Obama's Pastor

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Go find those posts (we just had a debate about it not too long ago) and let me know what was actually stated. [/quote]

I have little interest in pursuing this much further, but to your point - why would I need to go in search of old threads for your comments when I can just look in this one?

On Page 9 of this thread, you offered up this gem:

Here we have your insinuation that folks not voting for Obama pressing this issue are…drum roll…racist.

Not silly, dumb, partisan, off-base, confused, or idiotic - but racist. Nope, these folks - of which myself, Boston, and others in this thread fall into, which you knew when you made the tepid identification - are quite possibly trying to hide behind “loud reasons” so we can apparently hide our “racism”.

You can’t even join a conversation about the effect of Obama’s controversial pastor on Obama’s national candidacy without trying to slander someone as a possible racist.

Racists, racists, everywhere. Discussing the topic? A cover for racism.

To your point - if you don’t want people, namely myself, to “assume the worst” about your opinions, maybe - just maybe - you shouldn’t “assume the worst” in others.

Fair enough?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
None was my first choice, but of the three I like McCain best (which is to say I dislike certain things about him and his positions less than I dislike the other two).[/quote]

Given that you consider foreign policy the most important criteria, how can you possibly consider voting for someone who wants your compatriotic younglings to keep getting slaughtered and maimed in a place that’s got nothing to do with your nation’s sovereignty?

At what number of US casualties and squandered money will you start considering that it may be time to call it quits?

Interesting TB.

Jonah Goldberg had a good post addressing this issue:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTc3ZWNjMjQ0MTAwYzM3NzE0OGI2NjBkYzcwZmU1ODY=

[i]Re: Obama & The Right [Jonah Goldberg]

Fair point Ramesh, and I think you’re probably right in regard to the speech. But I think Ross’ general point about why the Right is less swoonful (if that’s a word) over Obama’s post-partisan, transcend race schtick, is correct. Obamaniacs think conservatives just don’t get it, that we’re mired in the past, that we are motivated by old passions and bigotries. We can’t get swept up in the Obama “movement” because we don’t want or can’t imagine a post-racial America, blah, blah, blah, blah. The truth, as Ross suggests, is that we very much can imagine a post-racial America. Indeed, it’s the Shelby Steeles, Ward Connerlys, Tom Sowells and John McWhorters who’ve been arguing for a real post-racial America for decades.

Meanwhile, there is actually not a lot of “post” in Obama’s post-racialism. He’s still dedicated to affirmative action and racial quotas. He decries black victimology but he embraces its underlying logic and the old-style laws and programs that sustain it (perhaps with the exception of vouchers). His two concessions are 1) his admission that things have gotten better for blacks (which, rhetorically, is a real concession) and 2) that self-help is an important ingredient for racial progress (which, rhetorically, isn’t that new).

But it is this concession which really comes up lame. According to his speech, blacks need not so much to drop their racial grievances but to bundle them with various white and Latino grievances in order to create a populist movement that is entirely leftwing and conventional in its ambitions. The “conservative” self-help message is really window dressing for a typically big government agenda that would only expand and entrench liberal racialism. In short, for all the talk about moving “beyond” race, the real aim is to use post-racial rhetoric to reinvigorate the racial spoils system true post-racialists, like Sowell et al, want to overthrow. [/i]

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
None was my first choice, but of the three I like McCain best (which is to say I dislike certain things about him and his positions less than I dislike the other two).

lixy wrote:
Given that you consider foreign policy the most important criteria, how can you possibly consider voting for someone who wants your compatriotic younglings to keep getting slaughtered and maimed in a place that’s got nothing to do with your nation’s sovereignty?

At what number of US casualties and squandered money will you start considering that it may be time to call it quits?[/quote]

I’m not sidetracking yet another thread re-hashing Iraq - go start another thread and we can discuss Iraq again, saying the same things again.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Sloth wrote:
pookie wrote:
Sloth wrote:
See, the proper answer for me is that they’re both horrible candidates.

Don’t get me wrong, I think all three possible candidates are lousy. But as long as you’re going to be stuck with one for at least 4 years, might as well go for He-Who-Sucks-The-Less.

I’m looking to vote for a third party candidate. The one who-Sucks-The-Less isn’t to be found in the two major parties.

While that may make you feel better it just ensures your vote will be irrelevant!

[/quote]

Ah, now that’s the bedrock of democracy right there.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Gael wrote:
invictus1 wrote:
McCain is an idiot. Read the following on a speech he gave on Iran. He is not a national security expert, he is an ignorant dumbass. Obama will destroy him in any debate and that is not saying much. God why does America have to be so stupid.

Sad. And this McCain guy is being passed off as an foreign policy expert. How absurd. If McCain had a clue what he was talking about, he might stand a chance debating a wittier, faster, and more intelligent, and more charismatic man. Right now, his only hope is that Clinton becomes the democratic nominee, which is unlikely given his impending success here in Pennsylvania.

Good bye McCain.

Give me a break - his misstatement, in an extemporaneous conversation with reporters, doesn’t even demonstrate misunderstanding. It demonstrates a misstatement. But I can understand why the liberal wing is getting a bit nervous.

BTW, on Pennsylvania, a bit of wishful thinking on your part:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html[/quote]

[/quote]
3 times in 2 days isn’t a misstatement. Probably deliberate, otherwise you’d have to assume he’s stupid. But it does square with his overall ignorance on foreign policy which as of late centers around Iraq, which he thought wouldn’t last too long. Which is something someone who didn’t get sunni-shia might be stupid enough to say…(also somebody not well read, or someone with Kristol as an advisor), and obviously his idiocy on foreign policy wouldn’t make liberals nervous.

but back to how some black guy said some christian things with a scary tone.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Give me a break - his misstatement, in an extemporaneous conversation with reporters, doesn’t even demonstrate misunderstanding. It demonstrates a misstatement.[/quote]

What about the same misstatement on the preceding monday on a radio show?

Why does he always misspeak about the same Iran/Al-Qaeda issue? He seems fairly coherent (syntax and grammar wise, if not content wise) the rest of the time.

It’s like someone saying they flew to Europe on a Ford Explorer. And repeating it three times on different days. How many times can you confuse a car with an airplane before people start questioning how well versed you are in transportation?

He must have handlers and PR people that pointed out his mistake to him on monday… And he forgets again a few days later?

Maybe he’s just too old for this.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
None was my first choice, but of the three I like McCain best (which is to say I dislike certain things about him and his positions less than I dislike the other two).[/quote]

Who was your first choice?

[quote]pookie wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Forgot to address your actual question - his misstatement won’t cost him support. The economics line might, though he can address that by showing he has a good economics team and that he’s committed to keeping Bernanke in the Fed - it could also be addressed with his VP choice.

Why is it that when McCain’s lack of relevant experience is pointed out, it’s no big deal because he can put together a good team and choose a VP that complements his strengths (which are… er, Global Warming?); but that when we discuss Obama, then his lack of experience is simply a fatal flaw that leaves him with nothing to contribute?
[/quote]

it’s always better to be wrong many,many,many times to spectacular degrees (experience) than to be right a few times.

also you have to remember that barrack might be a Muslim, or he had a Christian pastor who is angry that the U.S. isn’t always asking itself “what would jesus do?”

[quote]100meters wrote:

3 times in 2 days isn’t a misstatement. Probably deliberate, otherwise you’d have to assume he’s stupid. But it does square with his overall ignorance on foreign policy which as of late centers around Iraq, which he thought wouldn’t last too long. Which is something someone who didn’t get sunni-shia might be stupid enough to say…(also somebody not well read, or someone with Kristol as an advisor), and obviously his idiocy on foreign policy wouldn’t make liberals nervous.

but back to how some black guy said some christian things with a scary tone.[/quote]

The first press conference was a misstatement. The second was a clarification, in which he distinguished support from groups within Iran - some of which have a history of supporting al Queda - and support from the Iranian government. The reaction is willfully obtuse.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
None was my first choice, but of the three I like McCain best (which is to say I dislike certain things about him and his positions less than I dislike the other two).

pookie wrote:
Who was your first choice? [/quote]

Of those who actually ran, Fred Thompson.

what’s so bad about what the pastor said?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
None was my first choice, but of the three I like McCain best (which is to say I dislike certain things about him and his positions less than I dislike the other two).

pookie wrote:
Who was your first choice?

Of those who actually ran, Fred Thompson.[/quote]

Doing-Doing!

You sure don’t pick the most motivated ones.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:

3 times in 2 days isn’t a misstatement. Probably deliberate, otherwise you’d have to assume he’s stupid. But it does square with his overall ignorance on foreign policy which as of late centers around Iraq, which he thought wouldn’t last too long. Which is something someone who didn’t get sunni-shia might be stupid enough to say…(also somebody not well read, or someone with Kristol as an advisor), and obviously his idiocy on foreign policy wouldn’t make liberals nervous.

but back to how some black guy said some christian things with a scary tone.

The first press conference was a misstatement. The second was a clarification, in which he distinguished support from groups within Iran - some of which have a history of supporting al Queda - and support from the Iranian government. The reaction is willfully obtuse.[/quote]

the written statement?

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
None was my first choice, but of the three I like McCain best (which is to say I dislike certain things about him and his positions less than I dislike the other two).

lixy wrote:
Given that you consider foreign policy the most important criteria, how can you possibly consider voting for someone who wants your compatriotic younglings to keep getting slaughtered and maimed in a place that’s got nothing to do with your nation’s sovereignty?

At what number of US casualties and squandered money will you start considering that it may be time to call it quits?

I’m not sidetracking yet another thread re-hashing Iraq - go start another thread and we can discuss Iraq again, saying the same things again.[/quote]

I don’t believe I ever saw you address that point. Your arguments usually stops at Iraq’s doing better than a couple of years ago.

Let me ask you a more particular question then: If some Iraqi manages to kill a couple of hundred American soldiers tomorrow (and considering everything else to be constant) will you still be voting for McCain? A simple yes/no will do.

[quote]pookie wrote:

Doing-Doing!

You sure don’t pick the most motivated ones.[/quote]

That was actually part of the appeal - having a candidate who was more interested in service for service’s sake than seeing his face on the cover of Newsweek would be a welcome change.

Sen. McCain’s speechwriter had some contempt for Obama’s FP statements in an email sent around earlier:

[i]Senator Obama says that ending the war will not be easy, that ‘there will be dangers involved.’ Yet, in that patented way of his, he declines to name those dangers. Let me enumerate a few: al Qaeda, which is now on the run, will survive, claim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions that, while they have been subdued by the ‘tactics’ of the surge, still exist and are ripe for provocation by al Qaeda, which would almost certainly ignite again civil war in Iraq, a civil war that could easily descend into genocide.

To say that invading Iraq was used as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda is one thing. To pretend that our defeat there won’t provide an even bigger one is foolish supposition. Iran, which trains Shia extremists and is known to arm and equip Sunni extremists, a fact Senator Obama is apparently unaware of, will also view our premature withdrawal as a victory, as will other countries in the region, and the biggest state supporter of terrorists, a country with nuclear ambitions and a stated desire to destroy the State of Israel, will see its influence in the Middle East grow significantly.

These are some of ‘dangers,’ that our premature withdrawal from Iraq will engender, and they all have the potential to destabilize the entire region. A realistic plan to prevent them from occurring is what people with experience in statecraft call ‘strategy,’ something Senator Obama has not offered yet.[/i]

That was by speechwriter Mark Salter. You’ll note the continued use of the claim about support coming to Sunni terrorists from inside Iran. This isn’t a misstatement. They’re pressing this and attacking Obama on it. I’ll be interested to see how this fight plays out.

ADDENDUM:

ALSO - Note the email above is different from the statement reference below, so the McCain campaign is really putting this out there.

Here’s an excerpt from a WSJ blog post on this:

[i]A McCain adviser said that the statement was carefully written to avoid implying with certainty that it was the Iranian government that is supporting al Qaeda. Rather, he said, there is “ample evidence” that other forces in Iran were doing so. The aide suggested, however, that it was hard to believe that elements of Iran’s power structure couldn’t be at least complicit in these efforts.

To support the claim, the campaign provided articles from conservative publications such as the Weekly Standard.

The campaign does concede that McCain was wrong yesterday when he said that Iranian operatives were “taking al Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.” In fact, American officials believe that was the case with Shiite militants operating in Iraq. McCain quickly corrected himself, after a prompting from his friend and colleague, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut independent. He made similar comments earlier on a radio program, though he did not correct those.

Democrats saw no distinction between the two statements and pounced - again. “Either John McCain is purposely playing politics with the facts on the ground or he doesn’t understand the threat facing Iraq and our brave troops,” said a statement today from DNC Communications Director Karen Finney.[/i]

(Also added the link for the first part.)

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
People may lament the lack of experience but if they identify with his general policies, attitude, and stance on the issue more than either Hillary or Obama, they’ll suck it up and vote for him. It becomes more of an issue with true swing voters who aren’t clearly in line with him on the issues.[/quote]

Well, with your economy rapidly vanishing down the toilet, your failing dollar, the rising gas prices and the election 8 months away, there might not be many swing voters left that care for his “Econowhat? Let’s have more Iraq war and take on Iran too!” platform. Maybe he can conscript all welfare recipients and send them over, fixing two problems at once.

But what do I know? I guess running on mostly extending Bush’s policies when GWB’s approval ratings hover slightly above 20% shows “good judgment and experience.”

I think the Democrats might have finally met an election they cannot lose, no matter how bad they try.

I said “might.”

[quote]100meters wrote:

the written statement?
[/quote]

Yes, the written statements - see my post above.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pookie wrote:

Doing-Doing!

You sure don’t pick the most motivated ones.

That was actually part of the appeal - having a candidate who was more interested in service for service’s sake than seeing his face on the cover of Newsweek would be a welcome change.[/quote]

Well maybe, but you have to want it at least a little bit.

He came off as if he was there because of some bet he lost during a night of hard drinking.