbtqa, I would have to say that the BO's Pastor Wright is actually telling the truth. Start reading at http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4443788
Its dangerous to tell the truth in America these days.
xian said: "Of course, you are completely right and it will probably weaken his candidacy. But that's the problem with our society, not with Obama."
CNN didn't have much problem drudging up some fiery sermons from some of McCain's Christian Coalition supporters as proof of the problem going both ways. They failed to note any decades long association of anywhere the same intimacy or them being a part of their political campaign... but somehow they managed to equate the two situations. Guilt by association, while not very relevant to arguments, it certainly is very relevant to political campaigns where appearance matters. Hence why politicians always distance themselves from guilty associates. The fact that they had discussed this and were essentially waiting to see if the media would ever scrutinize it before going their seperate ways seems like a boneheaded move on Obama's part, especially because he's said and done things that cast doubt on his devotion to his country in subtle ways, but never outright saying anything of the sort (though his wife came close, but at the time that was written off as her having misspoken).
This kind of rhetoric and "understanding" it if not outright justifying it may appeal to some of the nation's downtrodden. I've seen several interviews now, and many folks on-line, including the Anon at 4:43AM, pointing out that Wright was speaking "the truth." This is the same thing almost every fringe group relies on when trying to shut down criticism of their strikingly unpopular point of view... always along the lines of "it's the truth and the masses just don't understand it." The problem with any democratic process is that insulting the masses doesn't typically sell well no matter how much others may feel that the Jews running the planet is "the Truth" or that the 9/11 attacks were run by them or CIA agents are "the Truth" or that AIDS/drugs/etc are government projects to kill black people are "the Truth" or that the 9/11 attacks primarily killing innocent civilians was justified because of the actions of others is "the Truth"... it's just not going to go over well with most folks (the last two being what Obama's pastor had preached).
Perhaps society should better understand why people may hold these views, but it certainly doesn't justify them or make it society's problem for not buying into them. If it was just a matter of being outraged at real historical or current policy issues it probably wouldn't even be an issue. Almost every political group has their pet peeves about the system or feel that it is/was wronging them or others somehow. When you start to mix that with rhetoric that mixes in irrational conspiracy theories, exaggerations, lumping a racial group together as some sort of evil entity, or coming off as a Jerry Falwell on 9/11, etc... it's going to upset people. And politicians who "understand" it, or worse, sympathize with it, are going to run into trouble if they're trying to prove they'd best represent the People.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
What I love about Glock's writing is the way he manages to engage in nasty political tactics, like bringing up really irrelevant issues of this nature, while claiming to just "analyze the issue". To the casual reader the above post might read like a conservative hit job. A summary of all you need to know to conveniently argue that Obama doesn't really love his country. But of course we all know that Glock is really an independent just trying to discuss an important campaign issue: whether or not Obama has given the impression that he doesn't love his country.
I am not a bi-partisan-independent-free-thinker like Glock. But I would like to be. Perhaps if I point out the pastors who have publicly endorsed McCain that will help me learn how to rise above the petty politics of the two-party system. For example, there is Rod Parsley who McCain has called a "spiritual adviser". This guy is calling for America to destroy Islam. He believes it is one of the reasons our country was founded. He is McCain's spiritual adviser.
Wow. I feel more bi-partisan already!
Oh, and there's John Hagee, who has endorsed McCain, even though he has called Catholicism "The Great Whore". He also talks about the justice in nuking Iran. McCain has refused to reject the endorsement.
If I go on, does that mean I get more independent each time?
Has Pat Robertson endorsed McCain yet? If not, I think we all know he will eventually throw his support behind McCain. One wonders if straight-talker McCain will openly reject the man who blamed 9/11 on homosexuality. Will McCain take the high road on that one, or will he have to accept Robertson to court those 700 Club members? Independents want to know!
D. Boon said: "I am not a bi-partisan-independent-free-thinker like Glock. But I would like to be. Perhaps if I point out the pastors who have publicly endorsed McCain that will help me learn how to rise above the petty politics of the two-party system."
Don't worry: I already noted that above: "CNN didn't have much problem drudging up some fiery sermons from some of McCain's Christian Coalition supporters as proof of the problem going both ways. They failed to note any decades long association of anywhere the same intimacy or them being a part of their political campaign... but somehow they managed to equate the two situations."
But don't let that get in the way of your endless obsession with proving that I'm not an independent. Good luck with that. I'd ask if you even bothered reading my prior defenses of Obama on other issues, but I already know the answer.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Of course Obama has disassociated himself from Rev. Wright as of last night. Has McCain disassociated himself from Parsley or Hagee? Will he reject Robertson?
Somehow I doubt it. What does that say about Mr. Bi-Partisan-Straight-Talk-Express?
But maybe blaming 9/11 on homosexuals is not as "radical" as daring to mention that our support of terrorists in the Middle East might have motivated the 9/11 attackers. Maybe declaring Islam needs to be destroyed is not as over-the-top as declaring that the American government imprisons more of its citizens than any other civilized country in the world. Maybe calling Catholicism "The Great Whore" is not as bad as focusing on the hundreds of thousands of civilians that have been killed by American military strategy over the last 65 years.
I'm not sure where the independent's moral lines are supposed to be drawn. I would tend to think that rational, fact-based arguments would win out over religious zealotry. But, then again, I am not an independent.
You seem to be under the impression that I don't think McCain's Christian Coalition whackjob supporters hurt him in the minds of some people, myself included. His flip flop on bashing then praising Falwell was absolutely repugnant, even if politically necessary. But I'm sure most objective folks can see the difference between a decades long associate that one has been consistently close to may be a bit more damning than a supporter of convenience for a current election. Equating the two seems disingenuous and highly unnecessary because there is plenty to rip on McCain about that would stick, like the Falwell issue noted above. The wheels went flying off the straight talk express with that boneheaded move.
Perhaps if you get to something I actually stated/believe I'll respond. Until then, I'm going to drop this before it turns into another Boon-doggle.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
It is precisely because of Obama's decades long association with Wright that it was so difficult for him to disassociate, and Obama was understandably reluctant to publicly criticize someone who is more than just a mere friend or acquaintance.
I have never agreed completely with any pastor of my home church. Some of the disagreements have been profound. I also have friends and even family members who are whackaloons. We disagree all the time. We are still friends, and I am still related to the family members.
When it works the way it is supposed to, the relationship with one's pastor is a very special circumstance. It can not be discarded lightly or frivolously. This is the guy who brought Obama to Christianity, after all. That's very special, and obviously counts for a lot.
Obama made very clear publicly over a year ago that he did not approve of everything Wright says, and has reiterated that position each and every time the subject has come up. When presented this week with specific comments of Wright's that he had not previously heard, he specifically condemned them. I don't feel that he "waited" to do any of this. He was proactive on it a long time ago, and has responded appropriately at every stage since.
Was it all a mistake on Obama's part? That's a personal judgement, and reasonable people could certainly disagree. I don't think it was a mistake; rather, I think it merely makes Obama more human. Will it hurt his campaign? Perhaps, but I tend to doubt it. My opinion is that anyone who would use this against Obama may have only been looking for any possible excuse to condemn him to begin with.
But hey, what do I know? I can't remember the last time I supported the eventual Dem presidential nominee in the primaries.
Kevin... prior to this recent fiasco I was under the impression he had already done all the groundwork with distancing himself from this particular "whackaloon" and defended him on the subject. It seems that I missed quite a bit as I had been led to believe that he was "just a pastor" there and not somebody Obama was so intimately tied to and even a part of his campaign staff. It was a lot easier to dismiss when it was "just a pastor" whom he obviously didn't agree with everything on. Now he's claiming he was totally unaware of how extreme he was now that his most extreme statements have come to light. I can only imagine the endless digging going on in the backrooms of conservative groups to find quotes, videos, etc of Obama acknowledging this stuff earlier. Then it goes from a mere bad association to a big fat lie.
In both the CNN and Fox interviews the idea that he never heard about the "blame America" sermon a few days after September 11th was presented as pretty unbelievable. I have a hard time believing that's possible either. I can see how it hadn't received any serious media attention given the bigger fish to fry at the time making similarly outrageous statements with awful timing, and this guy being relatively unknown back then outside of the local area. But for a close associate to not have heard about it gets a raised eyebrow from nearly everyone.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
McCain & Christian? What accord hath Christ with Belial?
The caveat of democracy is that the voters can go after wrong ideas if so led. "Give us Barabbas..." [A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. - HDThoreau]
The really silly thing about liberal Republicans, the peculiar silliness that is killing the party (dont take my word for it, please do your homework), is that the left Republicans have departed from the concept that there is such a thing as absolute truth. The liberal postmodern relativist Rortyian Republican cares nothing about the truth actually, he simply seeks out a train of thought that looks popular and follows that, no matter what direction from common sense it seems to take him. The core values of a Republican should be that there is indeed a fundamental inner truth, and the masses may or may not get it, but that does not change the value of truth one iota.
"It seems that I missed quite a bit as I had been led to believe that he was "just a pastor" there and not somebody Obama was so intimately tied to and even a part of his campaign staff."
Calling him "part of his campaign staff" is a very loose use of language that is potentially misleading. Wright was a member of Obama's African-American Religious advisory panel, an informal committee with apparently a very large membership. In the context of a campaign, my experience is that these sorts of advisory committees are sometimes much more honorary and ceremonial than practical, and in any event do not qualify as "campaign staff" in the sense in which most people would understand the phrase.
As to whether Obama knew of the specific remarks, I can say that I find that eminently possible. The church in question is apparently fairly large. Obama does not attend every Sunday, due to his busy travel schedule, even as a State Senator. He may very well not have been told about the sermon by any other members, and even if he had been told, it may not have been with a full and detailed accounting of Wright's exact words.
It may also be that not all of the church's other members found Wright's comments to be particularly noteworthy in context, and this may have affected both whether and/or how accurately they may or may not have communicated them to Obama. In line with xian's earlier comments, here is an interesting comment from David Gergen on CNN last night:
(beginning of excerpt)
COOPER: Well, Roland, David Gergen brought up an interesting point that I want to put to you about the African-American experience, the African-American experience in church versus white American experience in church and the tradition. Different traditions.
Is there -- is there something that -- I mean, white people looking at this interpret differently -- you can't generalize like this, but that African-Americans looking at this may see it differently or hear things differently than white Americans listening to this?
MARTIN: Absolutely. Because I think, for instance, one of the sermons when Reverend Wright talked about the -- talked about Israel and South Africa and apartheid. A lot of people will say, you know, hey, you know, South Africa, the African National Congress, they were a communist organization. But African-Americans will say, that's apartheid.
And so I remember even when Dick Cheney did not support the condemning of apartheid, because he said they were communists. African-American Pastors were saying, "Wait a minute. Apartheid is wrong."
Other people were saying, "No, we think communism is wrong." So we've had that history.
Martin Luther King, April 4, 1967, gave that famous speech at Riverside Church, condemning the Vietnam War. Well, others said, "Wait a minute. How dare you speak out against the nation when it comes to this war?"
There's a history in the black church of combining theology with sociology as well as politics for the advancement of African- Americans. So yes, a lot of people don't have that understanding of those issues.
COOPER: David, you brought this up. Why do you think that's an important point?
DAVID GERGEN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, because there's a long tradition, Anderson. And among black leaders to have a different view of American history, going all the way back to Frederick Douglass, who was one of the greatest American heroes of the 19th century, you know, who -- who gained his freedom from slavery in a great order.
He was invited the a July 4th celebration to give a July 4th speech in 1852, and he showed up and said, "You know, you whites see July 4 very differently from what I see it. This is not a day of celebration for us."
And I have found that in my classroom with black students frequently. When they speak their minds and when they speak their hearts, they have a very different view. I've had a young woman tell me, "July 4, we still can't celebrate it in my family, because of what's happened to us."
And I think that we as whites have to be understanding and empathic toward that and try to understand that, that people who are African-Americans legitimately have a different perspective on what American history has meant and take that into account as we hear this.
And it's not a lack of patriotism. It is a different form of patriotism. Actually, Reverend Wright may love this country more than any of us but feel we've fallen short of what we preach and believe.
(end of excerpt)
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/14/acd.01.html
Earlier in that same discussion, Gergen acknowledged that the perceptions it may create among white voters could be potentially harmful to Obama's campaign.
I have a nice faux-parchment copy of the Fredrick Douglass' "What to the Slave is the 4th of July?" speech... I don't have a frame for it yet though. I'm putting Wright's statements into context, but that doesn't really change the absurdity of a Presidential candidate maintaining a close relationship with such a controversial figure during a political campaign. Interns and other menial campaign members, no matter how loosely affiliated, get booted for much less. Douglass and King weren't advancing absurd conspiracy theories in either one of those speeches either, so it hardly gets Wright off the hook on mere perspective. The guy is a whackjob pushing an us vs them mentality that very well may be an audience pleaser, but goes way beyond advocating social justice and strays close to bigotry. Plenty of poor white Southerners like to blame social ills on minorities, but we don't say that's okay because other folks in their culture can relate to the theme.
It's bad when McCain associates himself with controversial ministers (the Falwell nonsense being the one that really burns me up), and it's bad when Obama has similar or worse fiascos.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I'm putting Wright's statements into context, but that doesn't really change the absurdity of a Presidential candidate maintaining a close relationship with such a controversial figure during a political campaign.
I am not sure why it is absurd. Above you mentioned that McCain's relationship with the Christian Right is "convenient" politically. That may very well be true, and while I don't agree that a politician should have to sacrifice their core beliefs to be elected, I can see the political logic in that.
Maybe Obama was doing the same thing? The African-American community that I know is not exactly the flag-waving, pledge of allegiance bunch. In fact, most are fairly conspiratorial. It could have something to do with the fact that they interact with LE so often, and for such seemingly random reasons. It is hard to find a young black man who cannot tell stories of being harassed by the police.
That is reality, and that is the reality that Wright was addressing. Republicans have to cowtow to religious zealots who blame homosexuality for terrorist attacks, or believe we are at war with Islam. We all kind of roll our eyes and pretend that this is politically convenient and of course McCain doesn't really believe that, etc. etc. etc. A black man running for President may indeed have to cowtow to political extremists who blame the American government for the problems in the African-American community, or believe crack cocaine was introduced into the Hood by the CIA. We could all roll our eyes and pretend this is politically convenient and of course Obama doesn't really believe that, etc. etc. etc.
The difference is that Obama won't let us roll our eyes. He has repudiated the remarks, and has disassociated himself from the speakers, whether they are Rev. Wright or Louis Farrakhan. McCain, on the other hand, hasn't repudiated or disassociated himself from anybody.
We study history because a look into the past tells us something about the future. We look at a resume because in studying a persons past that tells us something about his or her future. We look at the characters that surround an individual to tell us something about his or her character. If he or she is a serious church going person that has taken a vow of poverty and has spent three years in Africa administering to lepers, we gain the inference that this person is not too concerned about himself, but has a concern for other people. This is not direct evidence such as our study of history of events that happened, but is circumstantial evidence of character on a number of issues.
How strong that circumstantial evidence becomes is dependent upon a number of factors. In deciding whether a person was religious at all, we might look to see how regularly they go to church. As Major Garrett asked Obama yesterday, do you contribute regularly to the Church. But like any circumstantial evidence, that depends on other factors as well. My guy Romney tithes (if I spelled that correctly.) Usually that is 10% of income. In his case, that would be several times Obama's net worth. Does that make Romney more religous ? -absolutely not. You have to take into account all the circumstances to decide how relevant circumstanial evidence is.
An examination of the circumstantial evidence in comparing the association of Obama to Reverand Wright needs to be compared to the circumstances surrounding McCain's association with Minister what's his name. The people on this blog are smart enough to see the difference.
The law under certain circumstances will allow the introduction of circumstantial evidence concerning, for example, an individuals reputation for.....(fill in the blank). A single instance of (fill in the blank) is not sufficient to admit evidence that the person has the reputation for (fill in the blank). However, the more times you see evidence of that characteristic, the stronger is your proof that this characteristic exists.
Obama seems to have had a long time relationship with both Rezco and Rev Wright. You are not a gang member because you go to school in a gang invested neighborhood, but if you have gang tatoos and attend gang meetings while having the ability to not associate yourself with the known gang members and do not do so, I think this affords a reasonable circumstantial evidence that you are a gang member. I am not accusing Obama of anything, I am merely pointing out that his continued association, over a long period of time, with shady characters (Blago included) is not helpful to his campaign.
As I have stated several times before on this blog, I would like to see Obama end the racial divisions in this country as he stated today in his speech in Indiana. I would like to see a world where every kid had an equal chance to succeed, because none of us can pick our parents. But on the one hand, it is apparent that Wright does not intend to unite us, but has been a known racist for about 20 years. Rezco also is not concerned with equal opportunity. If you pay him a bribe, you will get business. If you promise to do him favors he will see that your hospital gets their building permit or that_________ gets a better paying job. This is not equal opportunity, this is play for pay. This is circumstantial evidence of hypocracy.
We might not have direct evidence of this, but we have circumstantial evidence. The more things you can add, the stronger the circumstantial evidence becomes. In the tribune today (March 15, page 4) Obama is quoted as saying: "Frankly I don't think he (Rezco) was doing me a favor. There was simply no connection between our purchase of the (Landmark Commission registered) house, the price of the house (originally sought to be sold as a house with garden), and the purchase of the lot (garden)."
Frankly this should insult the intelligence of the reader. Michelle Obama sat on the same Landmark Commission that reviewed the paperwork on this house. She did not resign from the Landmark Commission until she Obama's Condo in Hyde Park until March of 2005. They purchased this same house in May of 2005, and closed in June. I don't even need to go over the gyrations back and forth on the fence and R1 and R2 zoning problems to tell you that Obamas must have known.
This is like David and Bathsheba. Just come clean, say you are sorry and get it over with. This constant repaying of the money related to Rezco is getting old. It was even suggested back during the Topinka days that he disassociate himself with the Rezco/Blagojevich people by putting the house back on the market and moving someplace else. He didn't want to do that because it might have hurt Blago. If I can figure this out, Hillary must be all over this. He needs to do this now before any of this stuff comes out during the Rezco trial. That is my advice and as most of you know, I am no McCain apologist.
By the way, I simply ignored the many other misrepresentations that Obama made in the Triburne Ariticle. The visual buffer was simply bs. Obama, who paid attorney and architects several thousand to complete the paperwork for the fence suggested that Rezco paid $14,300 (which was never paid) to erect the fence between his property and Obama's house because "ordinance required owners of vactant land to install fences." This is absolutely an out and out lie. The Landmark Commission Ordinance which was well known to Michelle Obama required any Landmark Designated Home to be enclosed by a fence. The Doctor'ls home was originally enclosed by a fence, but when the Obama's paid to change the zoning classification of the whole property 1/4 acre (R1) into two seperately owned properties, both lots needed to become R2. Because Obama's intended on keeping the Landmark Designation (to avoid 8 years of tax increases) the Landmark ordincance required all landmark properties to be surrounded by a fence. Thus it was his responsibility to pay for the fence, not Rezcos and he knew that too. Please just come clean and get this over with.
D. Boon:
Republicans have to cowtow to religious zealots who blame homosexuality for terrorist attacks, or believe we are at war with Islam.
Interesting point. For me, though, the *way* that the cowtowing occurs is significant. If it's just accepting the support of someone and smiling on stage with them, saying a few nice words, and then going home to the wife and kids, I feel faintly nauseated by politics as usual and go about my day. If it's relying on that religious zealot (and, let's be clear here, the Reverend Wright is *clearly* an ideological zealot who uses religion as the vehicle to help enact a cure to all of the social ills around him--some of which are just as goofy as blaming homosexuality for terrorist attacks) to give you guidance and friendship, and frame your view of the world?
I can't vote for that.
As I watched Obama blink his way through that CNN interview, I couldn't help but wonder if it was going to be 24 hours or 48 hours before there was a YouTube video of Obama sitting in the pews during one of those sermons that he conveniently never heard.
Kem
"The African-American community that I know is not exactly the flag-waving, pledge of allegiance bunch. In fact, most are fairly conspiratorial.."
That's just sad. I'd recommend meeting more black people instead of assuming that being black generally means little to no love for one's country. You've apparently isolated yourself to a small subsection of the black community. That's nearly as insulting as the yahoos that assume all blacks are lazy and uneducated because that's the only segment they ever interact with. I've met folks that fit your description, but they're not the majority of any racial or ethnic group that I've ever interacted with. To suggest so based on anecdotal evidence is pretty repugnant.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I'd recommend meeting more black people instead of assuming that being black generally means little to no love for one's country.
One thing that always strikes me when reading Malcom X's more provocative speeches or watching the mad pastors or talking heads (socially conservative or Nation of Islam-inspired) rant and rave about their positions is that they are very full of love for their country. The difference between their brand of love and what I would consider a healthy patriotism is that they see the country as consumed by a cancer that they want to cut out in order to heal it. It's the sort of love that wants to control and destroy the thing it cherishes in order to make it better. Tough love and all that rot.
In other words, emotionally abusive crud that no one should ever have to put up with, but which is disturbingly common. Disfunctional delusions of grandeur are so much easier to justify than actually taking the time to view the world in more than just... ahem... black and white. Sadly, the deluded often make the best salespeople, precisely because they don't see what's wrong with their position and refuse to take anyone who disagrees with them seriously. Oddly enough, the more passionate you are about being right, the more likely you are to gain a following who is more than happy to tell you that you're right, and the less likely you are to acknowledge that you might be wrong.
Or at least that's my way of looking at it.
Kem
Kem... I'd certainly consider Malcolm X's autobiography is a must read, not the movie which leaves out a great deal of the important thoughts, but the book itself should be required reading in all highschools. Perhaps it was my own upbringing that made it hit home more than anything, but it's part of the American experience and the inevitable enlightenment of realizing that one is becoming what they despise... just wow. Heck of a book. That might be a spring break read... it's been a while since I've read it now. Probably just as relevant as ever... especially with its themes of blindly following eccentric but bigoted religious leaders who appeal to a certain segment of the downtrodden or cast-aways.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
D Boon said: "The African-American community that I know is not exactly the flag-waving, pledge of allegiance bunch. In fact, most are fairly conspiratorial.."
Glock replied: "I'd recommend meeting more black people instead of assuming that being black generally means little to no love for one's country."
I don't assume that being black means little or no love for one's country. I wouldn't dare to say that people who do not consider themselves the flag-waving, pledge of allegiance bunch don't love their country. Those are your words.
I actually have a hard time believing that you know African-Americans who ARE flag wavers. Do they listen to Toby Keith too? Where are these black folks? I have no doubt I interact with more black folks at my job and in my neighborhood in one day than you do in a month, if not a year. But I don't seem to know any of these folks you describe. Where do they hide, exactly?
Believe it or not, Glock, being critical, dissenting citizens is does not represent a lack of love for one's country. I'd wager that if your ancestors had been brought to this country on slave ships, forced to endure slavery, im Crow and the segregationists, and now more than half of the young men of your race will spend some time in jail, you might have a bit of a cynical attitude toward your government as well.
You can feel free to continue insulting me. Call me a racist, call me a liar - whatever works for you to sleep at night. But you're the one who started this ugly thread. You're the one doing the hit job on Obama. You might consider yourself an independent. Maybe you're even a maverick, I don't know. But threads like this degrade our political discourse and I am afraid they are a sign of things to come from not only yourself, but from conservative hacks all over the web.
Dark days indeed.
Well at least you tried to qualify your prior comment. Though you're still misrepresenting mine. Your world is sad place if you haven't been able to find any flag waving men of any particular race in all your years. They aren't hiding. Perhaps you are.
Congrats for baiting me into turning this thread into another one of your boondoggles though. My post is about disappointment with Obama and his association here which has "degraded the political discourse" well before my first comment on it. It isn't a "hit job" or part of any smear campaign. My complaint was that this association confirms some of the doubts some people had and creates doubts in the minds of those, mine included, who had previously dismissed some of these prior appearance issues. Perhaps you think that means I'm arguing that he's in league with al Qaeda or some other nonsense? Beats me. You see what you want to see in spite of what was written. For example:
"I wouldn't dare to say that people who do not consider themselves the flag-waving, pledge of allegiance bunch don't love their country. Those are your words."
No, no they weren't.
"Believe it or not, Glock, being critical, dissenting citizens is does not represent a lack of love for one's country."
Never said that either.
"I'd wager that if your ancestors had been brought to this country on slave ships, forced to endure slavery, im Crow and the segregationists, and now more than half of the young men of your race will spend some time in jail, you might have a bit of a cynical attitude toward your government as well."
Never said I wasn't cynical of my government. That's one of the central reasons for my desire to limit government to essential powers with the appropriate scope.
"But you're the one who started this ugly thread. You're the one doing the hit job on Obama."
Which part is the hit job? The part where I'm pointing something out that every media outlet is reporting on? The part where I think it causes an appearance problem, especially given the doubts many people had before, which the media is generally reporting as well? Or was it the part where I was pointing out my prior defense of Obama on this association but the new information about it is making it hard for me to defend? Or are you conflating my criticisms of Wright as criticisms of Obama himself? Who knows. The supposed hit job, just ain't there. You see it, but it just ain't there.
"But threads like this degrade our political discourse and I am afraid they are a sign of things to come from not only yourself, but from conservative hacks all over the web."
Conservative hacks like the NY Times that I cited in this thread? Perhaps conservative hacks at all of the other media outlets reporting the same information? Maybe ABC which I cited in an update to this post on my own blog as the ones that brought this guy back into the spot light?
Given your inability to see past your own political prejudice, it's hardly a mystery why you put me in league with your ideological nemeses, the GOP/conservatives/etc. It's obnoxious. But I don't think there's anything I can do for you. You see what isn't there because it fits your prejudice. You won't see what is there because it doesn't fit your prejudice. I don't know if you can help it or not, but I'd appreciate it if you'd at least stop stereotyping and insulting blacks because of your personal problems.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I'd appreciate it if you'd at least stop stereotyping and insulting blacks because of your personal problems.
First, I'll start by giving you a little piece of advice. We don't really use the word "blacks" anymore. It is kind of not a really good idea to call black folks "blacks". Black folks is fine. African-Americans is fine. I prefer Black Americans. It just sounds really good, and most of the black folks I know like it. But I wouldn't really use "blacks".
Second, what personal problems do I have? I know you've called me repugnant, and a liar. You've implied several times that I am a racist. And you seem to think I just make things up and put words into your mouth. Is there anything I am missing?
Not that what I am about to write really matters, but here goes. I started this back-and-forth by claiming that most black folks are not the flag waving, pledge-of-allegiance types. You replied that it was sad that I think black folks don't love their country (go up and look for yourself). I took that to mean that you think folks who aren't flag wavers and pledge sayers don't love their country. Could you explain why I was wrong? I really am interested because I've read that section over a few times now and I keep coming away with the same conclusion. What am I missing?
I admire your attempts to cloak this conservative hit job in your mantle of bi-partisan idependence. Will we be reading about McCain's ties to Hagee and Parsley in detail next week? I sure hope so. I also have a lot of respect for your ability to stay on message. It takes excellent discipline to personally insult commenters while continuing to portray yourself as the victim. It really is impressive!
But I still don't see how this entire thread, this entire line of thinking has anything to do with whether or not Obama would make a good President. I'm just missing it, I guess. No doubt because I am very stupid (hey! there's one you missed!). When I read this I see a guy doing a really poor impersonation of an independent, which is what I said in my first comment. You've cloaked your hit job in the veil of bi-partisan-independent-guy, but it's still nothing more that a chance for you to remind everyone that Obama didn't put his hand over his heart at that event so many months ago.
Glock, I am sure you'd a great guy. I'd bet your friends really like you and if you have a wife and kids I am sure you're a decent husband and dad, or you will be someday soon. I have nothing bad to say about you personally, and I hope I haven't implied that you are a racist, repugnant, or a liar. I just think you're a guy who is trying to have it both ways. You want us all to respect you as an independent, but you want to spend a lot of time pushing really conservative ideas.
If it works for you, that's great. But it just rubs me the wrong way. Sorry!
As they say in my neck of the words: I'm out.
Will we be reading about McCain's ties to Hagee and Parsley in detail next week?
McCain has gotten into plenty of hot water over the years for repudiating some of these ministers.
At any rate, it is preposterous and intellectually dishonest to compare endorsements by people compared to sitting under a pastor for 20 years. I don't think less of Obama because he is getting endorsed by people whom I don't like or agree with. I DO fault him for staying in a church that preaches so many outrageous (by any standards) pronouncements.
And for Obama to pretend he never heard or didn't know these comments were out there is, well, just like any other typical politician. A crock.
Con- no McCain fan... that's pretty much the conclusion I came to when comparing Hagee versus Wright. I consider McCain's Falwell flip-flop to be much worse, but the media, CNN in particular, seemed to be jumping all over the Hagee endosrement. A guy McCain had no relationship with up until the endorsement and who McCain distanced himself from within 24 hours of that endorsement. It hardly rates as one's "mentor" and friend of 20 years who one distances themselves from do to political pressure, just as they said they might have to do the year before.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Right, but Obama has disassociated himself from Wright. Parsley, who is at the very least one of McCain's "Spiritual Advisors" is still happily advising, and Hagee's endorsement has been repudiated.
Sure, it is clear that Obama and Wright were probably closer than, say, McCain and Parsley. But either way, Obama has done the right thing and diffused the issue. McCain is still holding on to that advice and those endorsements.