Krauthammer ignored McCain's solicitation of Hagee endorsement, saying, "[C]andidates are endorsed by hundreds of people"
SUMMARY: On Special Report, Charles Krauthammer said, "The Obama campaign and the Democrats will say that [Sen. John] McCain has his Reverend [John] Hagee, and Obama has his reverend, and they disavowed them, and they're sort of morally equivalent." Krauthammer continued, "The obvious counterargument, which the Democrats refuse to accept, is that presidential candidates are endorsed by hundreds of people, half of whom they don't know, some of whom are scoundrels and rogues whom they then dissociate themselves from." But McCain, by his own admission, actively sought Hagee's endorsement, despite Hagee's numerous controversial comments.
On the May 29 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer said, "The Obama campaign and the Democrats will say that [Sen. John] McCain has his Reverend [John] Hagee, and Obama has his reverend, and they disavowed them, and they're sort of morally equivalent." Krauthammer continued, "The obvious counterargument, which the Democrats refuse to accept, is that presidential candidates are endorsed by hundreds of people, half of whom they don't know, some of whom are scoundrels and rogues whom they then dissociate themselves from." But to suggest, as Krauthammer did, that Hagee was just another McCain endorser, "half of whom [he doesn't] know," is to misrepresent what happened preceding the endorsement. McCain, by his own admission, actively sought Hagee's endorsement, despite Hagee's numerous controversial comments about gays, Catholics, Islam, and women. Moreover, even after McCain was asked about some of Hagee's controversial comments, he still said, "I'm glad to have his endorsement," before eventually rejecting it.
As Media Matters for America noted, during an April 20 interview on ABC's This Week, after McCain said he "strongly condemn[s]" "any comments that he [Hagee] made about the Catholic Church," host George Stephanopoulos stated, "Yet you solicited and accepted his endorsement." McCain replied: "Yes, indeed, I did." Later, when asked if it was "a mistake to solicit and accept [Hagee's] endorsement," McCain replied, "Oh, probably. Sure." But when Stephanopoulos asked McCain, "So you no longer want his endorsement?" McCain responded: "I'm glad to have his endorsement." More than a month after this exchange, McCain rejected Hagee's endorsement following the disclosure of remarks Hagee made in the late 1990s.
From the May 29 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
KRAUTHAMMER: The Obama campaign and the Democrats will say that McCain has his Reverend Hagee, and Obama has his reverend, and they disavowed them, and they're sort of morally equivalent.
The obvious counterargument, which the Democrats refuse to accept, is that presidential candidates are endorsed by hundreds of people, half of whom they don't know, some of whom are scoundrels and rogues whom they then dissociate themselves from.
The difference is, it's not a question of endorsement; it's a question of character. What kind of man spends 20 years in a church in which such things as we hear here and we heard from Wright are said, and preached, and cheered?
so what? he also didn't note that Wright was Obama's spiritual advisor, wed him and his wife, baptized his children, or that Obama was part of his flock for 20 years despite the crap that wright spewed from his pulpit, or that Obama (like Mccain) only dumped wright when it became politically necessary.
This game can go on and on. Krauthaumer summed it up well.
Both sides can point to bad qualities about the company that each candidate kept. This is a side-show. You're likely correct about Mccain pandering. I'm just tired of hearing about both of their pastors when I don't think either candidate adopts their controversial views.
I still overhear people saying they won't vote for Obama because of complete nonsense like the flag-pin, hand-over heart and/or Rev. Wright issue.
It never ceases to amaze me how many complete imbeciles there are in this country. This is what Obama has to overcome. It will be interesting to see if it is even remotely possible. It will be a herculean effort nonetheless.
Good call Thomp.
Why MMFA wants to continue on about these pastor problems is beyond me...
Unless they want us to bring up Rev. Michael Pfleger?
The guy is a whacko. But what troubled me more was the congregations reaction.
Jeter
I agree, it is time to move away from the Pastors and on both sides.
You probably say that because Obama's church has spawned another pastor spewing racism. That church seems to have a lot of pastors who teach racism. I didn't know that was part of the Word of God.
But, since media matters is the ONLY media outlet still worried about 'pastor connections' we will continue to have the item to talk about up to and beyone election day. And, the ONLY time this subject will be brought up is when there is yet another racist pastor speaking from the pulpit of Obama's church. It's a good way of 'deflecting' the attention that Obama's racist teaching church gets off onto McCain.
"No one has been able to prove Wright is racist."
I guess no one was able to "prove" Robert Byrd was a racist, either. Is that how he ended up being a leader of the democratic party?
Yesterday's racist is not necessarily todays racist. Some people grow out of it. I'd be interested in what your trip wire is for the deffinition of a racist. Is racism only a one way door?
"Yesterday's racist is not necessarily todays racist. Some people grow out of it."
Hopefully, the pastors at that church will "grow out of it" soon. They don't seem to have changed, yet.
" How christian of you. Real Christianity is all about second chances, reformation and repentence"
When has Wright repented? When has Wright reformed? When he does I'll see if he changes, but, it isn't me who makes the decision about his salvation so it isn't me he needs to show that reform to. When I see true repentence out of either one then I will have no problem giving them a second chance. I don't see it from Byrd or Wright.
"How christian of you" How about how Christian of YOU. How many liberals on this site claim to be Christian AND do not give Hagee or McCain a second chance?? Don't give me your self-righteousness when 80% of the liberals on this site are as hypocritical as you claim I am. By giving this arguement, you admit that Byrd and Wright are racists. But, that I am supposed to forgive them for their racism. Good job of backing up my claims. Now, let's see if they reform and/or repent.
Hi Philib,
I wish I'd caught you sooner, as I could have saved you a lot of embarrassment(not to mention a lot of unnecessary typing).
Your entire argument seems to be based on your misperception that the media is ignoring the Rev. Wright deal, and that MMFA is the only source keeping it alive.That is, if MM dropped it, it would be gone.
Did you notice that the item is about Krauthammer referencing it on May 29 (Thursday)?
You should really read the items before posting. You may be able to pass as a non-idiot for brief periods.
It aint easy being white, our violins are much smaller.
"How does pointing out Krauthammer's misinformation here keep Hagee "alive"? "
Well, the obvious part is there IS NO misinformation. That is why it is difficult to answer your question. But if you want to know why Hagee is still in the news then: (Shall we use small words so you under stand?) There are a few possibilities.
1-because media matters is the ONLY media outlet talking about Hagee or Wright or Parsley or any other bad pastor. If they would stop, then this "story" would die. When they continue, then all the racism that is taught in Obama's church continues to come to the forefront. As hard as mmfa tries, they can't seem to deflect the fact that Obama belongs to a church that loves to have racist teaching pastors.
2-the only way to keep that from being headlines is to continually bring up a non-story like McCain-Hagee connection. Since people are tired of hearing about Hagee, they will switch the channel when a pastor related story comes out. That's why mmfa continues to bring up Hagee. When another pastor from Obama's church spews more racism that makes headlines, the best way to make people turn away is to show a Hagee headline.
3-mmfa keeps it in the news to show how dumb liberals are. They know that Obama's church will continue to have racist-pastor problems, so any time another one spews more racism, mmfa will re-broadcast all the OLD news about McCain/Hagee/Parsley. Liberals do so little thinking for themselves they will believe whatever mmfa tells them to believe and ignore the racism being taught at Obama's church....because mmfa has 'more important' news.
Personally, I lean towards answer #3.
Why don't you fill us in with some facts then? Who was it? What 'out of text' comment are you going to use? You should listen to the entire sermon. He makes a couple bad statements over a 20 history. You should listen to his sermons on a weekly basis to hear what message he is bringing. You should visit his church and experience for yourself his message.
Those are all excuses used by the left to brush off the racist/hateful statements by Wright. Which one should I use for whatever pastor YOU'RE going to claim is making racist/hateful statements?? Oh, you mean I'm not allowed to use any of those statements? Gee, the left seems so hypocritical.
...He then gets to the thesis of his sermon, saying, "Y'all are looking to the government for only what God can give. A lot of people confuse God with their government." Wright criticizes the Bush administration and its supporters for using Godly language to justify the war in Iraq. He equates using Bush's apparent belief that our Christian God would condone the war in Iraq with the same perspective of Islamic fundamentalists.
"We can see clearly the confusion in the mind of a few Muslims, and please notice I did not say all Muslims, I said a few Muslims, who see Allah as condoning killing and killing any and all who don't believe what they don't believe. They call it jihad. We can see clearly the confusion in their minds, but we cannot see clearly what it is that we do. We call it crusade when we turn right around and say that our God condones the killing of innocent civilians as a necessary means to an end. WE say that God understands collateral damage. We say that God knows how to forgive friendly fire.
We say that God will bless the shock and awe as we take over unilaterally another country, calling it a coalition because we've got three guys from Australia, going against the United Nations, going against the majority of Christians, Muslims and Jews throughout the world, making a pre-emptive strike in the name of God. We cannot see how what we are doing is the same thing that Al-Qaeda is doing under a different color flag - calling on the name of a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem."
http://www.democraticcentral.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1814
How does pointing out Krauthammer's misinformation here keep Hagee "alive"?
Where's his misinformation. That Krauthaumer didn't fit into his exiguous comments everything an Obama supporter deems noteworthy does not make it misinformation. He could've said much more about both Wright and Hagee, and their respective relationships with the candidates. His point was, the issue is a wash, as it should be.
"The obvious counterargument, which the Democrats refuse to accept, is that presidential candidates are endorsed by hundreds of people, half of whom they don't know, some of whom are scoundrels and rogues whom they then dissociate themselves from."
To mean, it's right here. McCain sought Hagee's endorsement long and hard and held on to it long and hard (until Hitler walked on water and the ripple effect got McCain too wet), so The obvious counterargument is bunk.
Good point. The light on Hagee is brand new, never before have we seen that much direct light on any of these rightwing nutty preachers, this is startling indeed.
Considering your wish, what will you be wearing to President McCain's inauguration next January, remember, it's cold in DC.
"Wright (a vetaran) built his congregation from the ground up"
Hmmm, describing Wright as a veteran. Why would being a veteran make being a racist any better? I'm sure there are a lot of kkk members who are veterans.
And, of course he had to build it from the ground up, since nobody else was teaching the racism he taught, he couldn't have started where someone else left off.
What I don't understand is why so many members of mmfa continue to defend Wright (racist/hater) while at the same time decrying Hagee (hater) as the ultimate evil. Actually, I do understand, I just get tired of pointing out the liberal hypocrisy that seems to be continually present in their hatred of anything/everything not agreeing with the liberal idea of the American future.
Yeah, I guess blaming white america for creating AIDS in order to have a genocide against the black population isn't racist. Yeah, I guess blaming white america for instituting the 3-strikes law to put more blacks in jail isn't racist. Yeah, I guess claiming white america is feeding the inner city blacks with drugs isn't racist.
I guess you're right, he isn't racist. That's just his way of life. I wonder how much of this "way of life" Obama learned and clings to? Oh, wait, Obama completely disowns and disassociates himself with Wright. Why is that? Hmmm, could be for the reason I mentioned. You got another reason why he is disowning his friend and preacher of 25 years?
"Yeah, I guess blaming white america for creating AIDS in order to have a genocide against the black population isn't racist."--philib
Wright blamed a racist government. We can absolutely prove that government was racist (e.g. the Tuskeegee Experiment). Unless you are a racist, you should not feel any offense.
As for the rest of your diatribe, I will not consider any of it without some sort of quotation or citation. It looks like you are doing the typical misrepresentation through wingnut paraphrase scam.
"Wright blamed a racist government. We can absolutely prove that government was racist "
You use the same excuse all liberals use. What "government" do you think he was talking about?!? Was it the black government? Red government? Yellow government? Brown government? The black panther organization blames the "government" for causing blacks great harm, also. What "government" do you think THEY are talking about?
You won't address a statement where I ask for reasons why Obama disowned Wright? I fully understand why you wouldn't want to respond to that line of questioning. I fully understand that the answer may end up showing I am correct and you are incorrect about Wright's racism.
Yep Phil you are the proud posessor of an opinion. One your can't do anything with but declare that you have it. Yup can't argue with that.
You've had all weekend to move beyond an opinion, to support it, to make a case for it. you have failed to do so.
Jeter,
If Hillary doesn't wrestle away the nomination, this will again become fodder for the Republicans this campaign season.
Democrats will try to make a case for equivalence with McCain and Hagee but the difference between Wright/Obama and Hagee/McCain is so great that it won't stick to McCain. Add to it the terrorist Ayers, now the priest Pfleger, plus McCain's own gaffes and it will be devastating.
The Dems and progs are trying to pre-empt this by saying the story is old news. I doubt it will work.
Obama doesn't have much of a record to run on, and what he does have is very liberal, so it will be his associations that Republicans will use to help shape opinion about Obama as a President.
Liberal Dems will vote for Obama and GOPpers will vote McCain. I think the Independents and Reagan Dems will be off put enough to hand McCain the nomination.
That is if Hillary doesn't sneak in... :-)
speaking of gaffes... where I said "McCain's own gaffes" I meant "Obama's own gaffes".
I have no doubt the Dems will try to use McCain's age and his gaffes against him no matter who the Dems nominate.
Democrats will try to make a case for equivalence with McCain and Hagee but the difference between Wright/Obama and Hagee/McCain is so great that it won't stick to McCain. Add to it the terrorist Ayers, now the priest Pfleger, plus [Obama's] own gaffes and it will be devastating.
Obama doesn't have much of a record to run on, and what he does have is very liberal, so it will be his associations that Republicans will use to help shape opinion about Obama as a President.
AA,
I don't feel like I know enough about Obama to realistically support him. Yeah, I can read about his views on the issues, but I'm talking more about his character.
One is often judged by the company they keep.
Character doesn't matter in a president, only job performance. Compare Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
Seek your moral leaders elsewhere.
"One is often judged by the company they keep."--jeter
If that is true, McCain is in for it:
http://nebent.com/pete/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bush-mccain.jpg
Open_Mind,
I agree with you about McCain [Ha! That photo says it all-thanks for the reminder]. I've no plans on casting my vote for the guy.
Hillary's character could certainly be called into question as well...for other reasons.
I'd simply like to know more about Obama. Thus far he's still little more than a virtually unproven leader with a charismatic personality & an eloquent speaking style. With very little history on which to assess this candidate as a potential President, I would at least like to know more about his character.
Unfortunately we often do end up judging folks by the company they keep, especially if we have little else to go on.
Honestly, I find McCain to be pretty liberal for a Republican and I like him quite a bit despite his pandering to some really scary folks. I also like Obama, because he is a brilliant and dynamic speaker. I don't really care too much who wins between the two. It is pretty much win-win the way I see it.
Personally, I believe Obama will win - he has the advantage in almost every conventional way the presidency has been won in the last 50 years or so.
Democrats will try to make a case for equivalence with McCain and Hagee but the difference between Wright/Obama and Hagee/McCain is so great that it won't stick to McCain. Add to it the terrorist Ayers, now the priest Pfleger, plus McCain's own gaffes and it will be devastating.
AA, the person who makes the statement is accountable PERIOD!!! What someone else says CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be attributed to anyone but the person who makes the statement or comment.
Guilt by association is going to come back to bite YOU in the butt.
"the person who makes the statement is accountable PERIOD!!! "
I agree. However, when a teacher is hired by a school to teach and the teacher is in front of the students teaching the values of that school, who is accountable for what is being taught? The school or the teacher?
the teacher is in front of the students teaching the values of that school,
You have no point Philb.
A teacher is required to teach facts NOT values. The schools is there to teach History, English, Science and Math, not emotions.
Rev. Wright spoke those words NOT Obama and trying to paint Obama with that same brush is sad, pathetic excuse for not voting for him. You don't like his views on something, fine, but stop using Rev. Wright as your excuse.
"A teacher is required to teach facts NOT values. The schools is there to teach History, English, Science and Math, not emotions."
You really believe that? Why do they teach 'how to put a condom on' in school? Is that a fact, a value or an emotion being taught at that moment?
"Rev. Wright spoke those words NOT Obama and trying to paint Obama with that same brush is sad, pathetic excuse for not voting for him. You don't like his views on something, fine, but stop using Rev. Wright as your excuse."
If you pay attention you'll notice we are talking about Pfleger, not Wright (at least not directly). I think some understood my analogy, but I'll explain it for you, since you don't understand it. The "teacher" (Pfleger) is hired by the "school" (Trinity United Church of Christ) and teaches the message that the school wants to have taught, (you can figure out the rest, right?).
Interesting that this "school" seems to have a lot of "teachers" who have the same problem with whites. Another interesting point, Obama is friends with this guy too. Has been for many years. Just what ARE they teaching at that "school"?
Even in that, you fall short, because you'd like to think that you can reduce these pastors to caricatures. All the people that they have helped through the years would beg to differ.
"Especially the part about "guilt by association." "
Mary, I'm not talking about what happened to Obama or his beliefs. I am referring to my continued belief that particular church is teaching racism to it's followers. They hire a 'guest' pastor and he teaches the same thing. The had a pastor who taught racism for a looong time. Guilt by association has nothing to do with my blaming that church for hiring pastors who teach what that church wants to be taught. I am in NO way blaming the students for being taught racism, I hope they can find their way out of that, I am blaming the church for hiring then allowing the teaching of racism.
"only dumped wright when it became politically necessary."
And why did it become necessary? Because Wright wouldn't shut up.
"And why did it become necessary? "
Beause, while America is ready for a black president, America is NOT ready for a president who has been taught/inspired/advised by a racist. While being in that position helped him climb the ladder of success in Chicago and Illinois, it is apparent that there is a different voter base nationwide than just locally. While being taught by a racist and befriending racists works in Chicago, it doesn't when running for president.
"He has been asked repeatedly to backup his assertions and been destroyed every time. He simply has too much invested in this myth to let go."
And, I've repeatedly pointed out racist statements and racist values that Wright espouses. I think it's your 'open mind' that seems to ignore all possibilities except ones that only agree with your position. That isn't being very "openminded" is it? I guess I'm not the only one with too much invested in "myths".
"You've called some statements racist. You haven't done anything but that."
Go back to my post that you called "sarcasm". Do you think any of his statements, that I pointed out, are racist? It IS my opinion that they are racist. It IS my opinion that the kkk is racist. There are no lynchings going on now, does that mean they changed? No, they still hold racist beliefs, but that is only my opinion. I have no proof other than racist statements they have made. Similar to Wright.
Expressing outrage is not equal to racism.
- eweston8542983 / Friday May 30, 2008 5:52:42 PM EDT
"Being a keyboarding pundit like Phib isn't quite the same as reacting to racism directed at a person over a lifetime. his perspective might be somewhat different if he was born in a darker skin color."
How Christian of you. You want ME to forgive Byrd for deeds done in the past, yet you don't forgive others for deeds done to you in the past. Isn't that a form of hypocrisy?
Byrd doesn't need your forgivness, don't strain yourself over it. You stop pushing that your target of wrath is racist, and you could get forgiveness. I really don't think you want that forgiveness though.
With regard to the Wright/Obama thing. Can you even concieve of any action by the two solo or in concert that would reasure you as to their integrity?
Do you take a position and then find a way to support it. Or do your positions come from reflection of events and historical context.
Are you a partison of coersion or freedom for the individual?
Who do you prefer Prince Rupert, or Cromwell?
So, when I was a Catholic, years ago, I should have dissociated myself from the Church because the priests were molesting children?
Why didn't you other Catholics do the same?
/sarcasm
The argument that Obama must believe everything in his church because he was a member there for 20 years is just dishonest.
Even though Hannity isn't mentioned in this article, I would like to ask him: Why didn't you leave the Catholic Church when you found out that priests were molesting children?
Why would you expect Obama to leave his church because his pastor might have said a few things that the general population might not agree with? My former priest used to say things that I didn't agree with, but I didn't leave the church over it. There's a difference between your faith in your G-d and the pastor and the way he conveys a message.
KRAUTHAMMER: The Obama campaign and the Democrats will say that McCain has his Reverend Hagee, and Obama has his reverend, and they disavowed them, and they're sort of morally equivalent.
No, Charles, you delightfully deliberately-obtuse moron you, we're saying that since John McCain crawled on his belly to get John Hagee's endorsement even while his Hitler-was-an-agent-of-God garbage was floating out there for anyone with a TV set to see, that McCain is more linked with Hagee than Obama with Wright. McCain literally asked for it...
just guessing here.
Left,
Your condemnation of McCain is even more apt with regards to Obama.
How in the world did he not know Wright was such an anti-American? It is incredulous to believe that in 20 years Obama did not know.
McCain can be criticized for not doing his homework but Obama to claim ignorance over Wright does not pass the POTUS smell test.
Perhaps if he'd had the right-wing media edit down Rev. Wright's 20 years of sermons to 40 seconds of "anti-American" bombast for him, it would have been easier to see.
But he did. The GOP tried but it still didn't help.
Only when Wright bloviated at the National Press Club did Obama finally become indignant.
Yes, and did Mr. Obama even thank the GOP for all of their help? What an ungrateful politician. Fox News clearly showed that Rev. Wright hates America and whites and Jews and Republicans and babies and bunny rabbits, all in like 40 seconds. Obama is too dense to see that, if you can produce a 40-second YouTube clip of somebody saying crazy things, then they must be, in fact, crazy and anti-American. (see also, Robertson, Pat; Falwell, Jerry)
On the other hand, a crazy pastor? Now I've seen it all...
</sarcasm>
Kyle,
All sarcasm aside, has Wright ever disavowed or apologized for his 40 seconds of fame statements? If not, one must conclude that they do in fact accurately represent his attitude toward the U.S.
You may now go back to splitting hares. :-)
Perhaps he feels as if he has nothing to apologize for or disavow, and that anyone who believes that 40 seconds of edited statements "accurately represent his attitude toward the U.S." are so lacking in critical faculties that no amount of explanation would make a difference to them.
So Wright's accusation that the U.S. Government created AIDS to perform genocide on blacks needs further embellishment? Oh ok.
The only thing that takes longer than the 40 seconds is Obama defenders trying to defend such outlandish statements.
The pastor reportedly said in a sermon just after 9/11, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."
Okay. That is the first I have seen that quote. A little research shows that Wright did backpedal later when asked about that quote - saying it was "possible", but it does seem paranoid in its original version. Paranoid, but not at all racist as many conservatives have claimed.
I think that is a problem you get to in religion. It is hard for me to come down too hard on Wright considering that most preachers believe as a foundation of the religion that a virgin gave birth to a child - which isn't rational on its face.
The only thing that takes longer than the 40 seconds is Obama defenders trying to defend such outlandish statements.
- ANOTHERAMERICAN / Friday May 30, 2008 5:15:48 PM"
Yeah, because the US government would never do something that outlandish...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
I think Wright is wrong about AIDS, but non-consensual medical experimentation by the government on its citizens is well documented.
Fair enough. I know he apologized (sort of) to Catholics, but did Hagee ever apologize for his comments about Jews?
Also - the America that Rev. Wright grew up in didn't like blacks very much, either. Now that we have civil rights for African-Americans, is he obligated to forget ALL injustices of the past? Are you absolutely certain that no injustice exists in this country? Because I'm fairly certain that it does. If that makes me anti-American... well, actually, no it doesn't!
I don't feel as though Wright should have to apologize for anything. The opinions he shared are just that - opinions. He's allowed to have them, you know.
Obama never sought Wright's endorsement. That is a fact. Obama never needed Wright (as McCain needed Hagee - gotta court those fake Christians, you know).
Wright made some remarks that were, well, disturbing. However, if you look at the context in which he made the remarks, you can see the point he was trying to make.
Don't you find it sad, AA, that the only example of 20 years worth of hatred for Jews, Whites, Republicans can be found on ONE 40-second clip? Please.
Your rats on the right will stoop to any level to trash someone for your own political gain. It's sick.
So, I ask all of you right-wingers out there, why haven't you dissociated yourself from your party based on the hatred of America and it's core values? It's just a question...
So, I ask all of you right-wingers out there, why haven't you dissociated yourself from your party based on the hatred of America and it's core values? It's just a question...
Pat Buchanan (speaking of modern conservatism), paraphrasing the social critic Eric Hoffer: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."
http://www.truthout.org/article/the-fall-conservatism Great article on the fall of conservatism by George Packer
Left,
Your condemnation of McCain is even more apt with regards to Obama.
How in the world did he not know Wright was such an anti-American? It is incredulous to believe that in 20 years Obama did not know. -anotheramerican / Friday May 30, 2008 4:26:30 PM EDT
Except the GOP has been involved with the Religious Right -- where comments like Hagee's are common currency -- for a lot longer than 20 years. McCain, in saner days, called them "agents of intolerance" so he knows what they are about. He disparagingly called Bush a "Pat Robertson Republican" back in 2000, but now he's become what he reviled. I'll be happy to talk about Wright, as long as Hagee, Parsely, Robertson and all the other religious nuts who have been propping up the Republicans for the past 30 or so years are part of the discussion.
How in the world did he not know Wright was such an anti-American? It is incredulous to believe that in 20 years Obama did not know.
Perhaps Wright's years in the Marines defending the country overshadowed the seconds of out-of-context crap the media ballooned up for all to see.
And, criticizing America is not the same as being anti-American. Only the GOP believes that.
Every parent who corrects their child isn't anti-Children.
I thought the comedy was over on the Glen Beck thread!
Do you forget that Wright accuses the government of creating AIDs in order to practice genocide against blacks? Tell me again how is that like correcting your child?
So - do you believe that the Tuskegee clinical studies, that lasted until 1972, were a hoax as well?
I'm not saying that Rev. Wright's claims are true, but there is precedent and reasoning behind what he believes, as misguided as that may be. He's not just saying that because he 'hates America'. He was a friggin Marine for chrissakes!
Of course, America is a country that was anti-black for nearly 200 years. Maybe you overlooked that fact.
Kyle,
No, I do not believe the Tuskagee study was a hoax. Why would you say that?
Are you familiar with the study? It started in 1932, well before there was cure. It involved 300 poor black men in either Alabama or Mississippi who had already contracted syphillis which was affecting blacks at a higher rate in the rural South. The goal was to find out the effects of syphillis over time. At the time it was approved by the medical establishment, both black and white. When penicillin was discovered these men were not told of a potential cure or given it. That is disgraceful, a tragedy, and an injustice. It is a sad chapter in medical research.
However unethical this study was, there was no no "government" attempt at genocide to people of color. There was no wide spread collusion to kill off blacks. The test subjects were thought to be non-contagious when the study started.
To infer that the government has had it in for blacks because of this one, very limited study, is ludicrious but is lapped up like kool-aid by the liberal left here and by race baiters like Wright.
To infer that the government has had it in for blacks because of this one, very limited study, is ludicrious but is lapped up like kool-aid by the liberal left here and by race baiters like Wright.
- ANOTHERAMERICAN / Saturday May 31, 2008 12:36:03 PM EDT"
To believe that the US government -- federal, state and local -- hasn't, throughout much of this nation's history, systematically enslaved, brutalized or oppressed people of color takes a very special ignorance of history. And while there is no credible support to show widespread collusion to "kill off blacks," you might want to ask Native Americans about the US government's genocidal role in decimating their population.
How in the world did he not know Wright was such an anti-American? It is incredulous to believe that in 20 years Obama did not know.
Probably the same way McCain, who spent a year kissing Hagee's a**, didn't know that Hagee believes that God sent Hitler to get the Jews to move to Israel.
Obama sure disowned Wright quickly, didn't he? 25 years of friendship completely broken off after Wright spews his hatred in public. McCain disowns Hagee after one year of a$$ kissing when his statements become public. Of course, McCain never attended Hagee's church and was never exposed to his teachings other than what was printed in the news. Obama had direct contact and knowledge and acceptance of Wright's positions. Well, until they become public...then Obama couldn't get rid of Wright fast enough! What has been Obama's excuse for flinging Wright out the door? Something like; 'I didn't know he was that way'? Exactly what 'way' is Wright that Obama has to totally disassociate himself from his friend/mentor/spiritual advisor of 25 years? Could it be racism? Or is Wright simply another 'hater'? Seems like a harsh punishment if Wright is simply another 'hater'. But, if that's the reason YOU want to believe....
Time for a cold shower Phil. Think of other reasons. There are lots beyond the two you are fixiated on. Some chock full of humanity. You want a hateful cancerous relationship from the Obama/Wright relationship. Any other explanation does not fit your desires and is appartnetly rejected out of hand because it does not fullfill your needs for this relationship.
"There are lots beyond the two you are fixiated on. Some chock full of humanity."
Oh? Give me an example. Give a couple, since you claim more than one other possibility. What other excuse has Obama given?
He's given excuses?? Would you care to reproduce one of those excuses. Then tell why it should be defined as an excuse,
Still waiting for your no doubt comprehensive definition of a racist.
I don't believe Rev. Wright is any more anti-American than you are, AA.
He spends lots of time in synagogue, whipping up Hanukah jokes and chuckling about the war on Christmas.
McCain can be criticized for not doing his homework but Obama to claim ignorance over Wright doqes not pass the POTUS smell test.
Someone's worthiness of being the POTUS should be judged on things like the war and the economy. In that regard, McCain smells stank.
...and McCain has the loyal Bushie numbskull endorsement all locked up for himself! Good to know that the war and the economy will be in the same safe hands they've been in for the past 8 years.
Dishonest right-wing propaganda. And you fell for it again.
Tell me, AA, do you like being duped by your own political party? Do you enjoy being lied to? Do you enjoy misrepresentations and half-truths being disseminated as truth?
Not to fear, Obama has the Iran and Hamas endorsement all locked up.- anotheramerican
It's not pretty when you go from amusing dittoclown to desperate troll, AA. Take a little break.
Not to fear, Obama has the Iran and Hamas endorsement all locked up
AA, PUT DOWN THE KOOL-AID!
Pearlene and friends,
Read it and then have your people call my people.
On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change."
At a Tehran press conference on March 10, 2008, an Iranian reporter asked Mohammad Ali Hosseini, vice minister of foreign affairs of Iran and spokesman of Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which U.S. presidential candidate Iran will support.
Hosseini replied, "Both the American people and world nations have become tired of the war-mongering policies of the present U.S. administration."
Hosseini continued, "Change is definitely needed by the American public and other nations. Iran hopes the American presidential election will bring about change."
A report on the press conference, headlined "Iran not to support any U.S. presidential candidate: Hosseini," was issued by the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). IRNA is a division of Iran's Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.
Hosseini's references to "change" at the press conference have been widely interpreted in Iran and the Persian Gulf region as a clear indication that the Tehran regime favors the nomination and election of Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama. Obama has called for U.S. talks with Iran aimed at stabilizing Iraq, and has stated his willingness to meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php
The central theme of the Obama campaign has been "change." The campaign's slogan is "Change We Can Believe In."
Observers in Tehran note that Hosseini has a reputation for choosing his words carefully. An Iranian analyst said, "Hosseini is considered an expert on American affairs. He would not have used the word 'change' unless it was his intention to signal that the Iranian regime prefers that the next U.S. president be Mr. Obama."
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/04/iranian-regime.html
AA, as usual, you're about 3 steps behind the rest of the class.
I'm sure you thought that time you wasted Googling, copying and pasting towards something you thought was relevant was a good investment.Sorry, everybody here is way ahead of that BS.the point was not that most people hadn't heard the silly "endorsements", it was that most thinking adults saw through them.
You've got to start doing some critical thinking. Leaders of extremist groups have ulterior motives when making their calculated statements. Beyond that, the "endorsement" of a foreign leader is completely meaningless, even if sincere, in the context of a U.S. election.
That was my people giving your people a helpful kick in the ass.
Pearlene and friends,
Read it and then have your people call my people.
On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change."
At a Tehran press conference on March 10, 2008, an Iranian reporter asked Mohammad Ali Hosseini, vice minister of foreign affairs of Iran and spokesman of Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which U.S. presidential candidate Iran will support.
Hosseini replied, "Both the American people and world nations have become tired of the war-mongering policies of the present U.S. administration."
Hosseini continued, "Change is definitely needed by the American public and other nations. Iran hopes the American presidential election will bring about change."
A report on the press conference, headlined "Iran not to support any U.S. presidential candidate: Hosseini," was issued by the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). IRNA is a division of Iran's Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance.
Hosseini's references to "change" at the press conference have been widely interpreted in Iran and the Persian Gulf region as a clear indication that the Tehran regime favors the nomination and election of Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama. Obama has called for U.S. talks with Iran aimed at stabilizing Iraq, and has stated his willingness to meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/04/020315.php
The central theme of the Obama campaign has been "change." The campaign's slogan is "Change We Can Believe In."
Observers in Tehran note that Hosseini has a reputation for choosing his words carefully. An Iranian analyst said, "Hosseini is considered an expert on American affairs. He would not have used the word 'change' unless it was his intention to signal that the Iranian regime prefers that the next U.S. president be Mr. Obama."
http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2008/04/iranian-regime.html
sorry for the duplicate post.
AA, stop the childish, petty fear mongering. No sane person is buying that crap anymore. Your days of trying to use fear to control is old, 4,100 American lives old.
If the person cannot vote then who they choose to support means NOTHING and YOU damn well know that!
Jim Baker say it best:
"You don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well," an animated Baker said. "Diplomacy involves talking to your enemies. You don't reward your enemies necessarily by talking to them if you are tough and you know what you are doing. You don't appease them. Talking to an enemy is not in my view appeasement."
Baker noted that when he was secretary of state for President Bush's father, he made 15 trips to Syria in 1990 and 1991, "at the time when Syria was on the list of countries who were state sponsors of terrorism. On the 16th trip, guess what, lo and behold, Syria changed 25 years of policy and agreed for the first time in the history to sit at the table with Israel, which is what Israel wanted at the time."
Baker concluded: "All I am saying, that would never happened if I, if we, hadn't been sufficiently dedicated that we were going to keep at it."
I can understand not holding Obama entirely responsible for his pastor's comments, but can we please stop apologising for Wright? This "out of context" nonsense is getting old. Reading his sermons in context if anything makes him look more foolish!
Look, I go to a black church every Sunday, and my dad is the rector (we're both white). NEVER has he delivered a sermon with the level of hate, vulgarity or general classlessness of Wright, and the congregation loves him. In fact, one of my dad's first goals when he became rector was stopping the racist attitudes of many of the black parishioners (and note that at the time the parish was 50-50 black/white), and he has succeeded.
So when I see Wright defended as some sort of victim who has been misrepresented by the eeeeevil media, excuse me for being incredulous, not just because my better judgement is offended, but from a personal position as well.
Reading his sermons in context if anything makes him look more foolish!
Actually, those comments are making you look more foolish. Perhaps next time you can try reading for comprehension rather than blind reaction.
Wright's main problem is that he has a distorted view of racism in America TODAY. His rhetoric makes it seem as though no progress has been made at all. People like him make it difficult for a black person to talk intelligently about racism without eliciting eye rolls from people who think they're exaggerating or playing the victim card. In some people's minds, he demonstrate that minorities can't talk about racism\discrimination in an objective manner.
Now I honestly don't believe he is a hateful person who despises whites and America. The man just probably hasn't dealt with his own personal experiences with past racism.
And I'll ask you the same question I've asked before: why should Wright have to "defend" anything? (1) he's not running for POTUS; and (2) he's entitled to his opinions - just as you're entitled to yours.
I'm not here to apologize for Wright, or to support any of his views. But I will stand on the street corner and scream to the top of my lungs that Wright has the right to share his opinions -just as you have a right to share yours. It's called freedom of speech.
And I never said he had no right to say what he said. I was just saying that those who are apologists are foolish to say that somehow Wright's comments weren't as bad as they seemed on a basic moral level.
Although considering the blatantly political nature of Wright's comments, I would say that he and all clergy - Left and Right - who engage in that sort of talk ought to lose their tax-exempt status.
But that does not explain his conspiracy theories and his hypocrisy in attacking "middle-classness" whilst living in a mansion in a white, gated community paid for by the church.
The conspiracy theory thing is probably rooted in paranoia arising from the Tuskegge experiments. I never heard of him attacking "middle-classness, but if that's true, it still doesn't refute what I said. My point is that I don't believe he hates white people as much as he has this built-up grudge with white racism that he hasn't let go.
I don't believe he is hateful either. I do believe that he has felt the pain of racism. Wright served his country honorably as a Marine. Wright served his community as a minister in a church.
I suspect that the MSM and the right-wing have made too much out of Wright. They are the ones who have created the hatred out of almost nothing.
I'm going to have to agree with EasytoRefuteWingnuts: Voicing your discontent with America is not anti-American...the ability to voice your discontent is what makes this country great - not walking in lock-step with whatever you're told to believe.
Man, I cannot wait to get my hands on a copy of Scott McClellan's book. I'm waiting to see just how complicit the MSM was in the dishonesty that came from this disgraceful administration.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/rev-wright-deli.html
There is a video link, too.
Okay. Thanks.
Here are the relevant passages and my comments:
"Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality," he said. Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five."--Rev Wright
He is talking about music. European music is written in scales that consist of 7 notes (it is called an octave - seven notes with the top and bottom notes the same tone). Africa has a different set of tones from what I understand (and so does asian music). African music isn't based on the European octave because they do not have the same origin. It doesn't have anything to do with how people hear. Wright is merely describing a cultural difference in the music.
"White people clap differently than black people."--Rev. Wright
Of course, this is a generality and can be criticized if not just for that, but I have noticed myself that in general people in white churches usually clap on the downbeats (1&3) while in black churches people usually clap on the backbeats (2&4). Again, this is largely a generalization, but I have noticed it and commented on it myself. Anyone with a basic understanding of music could observe this.
"Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style," he said. "They have a different way of learning."--Rev. Wright
I have no real idea what Rev. Wright is getting at here. It seems he is alluding to a previous sermon/speech. It is easy to get into trouble with these kinds of vague generalizations. I suppose he deserves the benefit of the doubt. I don't see anything particularly racist in pointing out that different cultures may learn in a different way. Anthropologists and sociologists have often discussed this in terms more of culture than race and it looks to me that is the context of Wright's discussion here as well. Wright makes it clear he is not calling one culture deficient by pointing out a difference.
I have to say, I don't find any of that racist or even offensive taken in context.
I did a little research. Here is some more info from wikipedia:
A pentatonic scale is a musical scale with five pitches per octave in contrast to an heptatonic (seven note) scale such as the major scale. Pentatonic scales are very common and are found all over the world, including but not limited to Celtic folk music, Hungarian folk music, West African music, African-American spirituals, American blues music and rock music, Sami joik singing, children's songs, the clarinet music of Epirus in northwest Greece and Southern Albania, the tuning of the Ethiopian krar and the Indonesian gamelan, melodies of Japan and China (including the folk music of these countries), the Afro-Caribbean tradition, Polish highlanders from the Tatra Mountains, and Western Classical composers such as French composer Claude Debussy.
Although the pentatonic scale is obviously not exclusive to Africa, it is very common in the AA community. In European culture, the heptatonic scale is more prevalent.
I think the Rev. would be wise to avoid generalizations (look at me, I am using them, too), but I can see what he is getting at here and it obviously isn't racist or all that bizarre either.
Further reading at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentatonic
No other reason will work for you huh Damian. Why does Wright as rascist work so well for you? Who has he disenfanchized, who did he send to the back of a bus, some other drinking fountain. Who has he lynched, taken a baseball bat to, declared subhuman?
Expressing outrage is not equal to racism.
I agree. The right-wing just apparently has too much invested in their bs against Rev. Wright to even discuss this rationally. It's like their own version of political correctness to hate him.
Hamas is an evil terrorist organization.
Hamas supports Barack Obama for President.
Therefore, Obama would make a bad President.
This is bad logic because the evidence provided insufficiently supports the conclusion. All it does is appeal to emotion and people's knee-jerk reaction regarding terrorism. The train of thought is that whoever Hamas supports for President MUST be bad, because EVERYTHING we do must be the EXACT opposite of them; nothing matters except that we get someone that Hamas would not want. For example:
Hamas is an evil terrorist organization.
Hamas does not want John McCain as President.
Therefore, McCain would make a good President.
Never mind that no one has examined either candidates foreign policy initiatives or tried to understand the specific reason Hamas supports one and rejects the other.
Please learn logic, AA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association