Kurtz continues to cover Wright comments while giving short shrift to Hagee, Parsley comments
SUMMARY: On CNN's Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz has devoted a total of approximately 18 minutes to the controversy surrounding remarks made by Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. In contrast, Kurtz has led only brief discussions on two religious figures who have endorsed Sen. John McCain and who have made controversial comments -- a single two-minute discussion on Rev. John Hagee and only seven seconds on Rev. Rod Parsley.
During the March 23 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, host Howard Kurtz led a discussion lasting approximately 11 minutes on the topic of the controversy surrounding Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The previous week, Kurtz and his guests devoted seven minutes to discussing the controversy. During the March 23 edition, guest and conservative radio talk-show host Michael Medved claimed that "[i]f a white pastor had made the comments that Jeremiah Wright had made, people would have been equally indignant. ... I think people are so eager in this country to welcome a credible, strong, articulate, enormously talented black presidential candidate that he has gotten much lighter treatment than either [Sen. John] McCain or [Sen. Hillary] Clinton." Kurtz did not challenge Medved's comment. In fact, Rev. John Hagee, whose endorsement McCain has embraced, said of Hurricane Katrina after referencing reports of a gay pride parade scheduled in New Orleans for the day the hurricane hit the city: "I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans." Notwithstanding controversial comments on a variety of topics, Kurtz has devoted a total of two minutes to Hagee and much less -- seven seconds -- to McCain endorser Rev. Rod Parsley, who has described Islam as a "false religion."
As Media Matters for America has noted, McCain stated in a joint appearance with Hagee: "All I can tell you is I'm very proud to have Pastor Hagee's support." And in an interview with New York Times reporter Deborah Solomon, Hagee stated that "McCain's campaign sought my endorsement." Additionally, McCain reportedly called Parsley a "spiritual guide" during a Cincinnati campaign rally at which Parsley appeared on McCain's behalf.
During the March 9 edition of Reliable Sources, Kurtz brought up Hagee at the end of a discussion with author and political analyst Keli Goff and National Review Online editor-at-large and conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg. The three had been discussing the media coverage of Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Kurtz said, "Let me move on to John McCain, now the Republican nominee, all but official. He accepted an endorsement from the Reverend John Hagee. Now, Hagee has been attacked by the Catholic League as a bigot. In the past, he has called the church 'antichrist' and a 'false cult.' " Kurtz then aired McCain saying: "When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes in. And I am very proud of Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people." He then began a discussion by asking Goff, "[W]hy hasn't that been more of a story?" During the discussion, Goldberg stated that Hagee should be compared "to Jeremiah Wright, who is Obama's pastor, who Obama has deep and abiding ties with, who is a -- who's been closely associated with [Nation of Islam leader Louis] Farrakhan and has some very disturbing views." Goldberg added: "And if McCain is going to reject this guy who he clearly doesn't know and get into all this kind of trouble for it, I think the comparison with Wright, who is very close to Obama, that hasn't been explored very much at all." Kurtz replied: "And who's made some inflammatory statements." The discussion about Hagee lasted two minutes.
Though Kurtz referenced criticism of Hagee by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Kurtz did not mention Hagee's comments about Katrina, or other inflammatory comments he has made. Of Katrina, he said:
All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.
Of Parsley, Kurtz stated on the March 16 Reliable Sources: "John McCain has a pastor who's endorsed him, Rod Parsley, who has criticized Islam as a 'false religion.' Not much media attention there." Kurtz then asked guest and nationally syndicated conservative columnist and National Review Online contributing editor Deroy Murdock: "So in the case of Obama and Jeremiah Wright, do you think there's a certain media reluctance here either to criticize Obama or to go after a black minister?" The seven-second mention of Parsley has been the full extent of Kurtz's coverage. Moreover, in the context of calling Islam a "false religion," Parsley asserted: "The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore." Additionally, Parsley wrote in his book Silent No More (Charisma House, 2005): "Besides the fact that gay socializing revolves around the bar scene -- with its incumbent drinking, drugs, and late-night carousing -- gay sexuality inevitably involves brutal physical abusiveness and the unnatural imposition of alien substances into internal organs, orally and anally, that inevitably suppress the immune system and heighten susceptibility to disease" (Page 74).
Reliable Sources' coverage of Wright
On the March 16 broadcast, Kurtz conducted a discussion of Wright with panelists Murdock, liberal radio host Ed Schultz, and CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger. Introducing the segment, Kurtz said: "It's been clear for some time that Barack Obama's pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, is a controversial guy. But I didn't realize just how inflammatory and racially divisive the reverend could be until this week, when Fox News and ABC obtained videos of some of Wright's sermons." Kurtz aired video of Wrights remarks, and spent approximately seven minutes discussing Wright's comments with Murdock, Schultz, and Borger.
During the March 23 Reliable Sources, Kurtz led another discussion about Wright with CBS News correspondent Byron Pitts, St. Petersburg Times media critic Eric Deggans, and Medved. Kurtz quoted some of Wright's controversial remarks, and the segment lasted approximately 11 minutes. Kurtz has devoted a total of 18 minutes to the Wright controversy.
From the March 23 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
KURTZ: Joining us now to talk about race, the media, and the campaign, in New York, Byron Pitts, national correspondent for CBS News; in Tampa, Eric Deggans, media critic for the St. Petersburg Times; and in Seattle, Michael Medved, host of The Michael Medved Show on the Salem Radio Network.
Byron Pitts, as a black journalist who just came from church this Easter morning, do you look at this furor over Jeremiah Wright's remarks differently than white journalists? Are you less offended, perhaps?
PITTS: Oh, I think so. I mean, I've been black for 47 years; I was baptized in the Baptist church when I was 12 years old. And so what Reverend Wright said why -- much of why it was offensive, those are comments I've heard in church before. And I'm mindful of the context, that I think many of my colleagues who are white, they don't have that context.
Like, I was just looking at the clip you showed. All those commentators, all those reporters, were white. They have a different life experience. They have a different context. And I think this story speaks to the lack of diversity in major news organizations, that you have people speaking from a position of ignorance, because they don't understand the black church, that can't bring the context that we as journalists are supposed to bring to a news event.
KURTZ: A good point about diversity, but in one of your reports this week, you said that critics have called Reverend Wright's sermons anti-American -- that critics have called them. I mean, this is a guy who said --
PITTS: Sure.
KURTZ: -- "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genociding his people of color," who said, "God damn America," who said, "U.S. of KKK-A." Why push it off on critics?
PITTS: Well, I think there's some people -- I mean, I think there's some people who have the position that they disagree with much of what Reverend Wright said, but for some people, there is some basis of truth. I mean, I'm mindful of, you know, during Hurricane Katrina, there were people initially in that community who thought maybe the government had blown up the levee there, because, in fact, in New Orleans history, that in fact did happen.
For many people in black America, they remember how there's a time when our government injected black men with syphilis, I believe -- that those kinds of things occur.
KURTZ: Absolutely.
PITTS: So one of the things I thought that Barack -- a point that he made in his speech is that -- how you have in the church, in the black church, there's this wealth of love, compassion, and truth, and some ignorance. And it is a world that if you're a pastor, that you have to navigate that world.
KURTZ: All right. Let me turn to Michael Medved. Put aside for a moment liberal and conservative reaction. A lot of mainstream journalists gave this speech very positive reviews. What did you make of that?
MEDVED: Well, you -- basically the -- all the response, whether it was from black people or white people, to this speech was either, "It is the greatest speech I've ever heard, it's phenomenal," or people didn't deal with the content at all and just talked about it in horse-race terms -- does this help Barack or does it harm Barack?
It seems to me that it is appropriate to actually look at the real substance of the speech, because it changes Barack Obama's campaign in a fundamental way. Up till now, he has been running an enormously successful campaign because he has offered, in the terms of Shelby Steele, who wrote a book about this, a bargain to white America. It's basically, you can show that you are post-racial, that you are beyond racism, if you vote for me, I'll be sworn in as president, and then we can put this whole guilty, horrible past of racism behind us. Now he's taking the opposite point of view, saying, let's talk more about race.
I happen to believe that most white people, and maybe a very large segment of black people as well, do not welcome the idea of talking endlessly about race and picking the scab. And that is what Barack is now offering. He's changed the terms of the deal, and I think that's the substance that most of the media were missing.
KURTZ: All right, let me bring in Eric Deggans. Did you feel like -- a lot of stories in the papers this morning that we're having now, a somewhat intelligent conversation about racial difficulties? Or is this the usual, did it help him, did it hurt him, the usual sound-bite stuff?
DEGGANS: Well, I think the biggest problem that we have here is that people haven't actually looked at what Reverend Wright said. On my blog, The Feed, for the St. Petersburg Times, I've actually put up longer clips of the two controversial speeches, the 9-11 speech and the speech in which he said, you know, an expletive, "America."
And when you see the actual sermons, you see that he's trying to make some very explosive points about America, but he's leading up to them in a way where those statements make a little more sense. And in fact, the "chickens coming home to roost" comment that he made about 9-11, he was quoting someone else. And the ABC News report that initially revealed this made it seem as if those were his words.
And you know, as much as I like Byron, you know, the reference to black men being injected with syphilis, what actually happened is that they had syphilis and they weren't treated for it by a government program. And I think one of the problems that we have in this debate is that journalists are not getting to the heart of what's actually going on here, taking a step back and really explaining these issues to the American people.
KURTZ: All right.
DEGGANS: What we're doing is taking the emotional part of it and constantly putting it before people in order to gin up a conversation that may be based on false assumptions.
KURTZ: Let me broaden the discussion a little bit, Byron Pitts. When Senator Obama talks about media coverage of race often being reduced to O.J. spectacles and the Katrina fallout, and you made the point just a couple of moments ago about it is still a white-dominated business, does he have a point? Have we fallen short? You know, this speech aside, have we fallen short in dealing with this important subject in American life?
PITTS: Oh, I think so. I mean, I think it's -- because it's such a difficult subject to talk about. I mean, I think we in the mainstream media, we don't talk much about race; we don't talk much about religion. And so those are two topics that have come up in the last few weeks because of this controversy with Reverend Wright. They're difficult topics to talk about. So I think he was right. I think the -- at least the major networks this week, I think, made a legitimate effort to cover the issue. When Obama gave his speech, I know ABC, NBC, CBS all devoted about four minutes in their lead piece. And as you know, Howard, four minutes is a lot of time in a half-hour broadcast.
KURTZ: Yeah. Sure.
PITTS: And all the networks did a second piece. ABC did a piece about the black church. CBS, we had a roundtable discussion with three experts to talk about the issue. So I would agree, I think, that most often the mainstream news media falls short, but I think this week an effort was made to address the issues raised in this controversy between -- with Reverend Wright and Obama.
KURTZ: And some reporters questioned Barack Obama. Let's take a look at Terry Moran interviewing the senator on Nightline.
[begin video clip]
TERRY MORAN (Nightline co-anchor): If I went to a church where white supremacy was preached, what would you think of me?
OBAMA: Well, see, I disagree with you, though, Terry. That's not what's preached at Trinity.
[end video clip]
KURTZ: Michael Medved, the investigative reporting required to do this story basically involved going to the church gift shop and purchasing some of these sermons on DVD for, you know, $9.95 or whatever. Why in this whole more than a year of Obama's presidential candidacy did journalists not seek to do that until Fox News and ABC broke this story last week?
MEDVED: Well, I think that's a complicated question. And it also goes to basically the strategy here that it seems to me that Obama decided to follow with this speech.
Yes, I think it was a courageous speech in some ways, and yes -- I think -- but it was also an attempt to change the subject. Because the truth is that people responded indignantly to Reverend Wright not because he was black. It's not about race, it's not because of the racial outlook of the church, which very specifically defines itself as an Afro-centric church and emphasizes blackness, blackness, blackness.
They didn't respond to it that way. If a white pastor had made the comments that Jeremiah Wright had made, people would have been equally indignant.
So there was a decision that was made here to cover this as a racial issue, and it seems to me that this goes to the bigger point, which is that from the time he's announced his campaign, Barack Obama has had kid-gloves treatment. I think people are so eager in this country to welcome a credible, strong, articulate, enormously talented black presidential candidate that he has gotten much lighter treatment than either McCain or Clinton.
KURTZ: Pick up that point, Eric Deggans.
DEGGANS: I would have to -- again, I would have to disagree with Michael on that point. One of the things that struck me about this situation, for example, is that there were -- that the initial reports on this cherry-picked very controversial lines out of sermons that were 20 minutes long and 30 minutes long. And again, these initial reports did not present the full context of what the preacher was saying.
Secondly, I think this is very much a racial issue, because Reverend Wright has said what he said in a very explosive and aggressive way. But you go to black churches throughout the country and ask them if they believe that the government is mostly controlled by a culture that is oriented more towards white culture than black culture, and minimizes black people and harms black people as it minimizes them, and I think you'll find a lot of agreement. I think the problem here is that people need to have this discussion in a way that is calmer, and I think that's what Obama was talking about.
KURTZ: A little short on time.
DEGGANS: We need to talk about these issues in a way that's respectful of both sides. But to deny that race is at the heart of this, makes no sense at all.
KURTZ: I'm a little short on time.
MEDVED: I would just argue that any pastor who says from the pulpit -- who uses the "S" word, who makes a Sunday morning sermon sort of a parental advisory period, who says "G.D. America" repeatedly, I don't care what race you are. That is outrageous to people, and if you don't describe someone who curses America repeatedly from the pulpit as anti-American, then what is?
KURTZ: Byron, final comment?
DEGGANS: A, I would say you have to look at the actual sermon to see what's going on.
KURTZ: Eric, I've got to -- I've got to --
DEGGANS: And B, I would also say there are many white pastors who do the same thing in reference to abortion, for example.
MEDVED: No one who says "G.D. America" --
KURTZ: Can I get Byron in here for a brief comment?
PITTS: Sure. You know, it's funny. And listening to what Michael said, and said -- he listed Obama's traits. And while I would agree that this issue -- that race is on the table, one of his -- the attributes he listed for Obama is that he's articulate.
Now, I've been a journalist for about 25 years. I don't ever recall anyone describing a white politician as one of their attributes the fact that they are articulate. This is a guy who was editor of The Harvard Review, who taught constitutional law. And one of his attributes that people parade as one of his great strengths is the fact he's articulate. When President Bush ran for president --
KURTZ: Right.
PITTS: -- George W. Bush ran for president, no one said, well, he's a rich white guy, and so, therefore, rich white guys are going to vote for him. But because Obama is black --
KURTZ: I've got to break in here because I'm short on time.
PITTS: Sure.
From the March 16 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
KURTZ: It's been clear for some time that Barack Obama's pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, is a controversial guy. But I didn't realize just how inflammatory and racially divisive the reverend could be until this week, when Fox News and ABC obtained videos of some of Wright's sermons. In one case here, we've bleeped his use of the "N" word.
[begin video clip]
BILL O'REILLY (host of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor): Fox News has obtained portions of Reverend Wright's sermons that are anti-American, to say the least. Viewer warning -- some offensive material coming up.
WRIGHT: Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a [bleep].
Governments lie. The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.
And they will not only attack you if you try to point out what's going on in white America, U.S. of KKK-A.
[end video clip]
KURTZ: Wright also said that white America got a wakeup call after 9-11.
Obama tried to dismiss the controversy with a tepid statement, but on Friday night he made the rounds of the cable networks to criticize, but not disavow, his longtime friend.
[begin video clip]
KEITH OLBERMANN (host of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann): Do you repudiate the man? Do you repudiate the comments? Do you repudiate both?
OBAMA: No, I would not repudiate the man.
I would describe it as a member of your family who does -- says something that you really disagree with.
ANDERSON COOPER (host of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360): I mean, uncles are blood relatives who you're kind of stuck with at family gatherings, even when they say outrageous things.
OBAMA: As I said, Anderson, if I had heard any of these statements, I probably would have walked out, and I probably would have told Reverend Wright that they were wrong.
[end video clip]
KURTZ: Joining us now to talk about the coverage of race in the campaign, in New York, Deroy Murdock, syndicated columnist for Scripps Howard News Service and a contributing editor for National Review Online; here in Washington, Ed Schultz, host of the nationally syndicated radio program The Ed Schultz Show; and CNN senior political analyst Gloria Borger.
Gloria, I thought Anderson Cooper did a good job of interviewing Obama on Friday night, but on Thursday -- and you were on the set at the time -- he said, well, we have to cover this, but it just feels completely off track. And he also was apologizing for it. Isn't this a legitimate story?
BORGER: I think it is a legitimate story. I think it really became a legitimate story when these sermons -- somebody went out -- talk about great investigative journalism, as you were saying earlier -- somebody went out and bought the DVD.
I think it becomes a legitimate story given the environment of identity politics now in which we're operating. And the fact that Gerry Ferraro made some comments that people thought were incendiary about Barack Obama, now you have the Reverend Wright. And I think Obama was probably a little late in getting out there and disavowing these statements.
KURTZ: But let's look at the media behavior, Ed Schultz. Fox News made a big deal about this on Thursday. CNN and MSNBC did it on some programs. On Friday, there was nothing in The Washington Post, nothing in the L.A. Times, nothing in USA Today. New York Times did an item. Some of them have now caught up. Isn't that the liberal media at work?
SCHULTZ: Well, the story is going to go on because conservative talk radio in America is not going to let this story die. So there's still plenty of time for, quote, "the mainstream media" to do the full vetting process of this.
KURTZ: What about liberal talk radio? Aren't you talking about it on your show?
SCHULTZ: Well, it looks like it could be the soft underbelly of the Barack Obama campaign. If he was in attendance at any of these sermons, it's going to be a problem for him. But so far, it doesn't look like the story has resonated too much across the country, because just last night in the conventions in Iowa and California, he picked up another 16 delegates.
KURTZ: All right.
Deroy Murdock, McCain -- John McCain has a pastor who's endorsed him, Rod Parsley, who has criticized Islam as a false religion. Not much media attention there. So in the case of Obama and Jeremiah Wright, do you think that there's a certain media reluctance here either to criticize Obama or to go after a black minister?
MURDOCK: I think there might have been some reluctance for the following reason -- we've seen rumors on the Internet, and all sort of chatter and gossip and so on, wondering whether or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, and was he perhaps trained in a madrassa when he grew up in Indonesia. And a lot -- that's been discredited. Those are not true.
And there may have been some hesitance to get into this story thinking, well, if we're not going to talk about his false Muslim background, maybe we should stay away completely from the whole question of what goes on in his church, what sort of religious faith is he involved in. As these videotapes have come out, as these comments have come out and been so completely incendiary -- the term "radical cleric" comes to mind -- it really came to the point where this no longer could be ignored, and I think this story will continue.
Obama, I think, has done a pretty good job of trying to get on top of this, writing something for The Huffington Post, going out on these TV interviews. But as long as that tape's around, they can play it over and over again, and not just the words, but seeing this man waving his hands around and looking kind of wound up, I think, keeps the story going.
KURTZ: Right. Had there not been videotape, even if we had the transcripts, I don't think the story would be as big as it's turning out to be. But now, Ed Schultz, this is not just the guy who happens to be the pastor of Obama's church in Chicago. I mean, this is a guy who presided at the wedding of Barack and Michelle Obama, baptized their daughters, longtime family friend, so that does naturally make journalists wonder, well, how much of this did Obama know and why has he been close to this guy?
SCHULTZ: How could he be in that church for 20 years and not at least have a sense of some of the sermons that he's given? If he was in attendance at some of those sermons, it's going to be a problem. That's the next angle, and that's where I think the media is going to go. In the meantime, Obama, I think, played the media very well, didn't let it get to a Swift Boat situation. He went out on all the networks on Friday, and he has an innate ability to kind of reduce the tension in the room. That's the attractiveness of this guy. But I do think it's not totally over.
KURTZ: Well, let me ask you this question, Gloria, because we'll talk about this in a moment with Gerry Ferraro as well. How much should journalists hold a presidential candidate accountable for ugly comments that are made by surrogates and supporters? There's been a whole string of these incidents, and most of them have been pretty big stories.
BORGER: Well, I think the answer to that is, honestly, it depends. I mean, I agree that now journalists are going to go out and find out when Barack Obama attended that church, what he was listening to at the time.
If incendiary comments like the one you just showed were said in sermons while he was there, if he did not object to them, what does that tell you about what Barack Obama believes? And it could say, gee, is Barack Obama as so-called unpatriotic as the Reverend Wright, and that could become a big issue in a presidential campaign.
KURTZ: So that makes the question, Deroy Murdock, you know, the old journalistic standby -- what did he know and when did he know it?
MURDOCK: That's a really serious question. If he attended this church for 20 years, did he just go at Christmas and Easter, or was he going there every Sunday? And depending on how often he went, did he actually hear these sort of things? Did he talk with his pastor about this to try to dissuade him from using this sort of language?
I think the reason that the racial -- going back to the Ferraro incident, the reason that these racial statements keep becoming newsworthy, isn't because journalists are hyping it up. It's because you have so many surrogates, particularly on team Clinton, who've been injecting these racial and religious questions going back to Bill Clinton, of course, in South Carolina, her chairman in New Hampshire who made some statements that some people consider racially insensitive.
And so team Clinton seems to be playing the race card over and over and over as one card after another after another falls down onto the green felt. And I think that's why these things are made newsworthy.
KURTZ: Well, let me get to that.
From the March 9 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources:
KURTZ: Well, there was all that fawning about the Oprah endorsement and the Ted Kennedy endorsement. Let me move on to John McCain, now the Republican nominee, all but official. He accepted an endorsement from the Reverend John Hagee. Now, Hagee has been attacked by the Catholic League as a bigot. In the past, he has called the church "antichrist" and a "false cult." And let's listen to what John McCain had to say about that endorsement.
McCAIN [video clip]: When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes in. And I am very proud of Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people.
KURTZ: Keli Goff, why hasn't that been more of a story?
GOFF: I think the bigger story here is why didn't John McCain reject and denounce Pastor Hagee's remarks? You know, I just think it's really ironic here, because you have the comparison with Farrakhan, and Barack Obama sort of wasn't allowed to have it both ways and say, "Look, he's done some great things, and I think his supporters are nice people; I don't agree with everything that he says." And yet you're completely correct that I think the media sort of fell asleep at the wheel on this one in terms of letting, you know, John McCain have a little wiggle room. I don't know if it's because Hagee is less well-known than people like [Pat] Robertson or [James] Dobson, but I definitely think the media sort of fell asleep on this one.
GOLDBERG: I think there's some fairness to that. I think that McCain probably had some bad staff work in how this thing was rolled out -- this endorsement was rolled out. But I do think the better comparison isn't to Farrakhan, which a lot of people will want to make. It's to Jeremiah Wright, who is Obama's pastor, who Obama has deep and abiding ties with, who is a -- who has been closely associated with Farrakhan and has some very disturbing views.
And if McCain is going to reject this guy who he clearly doesn't know and get into all this kind of trouble for it, I think the comparison with Wright, who is very close to Obama, that hasn't been explored very much at all.
KURTZ: And who's made some inflammatory statements. Now on Friday, McCain told the Associated Press -- this is a week after the endorsement -- "I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if -- if they are anti-Catholic." So I guess he belatedly addressing some of that criticism. All right.















Total Double standard, as you say Sue...
Great job here by Media Matters. This is really a textbook example of the corporate bias against liberals.
A free pass for the Cons, and two weeks of vicious assaults on the Dems. And this dork is supposedly a "fair" watchdog of the media.
What a joke.
McCain spent 5 minutes with Hagee, if that. Meanwhile, Wright has been Obama's pastor for 20 years. Barack and Michelle searched him out before joining his church. They knew his style of preaching and ate it up like all the rest of the crowd.
For once the media has it right.
Except that McCain aggressively pursued Hagee's endorsement for a year, and said he's proud to have it, and put it on his website, and had to know what he's said. He also calls Parsley his "spiritual advisor". And if you think Rev. Wright spews nothing but "GD America" over 20 years, and that the clips that have been playing for the last couple weeks aren't cherry-picked, you're not doing much critical thinking.
Sue's right, complete double standard.
See the posters comments below CNN’s Roland Martin articles:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-wright%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cgod-damn-america%e2%80%9d-sermon/?s-%20?god-damn-america%20?-sermon/
I can’t say I subscribe to everything the pastor has said but I can say that it makes a heck of a difference when you hear them within the sermon.
Why hasn't the media gone into that when Obama and the church stated how out of context they were?
KURTZ: And who's made some inflammatory statements. Now on Friday, McCain told the Associated Press -- this is a week after the endorsement -- "I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if -- if they are anti-Catholic." So I guess he belatedly addressing some of that criticism. All right.
If Hagee's comments are NOT anti-Catholic such as his anti-gay tirades or his declaration that New Orleans was struck by Hurricane Katrina because of all the sin there), is McCain standing by those statements???
Good question, I guess we'll never know...
Because the Corporate media will never ask.
The corporate media doesn't want John to squirm. He has a temper you know, he might get mad at them. He' old too, gotta show a little respect for our elders. Let's save all the hounding and gutterball journalism for the democrats.
-- Hillary Clinton continues to cover Wright comments while giving short shrift to Hagee, Parsley comments...Clinton has had little discussion about two religious figures who have endorsed Sen. John McCain. --
-- "He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." -- Hillary Clinton
-- "You know, I spoke out against Don Imus saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that," Clinton said. "I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving." --Hillary Clinton
Kurtz gets roasted by mmfa...for the same behavior as Hillary...LOL.
Welcome back.
Thanks king...
I still stop by most days...just haven't had the inclination to post much.
“After originally refusing to play politics with this issue, it’s disappointing to see Hillary Clinton’s campaign sink to this low in a transparent effort to distract attention away from the story she made up about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said.
“The truth is, Barack Obama has already spoken out against his pastor’s offensive comments and addressed the issue of race in America with a deeply personal and uncommonly honest speech. The American people deserve better than tired political games that do nothing to solve the larger challenges facing this country,” Burton continued.
LOL
I wonder if they can sandwich this topic in between Jeremiah Wright clips?
The Righties can kiss my "left behind."
And the right one, too.
Are you people FRIGGIN KIDDING ME?
There is a HUGE difference between what random religious leaders who happen to endorse McCain say versus what Obama's Minister... OBAMA'S MINISTER has been saying for twenty years? How can you NOT UNDERSTAND the difference? McCain wasn't married by Hagee, Parsley didn't baptize McCain's daugter. Neither of them has counseled and advised McCain in any way shape or form.
We're not talking about Obama's barber or chauffer. WE are talking about HIS minister. Wright has played a huge INFLUENTIAL ROLE in Barack and Michelle Obama's lives. AND, last April, WRIGHT HIMSELF said in a NYT interview that if Barack made it far in the primary that Wright would have to distance himself from Obama. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT RATIONAL PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR. Yet, when someone other than Wright suggests that Obama distance himself, we are called racists and character assassins. We are blamed for a lynching. Sorry, but Wright brought his own rope, the press is just reporting on the facts. A lynching is the killing of someone for an accussed offense with or without a trial. There's no need for a trial for Wright because the video is all of the evidence we need. He lynched himself.
Put down the koolaid and THINK people! Think about this very seriously. Obaa is showing hugely horrendous judgment at the moment.
Easy fella, us Leftists just see the minister on Sunday, that's all
We see the barber only a little less and our bartender a little more
Now McCain will have religious whackadoos all over the White House lawn 24/7, that's just how you cats roll
There is a HUGE difference between what random religious leaders who happen to endorse McCain say versus what Obama's Minister ... has been saying for twenty years?
Let's face it, Cann0nba11, you, like the rest of us, have very little idea what Wright has been saying for 20 years. Or beyond that, for the full 36 years he was a minister. Think about that. 36 years of preaching to thousands and thousands of people. A great many of those sermons recorded and available. That's many thousands of hours of preaching. What have we seen of it? Less than 2 minutes of very, very carefully selected clips. Do you actually think you know what Wright was saying from the pulpit week after week? I very seriously doubt it.
I'm sick of those idiots who assume those tiny little clips were in any way fully representative of what Wright preached from week to week. Regular members of his congregation have pointed out that they weren't, but that got almost no broadcast air time. They wouldn't want to break the formula of their narrative, now, would they?
It's as bad as those disingenuous dopes who prattle on about "How could Obama subject his children to that kind of talk." Do they actually think Wright's congregants listen to some sort of 90 minute racist, anti-American harangue every week? Morons. From what I've heard from MORE RELIABLE sources (congregation members who were there) most sermons were very uplifting and inspirational, with frequent calls to do good works in their community.
Let's say you attend about thirty or forty of those sermons, and then attend one where he makes some controversial statements about a public policy issue. Would you immediately leave the church? Most wouldn't. It would be taken in perspective with the rest of his sermons. So then, let's say once every five to ten years he says something even more outrageous, like the tiny snippets we've all heard over and over. If you've received years and years of inspiration from that man are you going to let those isolated instances make you leave the church you've been part of for years? Again, few would.
I can't believe how narrow-minded and ignorant some people can be.
Would you like another perspective on Wright? Here's a statement from Hillary Clinton's minister:
OBAMA'S MINISTER has been saying for twenty years? How can you NOT UNDERSTAND the difference?
PROOF? Do you have any proof what Rev. Wright has been saying for the last 20 years? NO I didn’t think so.
McCain wasn't married by Hagee, Parsley didn't baptize McCain's daugter. Neither of them has counseled and advised McCain in any way shape or form. Who baptized your children, who married you and how close are you to him or her?
Wright has played a huge INFLUENTIAL ROLE in Barack and Michelle Obama's lives in TEACHING them Christianity nothing else unless you have proof? NO I didn’t think so.
AND, last April, WRIGHT HIMSELF said in a NYT interview that if Barack made it far in the primary that Wright would have to distance himself from Obama.
Ah maybe because Wright and Obama disagree on some of Wrights sermons? Oh no that can’t be the reason, where would you go with your conspiracy theories.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT RATIONAL PEOPLE ARE ASKING FOR.
Nah, RATIONAL THINKING FOLKS KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OBAMA AND HIS PASTOR! THEY ARE NOT THE SAME!
Yet, when someone other than Wright suggests that Obama distance himself, we are called racists and character assassins.
Wright suggested that Obama distance himself from his remarks he didn’t say disown him which is what folks like you want.
We are blamed for a lynching. Sorry, but Wright brought his own rope, the press is just reporting on the facts. A lynching is the killing of someone for an accussed offense with or without a trial. There's no need for a trial for Wright because the video is all of the evidence we need. He lynched himself.
LOL FIRST Lynching is a band or a mob of white people WHO DECIDE TO TAKE THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS! Rev. Wright did not lie, America made black folks slaves and treated then worse than animals. They designed Jim Crow laws that allows black folks to live as second class citizens. Black folks didn’t hate America but there was a time that AMERICA HATED BLACK FOLKS!
Put down the koolaid and THINK people! Think about this very seriously. Obaa is showing hugely horrendous judgment at the moment. You need to stop drinking and start thinking.
Advise from a kool aid drinker of the last 7 years. Rev. Wright is an angry black man who was born in America in 1941 and was treated worse than animals. I can’t blame him for his anger at America's past deeds. He didn’t lie and that's why some of his comments bother you. If I rated white folks by some of their friends or associates I would consider their judgement poor, but I take each individual on THEIR own merits! You should try it!
Hagee did not baptize McCain's children, or marry him and his wife, or was his spiritual mentor for decades.
Obama's link to Wright is much stronger, therefore deserves more attention, obviously.
To what end? What does it ACTUALLY tell us about Obama? Let's face facts, as I indicated to Cann0nba11, the bits we've seen in the news tell us very little about Wright. They tell us almost nothing about Obama.
Obama has a record we can examine. There is nothing in his school years, his years practicing law or his almost dozen years as an elected official that even hints at any kind of radical ideology. Do you want to pretend that some misleading, out of context snippets of his minister is going to tell us more about him than his personal record does?
What are all of these mock-concern hand-wringers afraid of? Do they think Obama is some kind of sleeper agent of a secret black separatist movement? Do they actually have any realistic basis of concern?
Or is their expression of concern exactly what it appears to be, simply a tool for baseless smearing of Obama?
Obama's link to Wright is much stronger, therefore deserves more attention, obviously. - truthseeker77
So, are you saying that somebody who is more closely connected to his faith should be scrutinized more closely than one who oportunistically embraces endorsements?
BTW, Truth seeker, I just saw a response to me on a Saturday item that is closed for comments.You dropped some "confiscatory taxes" talking point, I asked if I could quit subsidizing Pat Buchanan's church, you responded that you didn't understand how one party being exempted from taxes necessitated subsidization by those who do pay taxes.
You should have thought that one through a little better, as you were unknowingly arguing against one of the GOP's main planks.On the plus side, I'm guessing very few people saw it.
It never ceases to amaze me how Liberals see their favorite politicians as completely able to conduct their lives in different compartments. As in, these people can go through life and associate with radicals, cheat on their wives, have a certain documented voting record and YET none of that behavior could possibly instruct us in how they might act or think as President of the United States.
In fact, those aspects of their lives are in a separate compartments and have no bearing on policy decisions. Folks, it doesn't work that way. These actions and associations tell us who these people are.
Meanwhile McCain gets endorsements from a couple of radical preachers and he will be conducting Armageddon sermons on the White House lawn. Because we can draw that conclusion from McCain's associations. OR Bush is born-again so he will impose a Theocracy on America. How many times did I hear that in 2000? And it happened, right??
Well, it never ceases to amaze us how righties claim those things are important measurements to judge character by until they get caught doing exactly those things they tell us are proof of poor character. Then, instead of resigning with a little dignity they take the "you can have my political position back when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" attitude.
How's Larry "the stallroom swinger" Craig doing these days?
He did seek out the endorsements, in the case of Hagee, he pursued it for over a year, and is proud to have it.
Parsley is McCain's "spiritual advisor", his words.
It's not as different as you'd like it to be.
“Clinton has active surrogates on her payroll, who are not only members of Trinity United Church of Christ, but also call Reverend Wright their pastor. One of the surrogates, who campaigns frequently for Clinton, is Rev. Marcia Dyson. Rev. Marcia Dyson and her husband, and Obama supporter, Rev. Dr. Michael Dyson are frequently on MSNBC and CNN promoting their candidates. In addition, Clinton’s campaign manager, Congress Woman Shiela Jackson Lee, attends and is a member of a church where Black Liberation Theology is preached every Sunday for each of the 3 services on Sunday–Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church in Houston Texas. In addtion, Rev Wright has preached at Wheeler Ave. Baptist Church for the past 20 years. Clinton is a hypocrite and needs to clean her own house before she criticizes someone else’s.”
BillJ - nobody is saying that Wright goes off on 90-minute racist tirades. As many conservatives have learned, it only takes a sentence or a single word to lose one's job. But to claim that the US created AIDS to kill blacks, to claim that we give drugs to minorities then arrest them, etc. is completely ludicrous and irrational. I don't care if he has 30 years of peaceful preaching under his belt. His most recent rants are dangerous and divisive.
Pearlene - thanks for the excellent reply. Wrights influence on Barack has been more than religious, and that's according to himself. As to the need to distance, here's the quote from Wright: "If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me. I said it to Barack personally, and he (Obama) said yeah, that might have to happen.” That's not a white press statement, those are Wright's words. Doesn't sound like he is talking about differences in scripture interpretation to me. That sounds like a man that knows he can get out of control and cause damage to one's reputation.
Show me the dictionary that defines 'lynching' as something done by a white mob. We all know that this was a part of America's dark past, but the actual definition is not race specific. Yes, blacks were once treated worse than the family dog. GET OVER IT. Blacks in Africa are equally complicent in slavery: they sold their brothers to the white man for cash. The sixties were the peak of the most recent horrible racism we've experienced and since then the government has helped to create as much opportunity for minorities that anyone can imagine.
And let's drop the idea that Wright suffered horribly. Wright had the good fortune of attending an affluent mostly white high school (he chose not to go to the school closest to his home. He was the son of a successful baptist preacher and a high school vice principal. He certainly dod NOT lead the life of a struggling poor black child in the ghetto. HE is propogating a stereotype to appease his parishoners. So, in this instance Wright is lying about his past. He was not treated like an animal, he was not beaten by the foreman, he was not tied to a pole and lashed, he was not forced to pick cotton and wonder where his siblings were. These are the facts I'm dealing with.
If Wright wants to do some good damage control he needs to distribute info about the GOOD he has done. Help with troubled youth, counceling against drug abuse and teen pregnancy. Obama could certainly help him with this. After all, Barack and Michelle are SUCCESS STORIES of what you can become in America no matter what race you are. Harvard, Princeton, great jobs and outstanding salaries. THESE are the things that should make Michelle proud of America: OPPORTUNITY. Yet she is bitter... and for no reason.
As Chris Rock once said, “There’s like a civil war going on in America and there’s two sides. There’s black people… and there’s niggaz. And the niggaz have got to go." He went on to say "When I'm at the cash machine tonight getting some money, I'm not lookin' over my shoulder for the media, I'm looking for niggaz.
Until we see differently, Wright took advantage of stereotypes and group think, and while praising God made the mistake of inciting anger instead of inspiring opportunity. Show me a video of him inspiring blacks to take the high road, to let go of the excuses of the past and to EARN what America has offered them. I would love to see it, and so would much of America.
And let's drop the idea that Wright suffered horribly
Were you a black child born in 1941? I was 7 years old and speak from experience what about you? Have you ever spent a day living as an African American? NO then until you walk a mile in MY shoes save your opinions. You talk about how great this opportunity to attend an affluent white school was, but you have NO idea what his experience was like, do you. Did all those white student open there arms and say so glad to have you in our school? A successful baptist preacher who's congregation was African American correct? How successful do you really think he was? You think all suffering has to be physical order to feel pain and anger. No matter what you would like to think I know what life was like for African Americans during the 50's and 60's. You didn't get on the bus and pay your 15cents and not be allowed to sit in the first 10 seats. YOU HAVE NO FREAKING CLUE! No matter what your father did for a living and no matter where you went to school YOU WERE BLACK and were treated as second class citizens. Telling the truth is not a sin.
You make a judgements of Rev. Wright based on a few clips on the nightly news. You say If Wright wants to do some good as if your opinion of what good is matters. Wright obviously does good, he been a minster for 36 years. Wright has been awarded seven honorary doctoral degrees. He has also served on a number of boards and commissions, including serving on the board of trustees for Virginia Union University and Chicago Theological Seminary. Wright has authored several books, including Africans Who Shaped Our Faith, Good News! Sermons of Hope for Today's Families, and What Makes You So Strong? Sermons of Joy and Strength from Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.
EARN what America has offered them
OMG I should feel sooo blessed that America, who used me for slavery, sold my children like animals, accepted my money but treated me like a second class citizen HAS OFFERED ME SOMETHING. Just think of all that money America could have saved if they had simply treated me like I was a human being, then they wouldn't have had to OFFER me a godd*mn thing.
Cannon my reasons for bring up the past is because it's my history and it should go a long way to helping those who want to understand where Rev. Wright is coming from. I don't agree with all he said but I UNDERSTAND. You can choose to take his words anyway you want, you won't be alone Hannity, Rush and friends will be right there with you. Great company huh
Yes, blacks were once treated worse than the family dog. GET OVER IT.
Pretty much sums up why you are an idiot with no perspective on the subject and nothing of substance to add. Up until about firty years ago Jim Crow laws allowed that dog treatment to continue. Anyone here fifty and up may recall that terrible period of US history, some of the people posting may have even had to use seperate but equal facilities. This is not ancient history. And you have a lot of balls to tell people to get over it when you have enjoyed a lily white life up to this point.
I'm a white Liberal 30 years old...and I'm saying if you are gonna spew nonsense while Pearl provides facts then at least do us all the courtesy of putting on your f'n sheet
Rev. Wright did no such thing. He acknowledged the anger that he saw in his congregation.
As you say, great strides have been made in the last 40 years but we still have a long way to go.
If Rev. Wright preached to inspire opportunity to his flock they would still be denied jobs because of the color of their skin. They would still be stopped by the police for driving their cars in the wrong neighborhood, they would still be discriminated against in the housing market, they would still be denied jobs and they would still be told by white America that they've got nothing to complain about.
If you haven't seen discrimination in America recently you don't get out much. Wealthy, white, male America denies opportunity to anyone of any color who happens to be poor, non-white or female.
Cann0nba11 - nobody is saying that Wright goes off on 90-minute racist tirades.
They're coming awfully close to just that. We've all read many repetitions of the ludicrous suggestion that Obama's 20 years of attendance meant 20 years of exposure to hate speech. The evidence, ALL of it, says otherwise.
As many conservatives have learned, it only takes a sentence or a single word to lose one's job.
Some liberals have learned the same lesson. Regardless, we're not talking here about an elected official who has to answer to his/her constituents and the public at large. We're not talking about a journalist or broadcaster who has to answer to their sponsors and the stations that put them on the air. Wright only has to answer to the members of his congregation and they found little controversial in his sermons from week to week, which naturally dulls the impact of his rare journeys into controversy.
I don't care if he has 30 years of peaceful preaching under his belt. His most recent rants are dangerous and divisive.
Most recent? Those tiny little snippets we've all heard replayed constantly are isolated pieces from sermons scattered over a period of many years? If his sermons were actually dangerous, shouldn't we have seen SOME extreme behavior from SOME member of his congregation at SOME time over the 36 years he's been preaching? What evidence is there that he's promoted a radical ideology? Nothing at all, when context is taken into account.
I've been reasonably convinced by the people who would know best that the content of most of Wright's messages have been horribly misrepresented.
But to claim that the US created AIDS to kill blacks, to claim that we give drugs to minorities then arrest them, etc. is completely ludicrous and irrational - Cannonball
Actually, considering the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, no, it's not COMPLETELY ludicrous or irrational. In fact, if it were true, I would be outraged, but not surprised.
"Obama has a record we can examine. There is nothing in his school years, his years practicing law or his almost dozen years as an elected official that even hints at any kind of radical ideology. "
His record as a politician is short and incomplete. He chooses to no vote quote often. He's a junior senator. He needs more political experience. This is what bothers most conservatives about his popularity. He's as substantial as a chocolate Easter bunny. Looks great, shiny, pretty packaging, but when you take a bite it's hollow. I think he gives a great speech and that's important. But he simply lacks political credibility. (then, there's that whole being the most liberal senator that bothers conservatives too, but that's a separate discussion).
And, as Hillary claims credit and experience as First Lady, Michelle Obama is viewed as a liability. She is known to be the more radical thinker, the more aggressive of the couple. Conservatives don't want her bitterness in the ear of the president. If Barack had another complete term under his belt and a more complete voting record he'd be a more viable candidate. Race has nothing to do with it. Seriously. Afer all, lots of folks seem to forget that Obama is half black, half white. To say that he is black is to call a rum and coke just a glass of coke. He is a charming and charismatic person with a camera friendly smile. He just doesn't have the experience that gives people confidence to run our country in these times.
He just doesn't have the experience that gives people confidence to run our country in these times.
LOL
Your conservative judgement had you voting and electing America's dumbest President. He has ruined the economy and has entered America in the biggest mistake that has cost 4,000 lives and that's just as of today. He has lied repeatedly and his cabinet is a bunch of incompetent fools.
Forgive me if I say I don't give a d*mn what you conservatives think, your judgement ain't for sh*t.
Seriously, you idiots eleted W....twice
I wouldn't take a conservatives advice on a good place for chinese take out, let alone anything more important
He did use a lotta big words, gotta give Cannon that
You're changing subjects here. The entire basis of the phony issues raised about Wright is that it says something about Obama. Wright hasn't been a consistent proponent of a radical ideology and Obama clearly also hasn't. THAT was may entire point. THAT was what I was pointing out about Obama's record.
His level of experience is a legitimate topic of discussion, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the phony issues being raised about Wright which IS the topic of conversation.
That said, I'm going to address your change of subject anyway. I'm not uncomfortable with his level of experience. We've had good presidents in the past with less. I'm concerned with a combination of his positions on issues, his integrity, his judgment, his intelligence and the way he handles problems. I've been reasonably impressed on all of those topics.
There is a big difference between the Obama/Wright connection and the McCain/Hagee and McCain/Parsley connections, and both Media Matters and most of the comments here are ignoring that big difference.
Jeremiah Wright was the pastor at Obama's wedding. He baptized both of Obama's children. Obama attended services at Wright's church for 20 years and donated generously. Obama took the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope," from one of Wright's sermons. He has described his relationship with Wright in the most positive terms: Wright is his "close personal priend" and "personal spiritual advisor."
There are fathers out there who don't have relationships that close with their own sons -- even many fathers who stayed married and never left the home. The relationship between Wright and Obama is much closer and much more influential than the relationships between McCain and the other two ministers.
Furthermore, one of the principal themes of the Obama campaign is his claim that he will bridge the racial divide. The rhetoric from Wright, that Obama has been soaking up for the past 20 years, suggests otherwise. This is a contradiction that is not evident in McCain's relationships. Thus it is entirely appropriate for the Wright/Obama connection to be subjected to greater scrutiny -- by Hillary and by the media.
Please show us something, anything that shows you have reason for concern. Anything Obama has said. Anthing he's done. Let's accept facts. There is zero evidence that Obama represents a radical ideology.
What the hell are you clowns ACTUALLY afraid of?
Jimdavis, hope you didn't put too much time into that.lThe list has been posted here scores of times;Obama marriage, baptisms, spiritual advsor, 20 years, blah, blah. I think everybody understands that Obama and Wright have had a close relationship through their church. I don't know what church McCain attends, and I don't know who his clergyman is, or what that clergyman's positions are. Hasn't been in the news, no more than anything else about McCain.
I don't even know if McCain is religious. What I don't see from the conservative posters who keep repeating this list is any comparison between Obama's and McCain's churches, or a rational reason for the seemingly unanimous decision that Obama's church needs to be scrutinized, while McCain's can be ignored, aside from the fact that Obama seems to be more involved in his church than McCain in his.Religious test for office?
It's easy to make up an arbitrary list of reasons for scrutiny that conveniently fits Obama exactly, but it's not very honest.
Re: Howie Kurtz
Doesn't make much sense to be a media critic, then criticize yourself, then keep doing what you first criticized yourself for doing. (Or maybe it does make sense in a way. Certainly keeps you busy...)
-- GP
TO ALL OF YOU THAT HAVE RIPPED ME A NEW ONE: Thank you for proving my point. Thank you for taking the bait. You have done everything I expected as mindless, over-emotional leftist trolls.
Edenscape: You call me lily white? My father (God rest his soul) was black. You use the term lilly white just like Jesse Jackson did in the 1980s when labeling my home town "lily white" after some kids were arrested for illegally attending my high school. My class was 67% black. Jackson was wrong then, you are wrong today. Screw you Edenscape.
WorrierKing: Blacks have more opportunity for jobs than whites in America. Affirmative Action makes it so. Blacks hire blacks. Histpanics hire Hispanics, and whites have to hire who the government tells them to hire. Look at local and national government. Look at promotions in the military. Blacks have advantages due to their skin color. Period. To deny this is ignorance.
Handsome Pete: Tuskeegee was horrible. It was also sixty years ago. I can't stand it when liberals call our government incompetent and inept, yet in the same breath gives the government credit for being able to create one of the most deadly diseases ever and then deliver it, killing mainly white homosexuals in America, drug users and a horrid number of blacks overseas. You can't have it both ways. I bet you cheered when OJ got away with it, huh? Shame on you.
Pearlene/Edenscape: I think Bush is an idiot and is one of the worst presidents ever. I didn't vote for him. Yes, I'm a conservative, but I'm certainly not a Republican. I think my judgment is just fine, thank you.
So, the next time you slam someone that disagrees with you, don't make assumptions about the poster. Did I suffer as a black child in the 50s and 60s? No. I was born in 1966. But my father is a black man born in 1947. My mother is a white woman born in 1949. Think about the attention they enjoyed as a mixed couple in the late 1960s. Dad was an athelete, I am a musician. I'm the opposite of Obama in many ways, physically and politically. He looks black, I look white. He may have experienced racism as a black man in a white world, I experienced racism as a white looking man in a black world. It cuts both ways.
Thanks for the dialog. Peace to all.
Handsome Pete: Tuskeegee was horrible. It was also sixty years ago. -Cannonba11
Wrong. The Tuskegee Syphilis experiments only concluded in 1972, 36 years ago, and ONLY came out because of a leak to the press. and not that long before AIDS and crack came on the scene. That doesn't mean that our government is responsible for them, but I can't blame anyone of a certain age with certain experiences to believe them.
I can't stand it when liberals call our government incompetent and inept, yet in the same breath gives the government credit for being able to create one of the most deadly diseases ever and then deliver it, killing mainly white homosexuals in America, drug users and a horrid number of blacks overseas. You can't have it both ways.
Maybe because it's not the same people in government all the time. Brownie wasn't in charge of AIDS, or it never would have gotten done, but James Lee Witt, he probably wouldn't have done it on priniciple. :) Some are competent and evil, some are inept. Considering how many people are involved in governement, yes, we can have it both ways. Government isn't some concrete entity, it changes a lot.
I bet you cheered when OJ got away with it, huh? Shame on you.
And then comes the insult. Brilliant debating technique. You still molesting your children, loser? Shame on you for that, by the way.
"Please show us something, anything that shows you have reason for concern. Anything Obama has said. Anthing he's done. Let's accept facts. There is zero evidence that Obama represents a radical ideology."
Here are my reasons for concern over an Obama presidency:
This is scary enough. I can deal with Reverend Dr. Wright. I can't deal with a country at risk.
So you're changing the subject? My question was quite clearly in the context of the phony concerns about Obama and Wright. I've asked many times in many threads what Obama has done to indicate a radical ideology from his exposure to Wright. No one has ever had an answer.
The items you list are issue oriented, even if they were packed with straw men, misrepresentations of his positions and outright falsehoods. Opposition to Obama based on his positions is reasonable.
Oppositions to Obama based on his minister are idiotic.
So, the next time you slam someone that disagrees with you, don't make assumptions about the poster
I make assumption about a poster based on what they say. When someone says "Show me the dictionary that defines 'lynching' as something done by a white mob. I can only assume you've been living on planet mars. What else could I assume from that statement?
to let go of the excuses of the past and to EARN what America has offered them.
I cannot begin to guess what made you make that statement. EARN? I'm sorry but you leave me speechless. WHY did America have to "offer" Black folks anything? WHY Well to answer that we have to go back to the past but I forgot THAT'S something you don't want to discuss. One has to wonder why you don't want to look back.
You want black folks to "GET OVER IT"? May I suggest you stop running from the past pretending that it didn't happen. May I suggest you stop "offering" black folks anything and simply TREAT THEM AS YOU WOULD WANT TO BE TREATED! May I suggest you stop thinking that the progress this country has made allows us to forget the past. Sorry but it's a part of American history like the 4th of July and apple pie. You don't get to pick and choose what American history you want to remember.
I experienced racism as a white looking man in a black world. It cuts both ways
If it cuts both ways, where in the world is YOUR understanding? If you've been judged unfairly why would you o the same to someone else?
Blacks have more opportunity for jobs than whites in America. Affirmative Action makes it so
Affirmative Action got my daughters into great colleges but Affirmative Action DID NOT GIVE THEM THEIR DEGREES. Affirmative Action DID NOT GO TO CLASS FOR THEM it just got them in the door THEY DID THE REST! Your butt will be booted out of a job or college IF you don't perform no matter what race you are or how you got the job.
Pearlene:
W wasn't booted out of Yale...
W wasn't booted out of Yale...
LOL
History, "Affirmative Action" admittance is for minorities, "Legacy" admittance was Juniors. They don't get booted.
Affirmative Action, while an imperfect solution, is absolutely necessary. "Legacy" admissions lead to people like W. Somehow people ignore the bias that exists that favors rich, white (primarily) males, but "legacies" actually LOWER standards. Hmmm....
For the record, althought I'm not rich, I am a white male.
Handsome Pete, yes, the insult was unnecessary. Thanks for the date clarification on Tuskegee as well. My apologies, just a sign of my frustration. My main point is that I perceive that you give the government credit where I don't think it's due. The comparison to the OJ case has to do with the same mindset: the defense argued that the LAPD was a bunch of clowns, yet brilliant enough to place a bloody glove somewhere. That's the "can't have it both ways" I was talking about.
If the government created AIDS and was smart enough to do so, it was apparently a failure because its victims are not only blacks.
BillJ - "If his sermons were actually dangerous, shouldn't we have seen SOME extreme behavior from SOME member of his congregation at SOME time over the 36 years he's been preaching? What evidence is there that he's promoted a radical ideology?"
There's no way to tell how many racial crimes have been committed by Wright's parishoners. (robbery, mugging, etc.) I would hope that church going people don't commit crimes at all, but this simply isn't the case. Michelle Obama has made a wonderful life for herself, yet she spits out bitterness due to her brainwashing of the victim mentality.
Bill J "The entire basis of the phony issues raised about Wright is that it says something about Obama."
But IT DOES. Wright is an advisor to Obama. How can one not be influenced by someone that you regularly visit for 20 years? We all know that 99% of what Wright preached was not so hate-filled as what the press keeps replaying. But these are just blatant examples of reverse racism. How many not-so-blatant points were spread during his time at the church. I think we can safely assume that whenever a race issue was in the news (rodney king, tawana brawley, the duke rape case, etc) that Wright somehow worked it into his sermons and propogated the black victim mentality.
My deepest frustration lies in minorities that become addicted to welfare, addicted to blaming others, incapable of pulling themselves up and out of the bad world into the good world. Don't tell me that I'm making this up, we all know that there is a large contingent in the black world that lives this way. You get to the point where the past is the past and you have to move on. My inlaws were poor migrants not allowed to speak German during world war II. Japanese citizens were put into camps. Jews were slaughtered by the millions in WWII and an equal if not greater number of christians were killed by the Russians during the same war (don't hear much about that though). None of these equates to hundreds of years of slavery, but nobody alive today was a slave. Racism victims? Yes. But nothing that prevents a man/woman from becoming successful. Look at Barack and Michelle Obama. Why not preach a message of opportunity instead of pounding the same old wedge between Americans? As my dad used to say, would you rather be called a name or would you like to be a modern day slave in Africa? There are alternatives to living here, but to me none of them are appealing.
That's some bizarre alternative universe you inhabit. You ought to try visiting earth.
At least you've come around to accept that almost none of Wright's sermons were controversial. Now all you have to do is accept the reality that it's easy for a thinking adult to filter the content and not fall prey to some kind of brainwashing.
From everything I've heard about Wright's sermons it's a myth serving the conservative agenda to claim that they "propogated the black victim mentality." The rest of what you bemoan about "minorities" are problems that exist in all ethnic groups but to a much lower level than you probably believe. What's more, it's exactly the kind of thing Wright worked hard to reform for 36 years from the pulpit and in the community.
So far we keep coming back to the fact that most of us here know very little about what Wright has been saying for 36 years. I know a lot more than you do because I made the effort to find out and didn't rely on a few seconds of stupid little out of context snippets of carefully cherry-picked segments of sermons. I'm not superstitious and have little regard for religion, but I've come to the conclusion that Wright's words and actions are 99% admirable and about 1% worthy of criticism. That's a level most of us could only dream of achieving.
Yes, the press has only uncovered a half-dozen or so controversial statements from Reverand Dr. Wright. But how many does it take before he needs to be held accountable for hateful, divisive speech? The road to hell is paved with good intentions... Wright certainly motivated his parishiners, and no, we do not have tangible examples of people that have done bad due to his words. But not that one of his parishoners is running for President we have to consider how much more he has said and how those words have shaped Obama's thinking. I'm not for more government or entitlements, I'm for less.
I simply can't take seriously a man that uses the examples of Hirshoma and Nagasaki in a comparison with 9/11. Apparently he things we should not have used the A-Bomb in WWII. Sorry Reverend, but the casualties that happened in those cities would have been dwarfed by the Invasion of Japan that was the next step in the war, an invasion that would have dwarfed our efforts in Normandy. War is hell: the bombs stopped the war and actually saved lives.
I cannot begin to guess what made you make that statement. EARN? I'm sorry but you leave me speechless. WHY did America have to "offer" Black folks anything? WHY Well to answer that we have to go back to the past but I forgot THAT'S something you don't want to discuss. One has to wonder why you don't want to look back.
Pearlene, I'm really sorry that you are angry. I am fine with discussing the past, but I don't live in it. Blacks offer plenty of reasons for whites to look down upon them: single moms giving it up, street thugs bothering people of all colors, athletes with all you can ask for acting like fools, 'entertainers' dragging blacks down with offensive lyrics, attitudes and videos. White America certainly isn't perfect either, but my observation is that the repetitious holding up of the "we used to be slaves" flag has lost it's validity. Cry wolf all you want, but we live in a time TODAY that gives everyone plenty of opportunity. I don't use a typewriter anymore, I don't crank my car to start it, I don't turn a dial to use the phone. Progress: It's beautiful.
You want black folks to "GET OVER IT"? May I suggest you stop running from the past pretending that it didn't happen. May I suggest you stop "offering" black folks anything and simply TREAT THEM AS YOU WOULD WANT TO BE TREATED!Pearlene, I'm trying. I treat people of all colors equally. Respect is something you earn, but so is disrespect. Bill Cosby says lots of very smart things, it troubles me when other blacks say he has sold out. He's right, and I think I'm right too.
You can also use that “we used to be slaves” to force black folks to get up off their a** and do something. Force black folks to realize how fortunate they are that they live in America 2008 not 1938. Help them take advantage of their opportunities by reminding them of their past. You can use the past to help change the future and it doesn't have to always be about "white folks". I’m angry that some are pretending that it didn’t happen INSTEAD of using it to LEARN from. Just because you visit the past doesn’t mean you live in it, history is there to TEACH you something. Use it and learn from it.
My story is simple, I made the wrong choices in getting pregnant very young (twice). I didn’t expect anyone to do anything for me I made my choices and I had to live with them. I also made the decision to change my life, to not become the “single mother statics“. I’m a 48 year breast cancer survivor. I married my husband got my HD diploma when my youngest daughter was barley 5. I put 3 daughters through college. It’s not just black folks who have issues every one does. How would you explain the continued poverty and lack of education of the white folks living in the Appalachian mountains? Don’t wallow in the past but don’t be afraid to examine it, you might learn something.
I actually think Bill was right in some of the things he said. I think that each generation has tried to make up for what they thought they lacked and along the way our children began to think they were entitled and they didn’t have to work for what they wanted. I also think that it’s not all black families who have issues. While I appreciate what Bill had to say I worry about how what he said will play out in the national media. Will his advise be portrayed in a fair way or will it be used to further a stereotypes of all black families are in crisis.
You are right, progress is beautiful but you make it beautiful by not making the mistakes of the past and the only way to not make the same mistakes is to examine your past.
I appreciate the conversation Cannon.
Wow. Pearlene, you are an outstanding example of what CAN be done by a strong and motivated person. YOURS is a story that should be taught from pulpit. My parents got pregnant as teens (birth control was illegal in CT in 1965) and I am here because, like you, they decided to keep me and give it a go. I am fortunate to have had a father that stuck around despite the craziness toward mixed couples back then. Perhaps if Wright worded his statements differently the message would be different. Instead of God Damn America he could have said "God Damn those that shame America with their hurtful actions." (I'm not really sure how to sugarcoat the USKKK of A comment)
"I’m angry that some are pretending that it didn’t happen INSTEAD of using it to LEARN from."
I can understand that. I just don't see people saying that racism didn't happen. There are some crazy Muslims that claim that the concentration camps were faked, but that's different. I haven't seen anyone saying that slavery didn't take place.
Conversation greatly appreciated Pearlene.
Conger... I missed your posts, earlier but I'm glad to respond to your DailyKOS talking points:
1)made Iran stronger. Iran will be dealt with, but I don't see them as stronger. Ahmedenijad is just filling the void created by the removal of Hussein. Iran is funding terrorist activities, this has been proven. If they continue to do so, or if they act out they will suffer.
2)grown and made Al-Queda stronger, Not sure where you are seeing this. AQ is much weaker now. The press refuses to report on it. We have killed so many important operatives that they are now resorting to women and the retarded to carry bombs. This is similar to the young kids being trained as Kamikazes during WWII. It's a sign of desparation. AQ is going down.
3) given us gas prices that in some areas is above $4/gal. Yes, this stinks. We have mismanaged our economy horribly and the government is making it worse by bailing out banks while not helping home owners. This is a bipartisan issue. The Dems are the kings of pork, but the Republicans are catching up. It used to be that Dems tax& spend, but now the Reps just spend.
4)plunged us into a recession that some economist say could be the worst since the Great Depression. See above. This is not a race or party issue. It'sdue to a systematic problem pervasive through our entire government, national and local.
Do you really think that Clinton or Obama will make it any better? They want to provide MORE programs. Where will the money come from? We need to remove ourselves from dependence on the middle east. Drill ANWR, build more refineries, go nuclear. There are plenty of ways we can regain our economic freedom, but environmentalists won't let us.
"Under Hussein Iran was in check."
Yes, if you consider mass murder, the regular torture and rape of citizens "in check." Oh, that's right. Liberals only care about the lives of people that Conservatives aren't helping.
"press has been reporting"
There's your problem. You are relying on the press. My brother-in-law is in Afghanistan and tells a compeltely different story than what the press reports. The press never reports decreases in activity or increases in safe territories.
"NO my Afro-American friend this gouging and "K" St. philandering is Republican"
(who still uses "Afro-American"?) YES, Bush is a horrible President, yes the S&L bailouts were just as stupid as current Government bailouts (I thought I coveered that in a previous post). But with regard to trying to make this all the Republican's fault: I beg to differ. Yes, Bush has spent us into obilvion, but Congress isn't exactly trying to hold back the purse strings. Look at all of the pork and look at which party is the largest offender. Clinton got us out of the mess but he benefitted by the biggest boom since after WWII: the Internet age.
"Vitter, Craig, Foley..."
Don't bother playing the name game here. There are plenty of Dems we can throw under the bus starting with Bill Clinton. I'll toss Ray Nagan in there too. This just tells me that you are a partisan hack, you are unwilling to take any ownership for what the Dems have done. This is not a binary issue, both parties are accountable. Both parties have let down America.
Correct. I've heard several people saying "Why haven't catholics left their churches for the behavior of pedophile priests?"
IT'S NOT THE SAME THING!
If MY priest had done this, we would have found another church. Nobody is asking Obama to leave his RELIGION, they are asking him to disassociate himself from Wright.
Again, here's a quote FROM WRIGHT HIMSELF (April 2007, NYT) “If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”
McCain actively sought the endorsements of men like Hagee ("whore of Babylon") and Parsley (his spiritual adviser), who is in favor of eradicating Islam ("bomb bomb Iran" anyone?). After knowing what they had said on those issues. I rather suspect Obama didn't know what Wright was going to say many years in the future when he joined the church.
And the stuff about baptism, marriage, etc.? My son was baptized by a priest I could hardly stand. I consented to it because I valued the church more than the priest. The church is more than the minister--maybe Obama stayed because of the rest of the church.
Oh, and does anyone here remember Falwell's spew about "pointing the finger" at gays, feminists, etc., and saying "you caused this to happen"? To which Robertson (whose endorsement McCain also sought out) wholeheartedly agreed. How is that any different from Wright saying 9/11 was caused by Hiroshima, etc., except that the targets of ire are different? Not that nay of the holy-rollers will actually answer this one...
Chiefs discussions and has an overall view of the nation I guess he should know ? Give me a break. Talk about partisan hack. You have the nerve to talk about Husseins atrocities which he committed while he was our allie and before we gave him 15 billion dollars in aid. I guess you didn't read about that either. The problem with you is that you is you just have opinions but show no facts. Which Party touts themselves as being the party of "morality"? The trouble with your examples is that you refuse to see the hyprocrisy in a party that touts morality and passes laws intruding into the private life of individuals yet cannot live up to its own words. their hyprocrites! You stil;l haven't answered how from Reagan to Bush the "fiscally" responsible Repugs have given us the bioggest increases in spending all the while touting small govt. The point I made I guess your talking points don't cover is that Repugs talk of cutting spending but only for social programs that benefit working people they spend like druken sailors when it for their cronies in bussiness and defense contractors. You remind me Cannonball of the saying "Never underestimate the power of denial"(movie:American Beauty")and the best you could come up with in refutation of the increase in Al-Queda in Afghanistan is a soldiers platoon view. Your sorry Cannonball and in the words of the famous Barbara Bush "I'am thru with you!"
Chiefs discussions and has an overall view of the nation I guess he should know ? Give me a break. Talk about partisan hack. You have the nerve to talk about Husseins atrocities which he committed while he was our allie and before we gave him 15 billion dollars in aid. I guess you didn't read about that either. The problem with you is that you is you just have opinions but show no facts. Which Party touts themselves as being the party of "morality"? The trouble with your examples is that you refuse to see the hyprocrisy in a party that touts morality and passes laws intruding into the private life of individuals yet cannot live up to its own words. their hyprocrites! You stil;l haven't answered how from Reagan to Bush the "fiscally" responsible Repugs have given us the bioggest increases in spending all the while touting small govt. The point I made I guess your talking points don't cover is that Repugs talk of cutting spending but only for social programs that benefit working people they spend like druken sailors when it for their cronies in bussiness and defense contractors. You remind me Cannonball of the saying "Never underestimate the power of denial"(movie:American Beauty")and the best you could come up with in refutation of the increase in Al-Queda in Afghanistan is a soldiers platoon view. Your sorry Cannonball and in the words of the famous Barbara Bush "I'am thru with you!"
Oh, Cannonball your inability to present facts with your positions just shows how weak and baseless your positions are. Before you come on this site attacking people and throwing around BS make sure your grounded in more than just conservative talking points! You can beg to differ but without facts your just speaking from your lower orifice! Now I'am thru with you! Back into the marsh troll!