Rev. Wright redux: Media use Jones controversy to revive Wright smear
Conservative media figures have used the controversy over former White House adviser Van Jones' past statements as an excuse to again link President Obama to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a favorite bogeyman of the conservative media during and after the 2008 presidential campaign. On Fox News, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Charles Krauthammer have all invoked Wright while discussing Jones in order to question Obama's associations, while on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh said, "Van Jones is Jeremiah Wright. ... Van Jones is Obama."
Conservative media use Jones controversy as an excuse to revive Wright smear
Rush Limbaugh: "Van Jones is Jeremiah Wright, is Bill Ayers. ... Van Jones is Obama." On his show, Limbaugh said: "Look it, folks. Van Jones is Jeremiah Wright, is Bill Ayers. It was not an accident that he's in the White House. Van Jones is Obama." He added: "Jeremiah Wright is Obama. There's no difference. The only difference is that some of them make reckless public statements. But in terms of what he believes, Obama's no different than Van Jones -- that's why he was in the White House in the first place as the green jobs czar, dealing with diversity and so forth. The guy hates Republicans, he's a Marxist, he's a communist. He's a 9-11 truther, he's a whacko, he's a nut. He's one of these far-left radicals, and Valerie Jarrett -- who is one of Obama's most trusted left-hand, right-hand people -- put him in there. The administration is full of people like this." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 9/8/09]
Beck: "Have we heard that before?" On his Fox News show, Beck aired video of Jones' comments, asked, "Does it sound familiar at all? Have we heard that before?" then aired video of Wright. [Glenn Beck, 9/1/09]
On a later show, Beck said: "How many mistakes with close personal friends -- how many mistakes and, 'Oh, I didn't know that about my adviser,' are you going to allow this president to make before you wake up and stand up? Where is Congress? In 20 years at Jeremiah Wright's church, Obama only ever heard the pastor talk about rain-colored, you know, rainbow-colored unicorns." [Glenn Beck, 9/3/09]
O'Reilly: Jones "reminds me of Reverend Wright. ... He's an anti-American guy, we think." While interviewing Beck, O'Reilly said on his Fox News show that Van Jones "reminds me of Reverend Wright," adding, "He's an anti-American guy, we think, and they don't -- the Obama administration doesn't seem to have a problem with that." Beck replied that "[t]his is -- this is a pattern. This isn't about Barack Obama. This isn't about me, certainly, and it's not really even about Van Jones. Van Jones is just one of the most glaring people." [The O'Reilly Factor, 8/26/09]
Krauthammer: Obama "had a history, before he became a candidate, of being around and friends with the likes of Jeremiah Wright." On Special Report, while discussing Jones, Krauthammer said: "What you also learn about the White House is when [adviser Valerie] Jarrett said, as we saw on tape, 'We've been watching him all these years.' Well, that means you have been watching him and you must know something about his history of quite radical politics and statements. And that apparently was undisturbing to Jarrett and to Obama people, and that tells you it's a reflection of the boss. The boss also had a history, before he became a candidate, of being around and friends with the likes of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers. Liberals scolded us last year -- how irrelevant all of that is, how it is a smear campaign against Obama. But if you live in that environment and you find nothing inherently wrong with that kind of radicalism, then a Van Jones will show up, you will watch him years and years, and you'll think this guy is perfectly mainstream." [Special Report, 9/7/09]
Ronald Kessler: Jones' statements "are rather tame compared with Reverend Jeremiah Wright's statements for 20 years while Barack Obama was in his pews." On Fox News' America's Newsroom, Newsmax chief Washington correspondent Ronald Kessler said: "Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's closest advisers, recommended this person. There is no way that that would happen unless she and others in the White House knew of his radical reputation. So I think they got exactly what they wanted, and in fact his statements are rather tame compared with Reverend Jeremiah Wright's statements for 20 years while Barack Obama was in his pews. America created the AIDS virus to kill off blacks, created prisons to suppress blacks, Israel's a terrorist state. So, it's not shocking that they would hire someone like this." Host Gregg Jarrett replied, "What are you saying here? What does this tell you about President Obama and the people that he surrounds himself with?" [America's Newsroom, 9/7/09]
Robert Pollock: "It's Reverend Wright all over again." On Fox News, Wall Street Journal editorial features editor Robert Pollock said, "Well, it's Reverend Wright all over again, except this time he's working in the White House." He added: "It makes you wonder when these people are going to stop popping up around Mr. Obama." [Journal Editorial Report, 9/5/09]
Conservative media routinely bring up Wright connection to smear Obama
Hannity can't "get over" his Rev. Wright obsession. Sean Hannity -- who claimed he "broke the story" about Wright during the 2008 campaign -- has mentioned Wright on at least 45 different episodes of his Fox News show since Obama's inauguration. Indeed, his repeated references to Wright -- most recently in discussions about Obama and race relations in America -- have prompted his own guests to comment, "You always want to bring up Reverend Wright," and "Sean, you need to get over it." Hannity has said Obama "is Reverend Wright" and that "he hid it well, but I think he's now implementing and proving me right."
Beck: Wright ties evidence of Obama's "deep-seated hatred for white people." On Fox News, Beck said of Obama: "This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy -- over and over and over again -- who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture -- I don't know what it is. But you can't sit in a pew with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and not hear some of that stuff and not have it wash over." [Fox & Friends, 7/28/09]
Limbaugh: Wright relationship an "indication of radicalism in Obama." In an interview on Hannity, Limbaugh said: "They wanted him elected because they wanted to reassert their power -- the media here -- in being able to sway public opinion to the result that they wanted. So it didn't -- they were going to cover up the Jeremiah Wright, all these things that give indication of radicalism in Obama -- cover that up, portray him as he wants to be portrayed, somebody who's not to be questioned, somebody who's not to be doubted, we're just supposed to accept and trust because most of these guys came alive and came of age in the civil rights battles of the '60s. It defines who they are." [Hannity, 1/21/09]
Dick Morris: Obama may be a "sleeper agent" channeling Wright's views. On NBC's Today, Fox News contributor Dick Morris asserted, "And the determinant in the election will be whether we believe that Barack Obama is what he appears to be, or is he somebody who's sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system and is more in line with Wright's views?" [Today, 6/24/08]
During campaign, McCain refused to use Obama/Wright attacks, New York Times condemned them as racist
McCain said Obama "does not share" Wright's views, reportedly would not "allow" such attacks. According to a Politico article, Sen. John McCain at one point during the 2008 presidential campaign refused to attack Obama for his relationship with Wright because he "fear[ed] a Wright attack would smack of desperation and racism." From the article:
John McCain is at odds with many of his top advisers over launching a renewed attack on Barack Obama's ties to his long-time pastor and mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, according to campaign sources.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and several top campaign officials see a sharp attack on Wright as the best -- and perhaps last -- chance to rattle Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill. ) and force voters to rethink their support of him. But McCain continues to overrule them, fearing a Wright attack would smack of desperation and racism, the officials said.
[...]
The aides argue that the 20 years that Obama spent in the fiery Wright's pastoral care -- and his later assertion that he knew nothing of his former minister's more extreme statements -- provide an opening to challenge Obama's judgment and honesty in a relevant and politically resonant way.
"He was a central figure in Obama's life, shaping Obama's thinking, and he made the extreme radical comments that are borderline anti-American," the campaign official said.
But McCain will not allow it, according to campaign sources.
"There's a slippery slope in politics on the racial divide, and Sen. McCain made it very clear early on that he did not want to get into that area," a top Republican official said. "I don't want to be known as a racist, and McCain doesn't want to be known as a racist candidate."
[...]
The McCain campaign's decision to cordon off the use of Wright from ads and debates has provoked simmering consternation among many leading Republicans and conservatives, who believe the pastor's fulminations might be the single most effective weapon McCain has left against Obama.
"McCain felt it would be sensed as racially insensitive," the official said. "But more important is that McCain thinks that the bringing of racial religious preaching in black churches into the campaign would potentially have grave consequences for civil society in the United States."
Asked about the issue during the firestorm over it last March, McCain told Sean Hannity on Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes": "I think that when people support you, it doesn't mean that you support everything you say. Obviously, those words and those statements are statements that none of us would associate ourselves with. And I don't believe that Sen. Obama would support any of those. ... I do know Sen. Obama. He does not share those views." [Politico, 10/15/08]
New York Times: Republican ad connecting Obama and Wright is "race-baiting." In an editorial, The New York Times wrote that a North Carolina GOP ad "attack[ing] Senator Barack Obama as 'too extreme' for the state" is "[m]anipulative," "[s]hameful," and "[r]ace-baiting." The Times wrote: "The ad is built around the well-known video clip of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. -- Mr. Obama's former pastor -- declaring 'God damn America.' We have said before that we find Rev. Wright's oratory racist. And we have criticized Senator Obama for waiting too long to denounce it. His relationship with the Rev. Wright is undeniably a liability for his campaign. But that's not what this ad is about. The assertion that Mr. Obama is 'just too extreme for North Carolina' is a clear bid to stir bigotry in a Southern state." [New York Times, 4/26/08]
Transcripts
From the September 1 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: But this goes further than whether Van Jones is a capitalist or a communist. I want you to see if you recognize any patterns here. Listen to what Van Jones has said at this same conference back in March.
JONES [video clip]: Native American sisters and brothers who were pushed and bullied and mistreated and shoved into all the land we didn't want, where it was all hot and windy. Well, guess what? Renewable energy. Guess what? Solar industry. Guess what? Wind industry. They now own and control 80 percent of the renewable energy resources.
No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth. Give them the wealth. Give them the dignity. Give them the respect that they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt.
BECK: Let me go back up here. Can you believe wealth should be taken from one group and given to another based on race? And should anyone that believes that work with the president of the United States? "Give them the wealth. Give them the wealth." Is that what you voted for? Does it sound familiar at all? Have we heard that before?
WRIGHT [video clip]: We believe God sanctioned the rape and robbery of an entire continent. We believe God ordained African slavery. We believe God makes Europeans superior to Africans and superior to everybody else, too.
BECK: I don't believe that.
From the September 3 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: See, this isn't about Van Jones, because now it's about Valerie Jarrett, too. She knows as well. Valerie, do you agree with these things? You have been following him.
How many mistakes with close personal friends -- how many mistakes and, "Oh, I didn't know that about my adviser," are you going to allow this president to make before you wake up and stand up? Where is Congress?
In 20 years at Jeremiah Wright's church, Obama only ever heard the pastor talk about rain-colored, you know, rainbow-colored unicorns.
From the September 5 edition of Fox News' Journal Editorial Report:
POLLOCK: Well, it's Reverend Wright all over again, except this time he's working in the White House. You remember all those green jobs President Obama talks about creating? Well, his green jobs czar is a guy called Van Jones; he's a radical leftist and race-baiter who has been caught on tape saying things like "white polluters steer poison into minority communities." He signed a petition calling on the New York state attorney general to investigate whether the Bush administration allowed 9-11 to happen as a pretext for war. It makes you wonder when these people are going to stop popping up around Mr. Obama.
From the September 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
KRAUTHAMMER: What you also learn about the White House is when Jarrett said, as we saw on tape, "We've been watching him all these years." Well, that means you have been watching him and you must know something about his history of quite radical politics and statements.
And that apparently was undisturbing to Jarrett and to Obama people, and that tells you it's a reflection of the boss. The boss also had a history, before he became a candidate, of being around and friends with the likes of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers.
Liberals scolded us last year -- how irrelevant all of that is, how it's a smear campaign against Obama. But if you live in that environment and you find nothing inherently wrong with that kind of radicalism, then a Van Jones will show up, you will watch him years and years, and you'll think this guy is perfectly mainstream.
From the September 7 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
KESSLER: On the vetting, the Secret Service checks people for criminal background, arrest warrants in order to get a White House pass. The FBI also checks to verify the person's background to see if he might have been, let's say, a member of a terrorist group. But none of these checks focuses on political statements such as these. Political statements are supposed to be vetted by the White House staff. And I'm sure they missed a few, but I would say that when you hire anybody from public life, you are aware of his general reputation, regardless of what kind of checks you do, what kind of vetting you do.
Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's closest advisers, recommended this person. There is no way that that would happen unless she and others in the White House knew of his radical reputation. So I think they got exactly what they wanted, and in fact his statements are rather tame compared with Reverend Jeremiah Wright's statements for 20 years while Barack Obama was in his pews. America created the AIDS virus to kill off blacks, created prisons to suppress blacks, Israel's a terrorist state. So, it's not shocking that they would hire someone like this.
JARRETT: What are you saying here? What does this tell you about President Obama and the people that he surrounds himself with?
Black or white, people who hate America, are racist, label themselves as communists, and claim that 911 was an inside job need to go. To claim this is racist is a charge only those on the loony left, and most MMFA readers could agree with.
He cut & ran for a day, ignoring several polite requests, finally settling on something like "No quote is needed, he signed a petition".
I guess on Planet Wingnut, supporting an investigation into whether something happened or not is the same thing as claiming that thing happened.
And a search warrant is the same as a conviction.
I really believe that when these guys hear Beck and Limbaugh, etc. make these wild accusations about the Obama administration that they assume they must have proof. It amazes me that they would not require any evidence to believe such wild claims about elected officals and the advisors they choose. I was adamantly against the election of G-Dub, but once he won I understood that he was going to govern using ideas I did not agree with. That's the cost of losing an election. They have consequences. Deal with it.
I did not agree with G-Dub (he is and was a pox upon the Republican party), however I would never assume that he had some nefarious plot to upend the republic and institue himself as some kind of fascist, socialist, tsarist dictator. It would be comical if it were not so sad. I could not stand the decisions that G-Dub made nor the decision makers (neo-cons) that he put in charge. But, I always knew the republic would survive and outlast him and he would cede control peaceably just as all other presidents have. Where this irrational fear of Obama comes only 7 MONTHS into his presidency is beyond all belief.
Nice post, and my thoughts on the matter are pretty close to yours regarding Bush. There was plenty of actual, non-fiction stuff to deal with regarding W, but I rarely used phrases like "A threat to us all !!! " or accused him of deliberately trying to destroy the country, even with regard to real issues like phony wars and fishy elections.
I also find it amazing that the wingnuts here accept so much innuendo as fact when it suits them, and expect those more skeptical than they are to accept this stuff as a starting point for a discussion.
And no matter how many times their sources fail them, no matter how many times they're left in the lurch by their trainers ( as you put it so nicely "Now do you see how they leave you hanging out on the creaky branch intellectually?") , they keep going back for more.
And they haul the stuff over here, expecting us to be as easily fooled as they are. That's what's really insulting.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/09/more-anti-american-radicalism-from-obamas-van-jones/
Also, the article itself seems to indicate that he cares a great deal about America. It quotes him wanting to fight for social justice within America. Why would he care about justice within America if he hated it?
And, you are always wanting explicit racism pointed out to you. Well how about in the beginning of your trusty "article" when they refer to Van Jones as "Obama’s black red green czar Van Jones". If there is no racial component to this argument why does this article continue to highlight the fact that he is black? What does that have to do with anything? Is that not explicit enough for you?
Also, RightOn, I tend to agree with you that not everyone who opposes Obama is racist. Most are just so partisan they don't care about anything except party. However, clearly some are racist. For proof, read the article that Stark has provided as evidence of his beliefs and ask yourself why the aricle feels the need to keep reminding us that Van Jones is black. What does his skin color have to do with anything if they are not racists? I fail to see the reasoning other than racism.
If you ask me to prove something I will be glad to do so. I am requesting the simplest of proof. You say it is in Van Jones's own statements. I just want to see these statements. Copy and paste. Very simple. I mean, otherwise, you would just be a partisan hack with no intention of contributing to thoughtful, adult, debate or discussion. You would be a waste of everyone's time. That's not you, is it? Are you no better than MarkB? Please prove me wrong.
"If you don't want to be called out on the carpet, don't say controversial things." - Stark (1 hour ago in this very thread)
And "why bother posting direct quotes?" Because you said that the evidence was included in your link. Show us where in that link the evidence is. Put up or shut up is the relevant phrase here.
The burden is on you to provide evidence of your claim. If you could do it, you would. You can't, so you blame us.
If I ever claim that some public figure said something, please don't feel impolite in asking me to provide the quote and a link.
If I link, without isolating the pertinent quote, to a page that has several other links on it, each of which has several links, and I claim that my evidence is somewhere in the exponentially growing branches of this tree of deceit, please, call me a troll and laugh at me.
Isn't this about the point where stark mentions his Master's Degree?
But, this is really simple, Stark.
"You're just going to interpret them how you want and claim that I'm just reading into them wrong." - Stark
What? What am I going to say you are reading into wrong? What quotes? We have seen none from you. You have nothing. You are wasting everyone's time with your nonsense. You fail to provide a shred of evidence to support even one of the 3 claims you made. You insisted they could be substantiated by his own statements. I just want to see these statements.
I had never heard any of your fearless leaders (Beck, Limbaugh) actually make the claim that they could provide proof for their conjecture. You stated there was proof. I just want to see it. Clearly, the reason Beck and Limbaugh do not suggest as much is because they are smarter than you and know there is no actual proof. They are just using fear and innuendo to stir up simple minds such as yours.
Now do you see how they leave you hanging out on the creaky branch intellectually? You regurgitate these statements assuming they would not say these things without some proof. Then you state them as fact and get called on it. But then when you actually try to find the proof, there is none. And you are left all alone with your ideology looking very silly.
I am sorry. I do have some sympathy for those who think they are believers in the American way, but get their beliefs spoonfed to them by entertainers. I only hope some of these dialogues can lead to you becoming more skeptical of the clearly partisan rhetoric you take as fact. These are entertainers after money. Not political thinkers after the common good. Beck and Limbaugh would be happy to see America suffer so long as their wallets get fatter.
Or at least it would on somebody bright enough to understand it. So there may be no harm done.
December 2, 2005: "You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never. They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them. Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school."
December 2, 2005: "You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never. They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them. Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school."
I actually think it WAS white kids who perpetrated Columbine. I am not exactly clear on what his point is without the context of the statement - it seems like an odd thing to say without some context. But, I am amazed even for you. You do not think there is anything racist implied in the links you supply when they continuously refer to Van Jones as "black red green czar". But you think it is racist when Van Jones says white kids perpetrated Columbine? I would love to hear you explain your pretzel logic here. Why does it matter if Van Jones is black? If it doesn't, then why mention his race? And, if that is not only OK but good enough for you to use it as your source for evidence, then why is Van Jones racist for saying the perpetrators of Columbine were white? Think it through and get back to me.
Also, still waiting for the statements that show he hates America and believes America was behind the 9/11 attacks. Another 24 hours perhaps? And waiting....
"So the fact that he said it isn't proof?"
And when you said:
"All three statements can be substantiated by his words."
Just tell us you were wrong. You were wrong to trust in the talking head entertainers that you believed were political leaders or statesmen. You were misled and spouted off something that you heard them say and you were wrong. Then maybe we can move onto something of substance.
You never even tried to provide proof for this statement. We will all assume this is your admission. We understand you were misled and did not come up with this craziness on your own. We only hope you are a little more skeptical of what the voices on your TV and radio tell you to believe from now on.
No. It's purely stupid. Van Jones renounced his communism and claimed he didn't know what he signed (which could very well be an excuse, I admit). He was not promoting his wacko theory and his views were not going to influence what kind of a job he did--as opposed to the neo-cons, who actively embraced and acted on a crazy theory.
Obama did not "surround" himself with Wright, by the way. I certainly don't know what you mean by calling anyone racist.
Why do nutjobs hate America so much to bring down a competent, willing public servant?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/rev-wright-blames-them-jews-for-keeping-president-from-talking-to-him.html
Oh, good grief! Yes, that's an awful example of racism. But you failed to quote the headline: "Rev. Wright Blames 'Them Jews' for Keeping President From Talking to Him." In other words, Obama had already denounced Wright and refused to speak to him. Yet, in your post, you said Obama is surrounding himself with radicals.
Fact is pointofview is like all the other neo-cons, etc. They are AFRAID, of change, of blacks, etc. All they want is for things to be like "the good old days", whenever the heck that was.
The fact that you can show them data that their way doesn't and hasn't worked means nothing to them.
Yes, if you look hard enough you could connect anyone with some part of their past they regret. The question here is how many radical, fringe, objectionable people to you have to associate yourself with before you start raising questions? If Obama doesn't fit that criteria, I don't know who does. I can show you plenty of less radical people, but I can't name anyone with such a questionable past as Obama. Can you? Can you answer why he would appoint someone suggesting he even knew about the quotes conveniently cited in the article? Why he would appoint someone who not but months earlier suggested we distribute money based on race? Someone who co-wrote a book on population controls, suggesting not just one but many methods of forced serialization as a legitimate, constitutional possibility? Would you not call that radical fringe?
Most everyone wants "change," yes, but most Americans weren't thinking another Bush: we wanted someone who would control spending, get us out of the war, protect civil liberties, stop cooperate welfare, but we haven't gotten any of these things. "Change" is a subjective term and so I would also suggest you define what it means when you use it as I did.
Its not that people who are objecting to this health care bill are afraid of change...let's make sensible changes...and it has nothing to do with race..."we" opposed Hillary care too!
Why retool the entire system for a small percentage of the population. Health care is not a right and this bill will make it a right and bankrupt the country.
How about tort reform as a first step...oh yea most of the politicians are lawyers and would not dare to broach that topic.
Your text to link here...
You're digusting. So only people who can afford health care should be able to get it? You're happy paying for the expensive emergency room visits vs. cheaper preventative care?
Tort reform is a drop in the bucket and a nutjob red herring.
What do the insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
You've earned your bumper sticker:
LET 'EM DIE
I'm not saying tort reform is the only item to tackle but it is one that can be addressed...i dont understand why we need to overhaul the entire system for 5% of the population that is uninsured.
The values that I hold are this: I want the government to have as little involvement and control in my life as possible. I believe that i can make choices for me better than the government can. I believe that we have the best health care system in the world because it is a free market system.
Do i want to help people in need...absolutely that's why im involved in programs like Big Brother, Habitat for Humanity, and others.
I don't believe that the government should take over the health care system and "guarantee" health care for everyone.
Lets make changes but lets not scrap the best health care system the world has ever seen!
Are we still going to provide medicine to these millions? If so, then let's find a way to cover them. We are socializing their costs now as we speak. We just pay more for their care to go to emergency rooms. Everyone is paying for the uninsured right NOW.
The only other option is to deny care to those who cannot afford it. You are welcome to take the position (also welcome to take the position that the goverment should not be giving out WIC or commodities or whatever your reference to food meant) but this is a very callous position to take. And certainly not a position most Americans would ever support.
Right, and you were wrong. The system has gotten substantially worse since the last time you told us the free market would drive prices down. It has not, your idea has been proven wrong, it is time to try something else.
"Why retool the entire system for a small percentage of the population. Health care is not a right and this bill will make it a right and bankrupt the country."
OK. Now, this is an important point. And, I appreciate the fact that you are honest enough to admit it - as sick and narcissistic as it may be. You do not believe that everyone should have a right to medical care. We socialize medical costs now for those who cannot afford it. The only way to avoid this is it to refuse medical care to those who cannot afford it. This is truly what many right-wingers think. They know if they say it out loud, they will cause an uproar of disgust among the American public. But, at least you have the balls to say it. You think we should turn away the poor from medical care they cannot afford when they are sick. I think that's digusting and immoral, but at least your are intellectually honest.
Also, tort reform is not a dead issue with me. I believe there are some sensible changes needed there. However, it has been done in some states and has done nothing to drive down costs. So, once again that idea has been tried and proven wrong. Got any ideas that have not been proven wrong in the last 15 years?
Let get one thing straight...if anyone walks into an ER they get taken care of no matter what!
What data do you have the point to a substantial worsening of our system...Leaders from all over the world come to the US for health care.
Your interpretation of my word "Right" is the key here..I believe that everyone had the Right to health care just like everyone had the Right to "bear arms"...I don't believe that the government should provide us guns and should not be in the business of providing us health care.
I don't want to deny poor people health care...i don't want to put a system in place that demotivates them from working. Many people have jobs because they need health care and I have a hard time finding a problem with that.
The more power we give the government the more beholden we will be on them...i don't trust them and dont want to give them that power.
I don't think I called you any names. If I did, I do apologize - I was actually trying to argue the merits of your beliefs. However, you still do not address the main point. If you do not want to turn people away who cannot afford healthcare, then who pays for them? Who do you think pays for them now?
If not, can I call BS ?
It was your comment that made no sense. Most of us laughed and moved on. The Col was nice enough to point it out to you. Of course, you ironically missed his point as well.
This was your statement Stark. It makes no sense. The Col was simply pointing that out to you. Seriously, read it again. It suggests that if you attend a church for 20 years you should claim your pastor is racist. It is nonsensical. As far as responding to your comments, I think we can all agree I did just that earlier in the post and continued to prove you wrong until you punched yourself out.
All people have some form of prejudice, even if it is only slight.
(it is pretty much ingrained in us)
I believe it is a sign of maturity of a society when people can work through their natural prejudice of things that are different.
The less of a role that prejudice plays in the decisions they make, the more mature they are.
Thus, we are not a very mature society.
I think right around the maturity level of a 4 year old.
(I may be a little generous with that estimate)
people who...claim that 911 was an inside job need to go.
I asked you three times on another thread to link to a quote of Jones claiming this. Do you have that yet ??
(I'm ignoring the silly "hate America" and "racist" things right now, as I know how confused you can get trying to defend even one of your dopey talking points at a time)
What is continually illustrated by the Obama administration - is an incredible degree of administrative incompetence.
What was the problem with Mr. Jones that brought on these attacks?
(hint - he's black)
In politics, there is never a clear 'evidence' or 'motivation' of anything.
Did we have go to war with Iraq? No.
Was it an unnecessary (and continuing) sacrifice of American lives? Yes.
Has there been clear evidence and motivation to prove that the previous administration knew war was necessary?
To work with your analogy, irrational criticism of Obama would be compared to the war itself. The war might be motivated by oil, hatred of Saddam, a penchant for nation-building political experimentation, or any combination of those and other possible motivations. The criticism could be driven by racism, partisanship, personal history, or any combination of those. What you can conclude about the unnecessary nature of the war is analogous to proving that some criticism against Obama is irrational. The motivation behind it is a completely different question.
But I do accept how some can see this as inconsistent, but it is the way I feel about each nonetheless.
You ought to be ashamed.
Congratulations.
This may not "all" be about race but; it does play a part.
Unlike the 50's or early 60's though, the neo-cons have learned that they must not overtly play the race card. Instead they either turn it around, (he's a racist not us) or make believe that someone with differing views must be communist/facist/etc.
All these spurious arguments we hear have nothing to do with solving problems, it is all about fear.
Fear of the black man.
Fear of change.
Fear of losing power.
No more, no less.
I'll answer that, Right ON. It's so they can mention it as proof that the comments about Wright or Van Jones have nothing to do with race. It fools a lot of people.
If some conservative adopted three black children, and then called Obama a socialist, we would simply have to conclude that he adopted those children as a convenient excuse for such expressions of explicit racism.
Maybe I'm not being clear on my position. I absolutely don't think that every criticism of Obama has to do with race.
He has a background that seems "exotic" to many conservative Americans, he's perceived as "very far left" by those who have been told that for a year and a half or so (despite the reality of his fairly moderate positions), at the very least, he's a Democrat, which would be enough to strike fear into the hearts of certain people.
These things are all elements that are being used to distract and excite those inclined to hate and distrust Obama. His race is being used too.
Not all of these elements are being used in every situation, but once they're all implanted in the brains of the base, the unmentioned factors don't magically disappear when one of the other factors is the focus.
I said the same thing for what felt like a hundred post the other day and I don't think it ever sunk in.
Your ideal outcome here would seem to be that I would agree that Beck is a racist. But pointing out his specific acts only supports my argument, since you're drawing a distinction between him and others whether you realize it or not. It simply does not dispel the notion that someone could bring up Wright because he's an embarrassment to Obama due to his controversial comments. That possibility remains, yet you seem completely unable to recognize it. It must be racist, because some people are racist. If you could show some sign of comprehension of the alternate possibility, I wouldn't have asked you that question.Because Beck is not the beginning and end of this conversation. Your argument is that the criticism is inherently racist, which means anyone who makes it is engaging in racism.
Also, I really don't want to hear anything about "ignorant" coming from the same person who suggested I was setting a ridiculously high standard for determining racism because I used an example of explicit racism. As if I might be a racist apologist after five years of attacking racists in no uncertain terms. But if I want to be fair to people who might not actually be racists, well, we can't have that, can we?
As for Krauthammer, just as with Beck, context is important. He knows what he's doing when plays the guilt-by-association game with Wright. He has a history of invoking Rev. Wright as a racist bogeyman. The context is always the same. Wright is a "racist" and a "race-baiter" and he had Obama's ear for 20 years. What do you think is the implication there? In what way is that not a race-based attack?
Like before, the terms begin to shift. "Racist" can be determined by any suggestion of "other", even though "other" is a contrast to Christianity and capitalism as well as race. Now it's "race-based". Under what circumstances would a criticism of a black man for making racial commentary not be "race-based", in your mind?
Obama:"Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it's important to judge me on what I've said in the past and what I believe."
Even Obama isn't denying that Wright has said controversial things. So why is bringing that up racist? Why would the same thing not happen for Clinton if he had a pastor who made highly questionable comments? If that person said that the USA created AIDS and put the word "state" in "state of Israel" in quotes, you don't think anyone on the right would criticize him for it and bring it up at every possible opportunity?
Why would that be, exactly? Please, clear the hurdle by explaining why this same situation wouldn't be exploited for a white person.
Again, that's not what I did at all. I keep going back to Beck, but as a separate point, I noted that the Wright, Jones, Obama conflation was inherently racist. I don't know why that needs to be repeated so many times, let alone explained to you.
Are you being serious? If I didn't see your name there, I'd swear I was arguing with Tommy. For the umpteenth time, this is how it works: Wright makes racially inflammatory statements, wingnuts repeat those statements over and over again and say, "This is Obama." Pointing to Wright's statements isn't racist, but applying them to Obama is.
And I'm not going to parse every word in this thread with you, because you're just wasting my time now. My opinion on this is simple: Wright and Jones are being demonized in order to demonize Obama by association. Angry scary black men = Obama.
"This is all about demonizing black men. The more black bogeymen they can put on the screen, the more hatred they engender toward Obama."
Yep, you've certainly shifted away from your original post on this thread. First it was just putting black men on the TV screen that was racist, now it's applying their words to Obama that is racist.
Which is it? Race baiters always trip themselves up because their rules and goalposts always move as the argument suits them. Unfortunately for you, your words don't disappear - only your credibility does.
I was making a general statement, about the race factor being used by the GOP and the media over the past year and a half. If you haven't seen this, we're just seeing different things.
I don't believe I've ever said any criticism is "all about race". Clams said it about this particular,recent excuse to revive Wright because of Jones. Somebody else brought up Ayers.
I don't think all Republicans are racist, no more than I think all criticism of Obama has anything to do with race.
It's obvious, and well documented, that race is, and has been, an influence on many Americans, especially on the right, in regards to their dislike of Obama.
If I'm still not making the distinction clear, I'm not sure that I can.
Let me make myself perfectly clear. The point isn't that you or Clams or anyone is claiming that all Republicans are racist, or all criticism of Obama is racist, or anything like that. The point is that when you use logic like "they bring up Ayers so they can deny the racism of bringing up Wright", you justify an assessment of racism for any irrational criticism of Obama. Someone will always be able to say that a particular criticism is racist, whether it's Clams on this thread, Foghorn on the next one, Pete tomorrow, or whoever.
Obviously I know that race is an influence on many Americans regarding their view of Obama. To suggest I'm arguing otherwise is a straw man.
I thought your analogy about the conservative adopting black children was a metaphor for the right in general, since that is really the theme of the conversation.
Naturally, I would try not to assign racism to an individual who had never shown any indication of it, but the singular person in your analogy was in response to a comment about a general group, so I assumed it would be consistent to continue with that.
We may be disagreeing on details here.
You most certainly did say that initially. That was your response to me as specifically, and it is ridiculous. As if Ayers is only used to mask racism, not only does it make no sense, there is no evidence of that either. And the rest of your statement above also makes no sense, thrown into the mix where race does play a part because he is on their menu? What does that mean, exactly?
No, I didn't.
As if Ayers is only used to mask racism
Never said that either.You answer your own question better than I can with this;
And I asked you why Bill Ayers is brought up often in the same vein as Wright... Ayers is not black and that doesn't fit into a race baiter's thought process.
I assumed when you wrote that, that it had something to do with race. I don't need to tell you that, do I?
OK, I have to ask, is this pointed towards POV or Stark?
However, I will let it slide just as soon as you show me the evidence that Van Jones is racist, hates America, and believes 9/11 was an inside job and that "All three statements can be substantiated by his words". Please show us the proof. We are all waiting anxiously, Stark.
I'd like you to explain how this is racist. The word "black" was used. He is black, isn't he?
It sounds as if he is arguing that there is a difference between the violence kids perpetrate against each other in the inner-cities and the violence kids perpetrate against each other in the suburbs. Is this what you mean by explicit racism?
And, is this really the best you could do to show us he is a racist who hates America and believes that America was behind the 9/11 attacks? A whole day and this little quote is the best you got? Just admit you mis-stated the facts, were misled by the voices you listen to on the radio, and let's move on. Your statement was ridiculous and factually incorrect. It's not like we would expect you to go away forever for a few silly comments. We are not like those who are so scared of Van Jones.
And Rush Limbaugh is the intellectual equivalent of this guy:
He was black
He was "uppity"
He wasn't a Repub.
Some people, race baiters specifically, won't even acknowledge pure partisanship if they can worm a racial motivation in there somewhere, even if it has no basis, is wildly inconsistent and lacks any evidence. Pathetic.
I'm sorry if I think these racist accusations are getting tiresome. He tells us flat out to judge him by whom he associates with. What evidence is there to suggest that the conservative media is racist when questioning those that surround President Obama?
I like your posts, and can understand your points. At the same time however, I dont see how they relate to singing a truther petition, blaming the govt for the deaths of 3000 Americans. That alone is enough for me to get rid of him.
You are right, white America probably does need to learn more about the history of the Panthers and La Raza. But how does that excuse the things Wright has said?
Since the election, Rev Wright has claimed that he cant talk to Obama because "The Jews" at the White House wont allow it.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/rev-wright-blames-them-jews-for-keeping-president-from-talking-to-him.html
Rev. Wright Blames "Them Jews" for Keeping President From Talking to Him
Wright has made some incredible and racist statements. Jones and Wright seem to me to be on the fringe of even most on the radical left.
Yes, Wright made some radical statements--after Obama refused to speak to Wright because of his previous radical statements! Yet somehow Wright's statement he made after this separation is proof that Obama associates with radicals!
You mean to tell me you dont think he said these kinds of things in the 20 years he was Obama's Pastor?? You have no integrity if you think that way. The things he said in his sermons that were on tape!!! The way he acted and the things he said at the national press club. It is all part of a pattern with this guy. A very clear, easy to document pattern.
Then you add Ayers to the mix....who actually said they should have bombed more. Then we have Jones. There are just the ones we know about.
I dont know who your friends are Funny, but I can promise you you can conduct background searches on all my friends and you will find:
0 bombers
0 people who think Bush allowed 911 to happen so Americans could die
O people who believe in a white house Jewish plot.
Yea....Obama is surrounded by radicals that he at one time embraced.
So, are you going to disassociate yourself from Beck and Limbaugh, and the rest who have made even more incredibly racists statements about Obama, and people associated with him?
As far as Rev. Wright. GO TO A BLACK CHURCH SERVICE!!!!
Is the minister going to say some (what you would think of) CRAZY statements? You betcha. and you know something, that is OK. If you had grown up black in the south you might have a clue but; you don't.
As far as your score card. Boy, you must have a small circle of friends. Most of the people I know are pretty conservative (even though I know few liberals) and I don't think I can say 100% for sure that there are any who weren't:
Radical bombers (KKK, etc)
911 truthers
Believers in a Jewish conspiracy
Yea....Obama is surrounded by radicals that he at one time embraced.
False strawman. If you want to debate facts, use facts. I have never seen anything that showed that Obama was ANY type of radical.
(well, except for that whole stay in school radicalism)
Just because I knew a PLO member in college, doesn't mean I believe that Israel should be wiped from the earth, any more than I believe that all Palistinians should be killed, just because I knew an Israeli who believed that.
I see, so it's ok for blacks to make racist comments but not others. Interesting.
Reagan delivered his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Do you know what is significant about Philadelphia, Mississippi? You should if civil rights in America mean anything to you. He chose that place for his speech as a statement about his support for "states' rights". Do you understand what that means? The federal government once came to Philadelphia, Mississippi to investigate some murders against the wishes of the state. Do you know who was murdered? Do you know why the state did not want the federal government in there investigating and why the federal goverment had a moral obligation to take up the investigation? Look it up. It should be a good learning experience about the mindset of your hero Ronald Reagan.
He also, almost immediately upon reaching the White House, in 1981 tried to reverse the policy of denying tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University. Do you know why Bob Jones University was denied tax exempt status? Racism does not get much more explicit than the reason behind Bob Jones University being denied tax exempt status nor for Reagan's clear support of Bob Jones institutionalized segregation. I would think even for you this racism would be explicit enough.
I noticed you did not address his defense of Bob Jones University. Were they explicitly racist enough for you?
And, don't even get started on his part playing McCarthy's snitch to root out the un-Americans amongst us.
No, that's what you've been told he said.
If we run background checks on your friends, Pointy, I'm sure we could find that they associate with at least one delusional liar.
And do you have that quote of van Jones claiming that 9/11 was an inside job yet?
I once signed a petition just to get the phone number of the girl gathering signatures. I was hardly making a claim.
If you just admit you were lying, I'll drop it.
Like it or not, Ayers was mainstreamed into society. Did the Republicans that served on the board with him resign because they didn't like Ayers' past? No, because it wasn't relevant to the goals being pursued at the time.
What really amuses me about it is how everyone talks about how phony politicians are. Everything they do is calculated and contrived and all about personal gain. Well, this would seem to be exactly what we want, in contrast to that. If Obama was really acting out of personal interest, he wouldn't have had anything to do with Ayers, since some partisan would surely try to make political hay out of it. But he did. That's someone who's trying to achieve educational goals for his community in spite of a future political concern.
Doesn't that seem a little "damned if you do, damned if you don't" to you?
0 bombers
0 people who think Bush allowed 911 to happen so Americans could die
O people who believe in a white house Jewish plot." - POV
And, how many would we find who believe that there was a conspiracy to create a fraudulent birth certificate for Obama? How many would we find that believe there are symbols in Rockefeller center indicating that Rockefeller was a liberal? How many would we find who believe that Obama's healthcare plan is a plan to endorse euthanasia? How many? Do you feel as if you are "surrounded by radicals"?
I do not think you were play "tit for tat". You acknowledged some things that Wright did that was wrong, and you said it was wrong. You also pointed to good things he has done. Being able to acknowledge both the good and the bad of any side of an issue is often what is lacking here.
However, I think when we are constantly dismissing racism as a factor without explicit evidence - we can easily miss what is obvious to the rational, objective mind. What is Beck fearful of when he sees these young black men "stomping"?
Beck didn't use any racial epithets and he didn't do anything overtly racist. But, what is so scary about these black men "stomping"? Is it the stomping? Or is it more likely the black men that are so scary? I guess it all depends on what evidence you require for yourself. But, I think in cases like this - charlatans like Beck are clearly playing to the irrational fears of blacks that many white people in this country still cling to.
Like Beck's personal representation shown above, this stands in contrast to the act of bringing up Wright during a conversation about Jones. Wright is seen on the right as someone who's made controversial comments more than anyone else connected to Obama, so that comparison seems perfectly natural regardless of the race of anyone involved. The element of "why would they compare Jones to another black man..." isn't really there, since there aren't that many people to choose from.
And the reason I asked RightON about the video was because, for all his lip servicing about hating "real racism," he never actually comes out and admits that anything anyone says is racist. Or rather, he never admits that anything any white person ever said is racist. If we can stop pretending he's not Tommy for a moment, then we can concede that he called Bill O'Reilly's restaurant review racist, but prior to that the only "real racism" that he saw was in the statements of people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and (of all people) Bryant Gumbel.
I understand the question to right ON, and I agree with your position there. I'm not pretending anything, for the record, it's just not a topic I want to discuss on the boards, and there's a very good reason for that.
I don't know, because I've never attended one of Wright's services. All we hear are the race-based quotes. That's kinda vital to my point.
If Hillary had sat in some church for twenty years with some flaming white liberal preacher spouting the stuff Wright did, you can bet the farm the Hannitys of the world would have had just as much of a field day with it as they did with Obama. And pretty much everything else that I can see.
However, the much more prevalent example of race-baiting is done by the closeted racists who use code-words to play up to the actual racists in the general public. See numerous historical references to "states' right" or see "birth certificate" controversies or see our new "plague of leprosy" that was being foisted upon us by illegals a few years ago. Make no mistake about it. These Becks and Dobbs of the world playing up to the scary black (and brown) man image that uses the irrational fear of black men to stir up interest or ratings is the much more prevalent race-baiting that goes on everyday right in front of you.
I never said that they had to use racial epithets or come out and admit they are racists. What I said was that there needs to be clear evidence, for if there isn't then they can just tell you they meant this or that. If there is clear evidence however, they have no excuse except to admit their racist intentions and maybe, just maybe, they will think twice about it next time.
And that is the difference between me and race baiters. I want it to stop, it's ugly, hideous and has no place in civilized society. Race baiters, on the other hand, fan the flames. They have a vested interest, either financially or emotionally, in keeping it front and center to use as a bludgeon to slap opponents and wallow in their victim status. Rather than confront their opponents real motivations, either rational or irrational, it's far easier to call them a racist and be done with it. To use it in that way is equally as hideous.
Of course some around here don't see it that way because they are so invested in it themselves and keep it on the front burner of their arsenal at all times. Pretty sad if you ask me.
The birth certificate controversy is rooted in racism. You will never see a white president have to prove they are "one of us" and not some manufactured Manchurian candidate sent to destroy us from within. There are many nuts on the right who bought into this as something to score points with (and are not necessarily racist), but the genesis of this line of belief is clearly racial to me. This is but one example of what I am talking about. If we always require proof beyond a reasonable doubt for racism (as you would in a courtroom) I think we may become complicit in allowing any under current of racism to go unchecked.
I would also agree that there are race-baiters on the left who use racism as their excuse of all things and a reason for their existence. (The Tawanna Brawley case come to mind.) And, yes, this can be just as disgusting and damaging as the actual racists. But, I think the much more common race-baiting in politics is done through code-words. This is still prevalent in politics today and I think the Republican party does themselves a great disservice when they pretend it is not. Black and brown people in this country know these words very well and you better believe they pick up on them when they are used. I think this is one of the many ways that the modern Republican party plays to the base at the cost of ever growing the party. The politics of division may work at times, but in the long run you practice it at your own peril. And this is where the party loses people like myself or bintx and has no chance of ever convincing a moderate belief system like Brabs to ever vote for their side.
As for racism going "unchecked", that is far more likely to happen if racist charges are thrown around like the "cry wolf" example. For it demeans, minimizes and cheapens real racial incidences - which is why I find it dangerous and irresponsible.
As for the Republican party, frankly I don't care about them at all, or the Democratic party. I belong to neither and have little interest in seeing one flourish or another flounder. They live to stay in power and I am not invested in that either way. Today's Republicans are actually pretty damn pathetic, just look at the bratty Joe Wilson from last night? Like some juvenile deliquent instead of a Congressmen. If I was a Republican I would ashamed of him.
I also did not mean to suggest that you should be defending the Republican party. That goes more into my personal upbringing. I was raised on statesmen like John Danforth and writers like P.J. O'Rourke and I miss the fact that the Republicans have devolved into such lunacy.
I also agree that these political parties have consumed each other to the point where their only care is survival. I would rather we have 5 strong parties than two. But, I think we are in danger of only having one reasonable party and a party of lunacy and I think our national discourse and, in turn, our progress is hampered by it.
I don't see any reason why he had to go. Obama needs to grow a pair. He's still my guy but he's starting to p!ss me off.
The Republicans ARE @$$holes, and so is every Blue Dog Dino Democrat. THese people are turning blind obstruction into partisan victory. He needs to stop compromising, call them out and get the legislation moving again.
(And what's with all these people who still think the press is in the tank for Obama? Everything I hear about him and his party is doom and gloom lately, while the damned obstructionists on the Right get a free pass. THERE IS NO LIBERAL MEDIA! Period.)
Are you talking about Van Jones referring to Republicans as A-holes?
Look at all the kooky-con Kool-Aide drinkers all over a man who says he admires Ronald Reagan.
I guess that makes Reagan a communist!!!!!
Shows what happens when you listen to O'Reilly's, Beck's or Limbaugh's so-called "research".
They research issues like Tom Cruise "researches" psychology.