Well, at least Wright isn’t as bad as former Farrakhan (Trinity Church award winning bigot) crony, Khallid Muhammad.
DNC Chairman Howard Dean, back during the last campaign when he was front-running candidate Howard Dean, on his motivation to leave his church:
EXCERPT:
[i]Dean Gets Religion?
Howard Dean went on CNN the other day and talked religion with Judy Woodruff, who asked about, in National Review’s Jay Nordlinger’s words, “his departure from an Episcopal church over a dispute concerning a bike path.” Nordlinger quotes Dean’s answer and sums up the ensuing conversation (the comments in brackets are his):
"You know what it really says? [The "it" refers to public curiosity over this bike-path affair.] It says the Republicans are talking like they're out of the Pharisees. Because if you're a Christian, you're a Christian. I don't believe it ought to matter what kind of a denomination you are. As a matter of fact, if you're a religious person, you're a religious person. I don't think it ought to matter what religion you are."
I will keep quoting: Woodruff: "Was it just over a bike path that you left the Episcopal Church?" (Even Judy Woodruff seems incredulous, doesn't she?) Dean: "Yes, as a matter of fact it was. I was fighting to have public access to the waterfront, and we were fighting very hard in the citizens group to allow the public to use it. [Notice how these people are always "fighting"?] And this particular diocese decided to join a property-rights suit [please gasp here] to close it down. I didn't think that was very public-spirited. One thing I feel about religion, you have to be very careful not to be a hypocrite if you're a religious person. It is really tough to preach one thing and do something else. And I don't think you can do that."
…[/i]
Victor Davis Hanson gives some advice to Obama re: Pastor-quiddick:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjhiYmM5YWQ5ODNkNjBlMjYwMmQyYzQ1MTRiNzhhMTM=
[i]Some Half-Minute�??the Latest Modified Obama Hangout [Victor Davis Hanson]
“This is somebody that was preaching three sermons at least a week for 30 years and it got boiled down … into a half-minute sound clip and just played it over and over and over again, partly because it spoke to some of the racial divisions we have in this country.”
Doesn’t Obama get it? Every time he contextualizes Wright, he loses. Every time Obama impugns the motives of those who worried over the relationship, he loses. Every time Obama suggests that Wright was a healer whose words were misused by those suspect to inflame (“[it] spoke to some of the racial divisions we have”) he loses.
Wright’s clips indeed did speak to “racial divisions,” but by slurring whites, Jews, Italians, the WWII generation, and the United States. Other than radical African-Americans, Central American Marxists, Libyans and the Palestinians, almost every one else was fair game. He was not just “stupid” but cruel and uncouth. He did not misspeak “five or six” times, as did a Ferraro, a McCain, an Obama himself, or a Clinton on various topics, but systematically offered a written and spoken ideology of separatism and venom. And those who believe that are not themselves trying to do what Wright did. Would that Obama spend as much time criticizing Wright as he does the critics of Wright.
The controversy is no longer Wright (whose 20 years of slander and hatred lie like foul verbal IEDs buried deeply amid thousands of words in transcripts and texts, and go off the more the media navigates over them). Nor is the rub just Obama’s past comments on Wright or his own landmark speech on race.
No, the problem is Obama’s continual need to reply to the latest explosion, and his inability to put the issue behind him by a simple clean break. For the next 30 Sundays, someone in Trinity is either going to push the envelope (last Sunday critics of Wright were “lynchers and crucifiers”), or one of the numerous old mines of the publicity-needy Wright will suddenly go off. (Would it be too much for Obama to communicate to Rev. Moss that for the next seven months, the closely-watched Trinity sermons might stick to universal brotherhood, Christian forgiveness, unity, and healing among all of America’s races?)
As someone who wants to see Obama present his agenda, defend and debate it, and let the American people decide whether they are ready for such a change leftward, I hope that some sane person in the Obama campaign can simply end this. They need to call an outsider like Juan Williams or Shelby Steele, who have felt the wrath of the radical African-American community, and understand the complexity and the politics of race as few others do, get their blunt advice, and then sever once and for all the Wright relationship. Otherwise toadies and sycophantic insiders will continue to tell Obama what he wants to hear�??and we will get a summer full of “garlic noses” and America as the klan, followed by clarifications like “five or six minutes,” “snippets,” “loops,” and “typical white person.” [/i]
Being a pastor railing against white folks’ greed pays pretty well.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/chicken-comes-home-to-roost-in-16.html
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Victor Davis Hanson gives some advice to Obama re: Pastor-quiddick:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjhiYmM5YWQ5ODNkNjBlMjYwMmQyYzQ1MTRiNzhhMTM=
[i]Some Half-Minute�??the Latest Modified Obama Hangout [Victor Davis Hanson]
“This is somebody that was preaching three sermons at least a week for 30 years and it got boiled down … into a half-minute sound clip and just played it over and over and over again, partly because it spoke to some of the racial divisions we have in this country.”
Doesn’t Obama get it? Every time he contextualizes Wright, he loses. Every time Obama impugns the motives of those who worried over the relationship, he loses. Every time Obama suggests that Wright was a healer whose words were misused by those suspect to inflame (“[it] spoke to some of the racial divisions we have”) he loses.
Wright’s clips indeed did speak to “racial divisions,” but by slurring whites, Jews, Italians, the WWII generation, and the United States. Other than radical African-Americans, Central American Marxists, Libyans and the Palestinians, almost every one else was fair game. He was not just “stupid” but cruel and uncouth. He did not misspeak “five or six” times, as did a Ferraro, a McCain, an Obama himself, or a Clinton on various topics, but systematically offered a written and spoken ideology of separatism and venom. And those who believe that are not themselves trying to do what Wright did. Would that Obama spend as much time criticizing Wright as he does the critics of Wright.
The controversy is no longer Wright (whose 20 years of slander and hatred lie like foul verbal IEDs buried deeply amid thousands of words in transcripts and texts, and go off the more the media navigates over them). Nor is the rub just Obama’s past comments on Wright or his own landmark speech on race.
No, the problem is Obama’s continual need to reply to the latest explosion, and his inability to put the issue behind him by a simple clean break. For the next 30 Sundays, someone in Trinity is either going to push the envelope (last Sunday critics of Wright were “lynchers and crucifiers”), or one of the numerous old mines of the publicity-needy Wright will suddenly go off. (Would it be too much for Obama to communicate to Rev. Moss that for the next seven months, the closely-watched Trinity sermons might stick to universal brotherhood, Christian forgiveness, unity, and healing among all of America’s races?)
As someone who wants to see Obama present his agenda, defend and debate it, and let the American people decide whether they are ready for such a change leftward, I hope that some sane person in the Obama campaign can simply end this. They need to call an outsider like Juan Williams or Shelby Steele, who have felt the wrath of the radical African-American community, and understand the complexity and the politics of race as few others do, get their blunt advice, and then sever once and for all the Wright relationship. Otherwise toadies and sycophantic insiders will continue to tell Obama what he wants to hear�??and we will get a summer full of “garlic noses” and America as the klan, followed by clarifications like “five or six minutes,” “snippets,” “loops,” and “typical white person.” [/i][/quote]
This author is a pussy or an idiot.
Maybe, just maybe, he thinks so much in terms of politics that he has no spine left.
I am pretty fed up with allegation of Wrights “racist, slanderous” remarks when all they have is 3 cut down minutes out of 20 !!! years that look waaaay different when seen in context, a context by the way that is easily available on Youtube.
If they had more they would have presented it by now. They don´t. That is not even enough to smear Wright, let alone Obama, except for raving lunatics like Mick28.
Someone pointing the finger at racism is not a racist. Someone pointing out that there is division is not divisive. Someone pointing out that the killing in Amerikas name do not even remotely cause the same reaction as 3000 people at 9-11 is not anti-American.
Sure, Obama could throw him under the bus, but he would lose the respect of all the people who know that Wright at least tried to speak his version of the truth.
In fact, Obama handled the situation so well that his opponents should think twice of trying that again, because if he hits one more homerun like that, he becomes president of the US.
Not that I would vote for this commie, but the more some slimeballs try to drag him through the mud the more I actually like him as a person.
The Wright-Obama Divide
What does the pastor say about the man?
Steve Chapman | March 24, 2008
The important thing about Jeremiah Wright, the inflammatory former pastor of Barack Obama’s church, is not that he thinks America is “controlled by rich white people,” that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the result of our “chickens are coming home to roost,” or that God should “damn America” for its sins against blacks. It’s that Wright is supporting a presidential candidate who clearly believes none of these things, but instead puts his faith in what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”
It’s as if the Minuteman Project were to endorse a candidate who favors more Hispanic immigration. Wright has gotten behind a leader whose success badly undercuts the pastor’s belief in the irredeemability of America.
That is a good thing. If there are people, black or white, who hold such a bitter, distorted view of this country, it’s reassuring that the most congenial political figure they can find is one who radiates�??in fact, embodies�??our national faith in freedom and progress.
Wright apparently sees this nation as defective and divided beyond repair. Obama thinks the defects are only a part of the story, and that a unity transcending ancient racial distrusts is achievable.
What has fueled his candidacy is neither black anger nor white guilt, but a desire by people of different complexions to minimize the role of race in our society. In his book, A Bound Man, Hoover Institution scholar Shelby Steele writes that Obama is “a living rebuke to both racism and racialism, to both segregation and identity politics… [H]e also embodies a great and noble human aspiration: to smother racial power in a democracy of individuals.”
If the pastor truly believed his more vitriolic comments, he would have no choice but to treat Obama as a fool for aspiring to the presidency. Instead, Wright has been forced to entertain the notion that white people would choose a black male for the most powerful office on Earth.
When Ronald Reagan ran for governor of California in 1966, liberals attacked him for getting support from members of the ultra-conservative John Birch Society, which regarded Dwight Eisenhower as a Communist agent. Reagan responded, “If anyone chooses to vote for me, they are buying my views. I am not buying theirs.”
His career illustrates that political shrewdness often requires attracting not only savory but unsavory people to a cause. When he ran for president, he was criticized for tossing the occasional bone to racist white Southerners by endorsing “state’s rights.” But by appealing to many of those who had once supported the venomous white supremacist George Wallace, Reagan helped defang those forces, while advancing his own political agenda.
George W. Bush followed a similar route in 2000 by speaking at Bob Jones University, which had lost its federal tax exemption for banning interracial dating and whose founder once called Bush’s father a “devil.” Being politicians, Reagan and Bush found ways to lure in bigots at little cost, while rejecting their most cherished beliefs.
Obama likewise hopes to co-opt black radicals, whose convictions will be sorely tested if he wins the presidency. A candidate should not be condemned if he or she can persuade extremists to support a campaign that offers no extreme positions but many sensible ones.
In this case, of course, the complaint is that Obama doesn’t merely accept Wright’s support but that he joined his church and remained there. Why didn’t he leave? One reason, as Obama said in his speech, is that the outrageous statements are only a small part of what he knows about the man, and that Wright’s spiritual guidance and the church’s vital missions in the community were far more important.
Anyone choosing a church has to accept its flaws, which can be considerable. Good churches and good pastors can be hard to find, and perfect ones impossible. I suspect Obama figured that if Trinity United Church of Christ excelled in its most important functions, he could put up with some foolishness in the peripheral area of politics�??something lots of white churchgoers are accustomed to doing.
What is crucial, though, is Obama simply can’t accept the view he heard expressed from the pulpit that America is an evil, oppressive, racist society. Come November, Wright may have serious grounds for doubt as well.
[quote]orion wrote:
The Wright-Obama Divide
What does the pastor say about the man?
Steve Chapman | March 24, 2008
The important thing about Jeremiah Wright, the inflammatory former pastor of Barack Obama’s church, is not that he thinks America is “controlled by rich white people,” that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the result of our “chickens are coming home to roost,” or that God should “damn America” for its sins against blacks. It’s that Wright is supporting a presidential candidate who clearly believes none of these things, but instead puts his faith in what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”
…[/quote]
No one cares who Wright supports. The issue is Obama supported Wright for 20 years.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
The Wright-Obama Divide
What does the pastor say about the man?
Steve Chapman | March 24, 2008
The important thing about Jeremiah Wright, the inflammatory former pastor of Barack Obama’s church, is not that he thinks America is “controlled by rich white people,” that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the result of our “chickens are coming home to roost,” or that God should “damn America” for its sins against blacks. It’s that Wright is supporting a presidential candidate who clearly believes none of these things, but instead puts his faith in what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”
…
No one cares who Wright supports. The issue is Obama supported Wright for 20 years.[/quote]
There is no issue.
[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
The Wright-Obama Divide
What does the pastor say about the man?
Steve Chapman | March 24, 2008
The important thing about Jeremiah Wright, the inflammatory former pastor of Barack Obama’s church, is not that he thinks America is “controlled by rich white people,” that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the result of our “chickens are coming home to roost,” or that God should “damn America” for its sins against blacks. It’s that Wright is supporting a presidential candidate who clearly believes none of these things, but instead puts his faith in what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”
…
No one cares who Wright supports. The issue is Obama supported Wright for 20 years.
There is no issue.
[/quote]
And the earth is flat.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
The Wright-Obama Divide
What does the pastor say about the man?
Steve Chapman | March 24, 2008
The important thing about Jeremiah Wright, the inflammatory former pastor of Barack Obama’s church, is not that he thinks America is “controlled by rich white people,” that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the result of our “chickens are coming home to roost,” or that God should “damn America” for its sins against blacks. It’s that Wright is supporting a presidential candidate who clearly believes none of these things, but instead puts his faith in what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”
…
No one cares who Wright supports. The issue is Obama supported Wright for 20 years.
There is no issue.
And the earth is flat.[/quote]
One more of this “scandals” and Obama is president.
After Bush lied the US into the war and Hillary that has more skeletons in the closet than the Kennedy’s combined, any attempts to smear him with a pastor that is basically saying the truth is futile.
Give this guy any reason to grab the nations attention in front of dozens of cameras and he will reinforce his image of not being the average politicians, refusing to play their dirty and childish games.
The Republicans cannot even go into this because McCain flip flipped around their religious nut cases.
Who makes more sense, a pastor preaching that you reap what you sow or someone who thinks that 9-11 was the Lords punishment for homosexuality?
You really think the black voters will question a pastor who preaches that the US is ruled by rich white men and that the US government is capable of unspeakable acts?
No, they will unite behind Obama and make him president.
[quote]orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
The Wright-Obama Divide
What does the pastor say about the man?
Steve Chapman | March 24, 2008
The important thing about Jeremiah Wright, the inflammatory former pastor of Barack Obama’s church, is not that he thinks America is “controlled by rich white people,” that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were the result of our “chickens are coming home to roost,” or that God should “damn America” for its sins against blacks. It’s that Wright is supporting a presidential candidate who clearly believes none of these things, but instead puts his faith in what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”
…
No one cares who Wright supports. The issue is Obama supported Wright for 20 years.
There is no issue.
And the earth is flat.
One more of this “scandals” and Obama is president.
After Bush lied the US into the war and Hillary that has more skeletons in the closet than the Kennedy’s combined, any attempts to smear him with a pastor that is basically saying the truth is futile.
Give this guy any reason to grab the nations attention in front of dozens of cameras and he will reinforce his image of not being the average politicians, refusing to play their dirty and childish games.
The Republicans cannot even go into this because McCain flip flipped around their religious nut cases.
Who makes more sense, a pastor preaching that you reap what you sow or someone who thinks that 9-11 was the Lords punishment for homosexuality?
You really think the black voters will question a pastor who preaches that the US is ruled by rich white men and that the US government is capable of unspeakable acts?
No, they will unite behind Obama and make him president.
[/quote]
You don’t understand at all. Obama will get most black votes whatever he does but this has turned off a lot of working class Democrats.
McCain’s getting support from shady religious elements is in no way comparable. McCain didn’t go to their church for 20 years. McCain doesn’t consider them his personal mentor.
The more people see of Obama the more he looks like a typical phony politician.
[quote]orion wrote:
One more of this “scandals” and Obama is president.[/quote]
I wouldn’t bet on that.
[quote]orion wrote:
After Bush lied the US into the war and Hillary that has more skeletons in the closet than the Kennedy’s combined, any attempts to smear him with a pastor that is basically saying the truth is futile. [/quote]
This is a nonsequiter. Bush isn’t running. At this point, we’re looking at Hillary and Obama. Hillary does have her scandals - and they’re pretty well known. Let’s see: cattle futures, Rose Law Firm, secret health care commission. “Misstatements” and lies like the Bosnia stuff and blaming her husband’s travails on the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” No one knows much about Obama. Somehow he managed to avoid leaving much of a paper trail on his views (pretty hard to do when you’re on law review), so one assumes he was thinking ahead. However, without a paper trail, voters are left to make inferences based on circumstantial evidence. And attending a church for 20 years that is steeped in anti-white, Marxist “black liberation” theology is some interesting circumstantial information. The Pastor’s doctrine is based in the stuff - whether they only found a few minutes of really offensive quotes out of the small sampling of recorded sermons they referenced doesn’t seem to clear the stuff that wasn’t reviewed - people are quoting this “20 years worth of sermons” thing, but how many of those were recorded and available for review? And don’t forget how Obama parsed his responses to the questions - classic lawyerly avoidance of the point.
[quote]orion wrote:
Give this guy any reason to grab the nations attention in front of dozens of cameras and he will reinforce his image of not being the average politicians, refusing to play their dirty and childish games.[/quote]
He’s a good speaker - but when you parse his speeches the words often don’t live up to the delivery. See, for instance, his economic/regulatory speech yesterday:
[quote]orion wrote:
The Republicans cannot even go into this because McCain flip flipped around their religious nut cases.
Who makes more sense, a pastor preaching that you reap what you sow or someone who thinks that 9-11 was the Lords punishment for homosexuality?[/quote]
Actually they can. The key is that Obama chose Wright at least partly because of his rhetoric - and his rhetoric was based in that black liberation theology. I’ve yet to hear him repudiate anything except the particular items unearthed by ABC news - essentially, “I repudiate anything you found that was offensive to voters!” He has assiduously avoided the underlying issue - probably a smart thing, given taking a stance one way or the other runs the risk of alienating a group in the Democratic base. Of course, I want him to address it for the same reason.
Or, let’s use the paradigm set up by your Reason article: Is it as worrisome for McCain to ignore one or two statements from a couple of preachers with whom he associated for a speech in hopes of attracting votes, or for Obama to ignore the basis of his pastor’s theology for 20 years, along with all of the statements he heard him say when he wasn’t in the pulpit (which Obama specifically distinguished in his denial: “I wasn’t in the seats when he made those sermons”)? That, of course, is assuming, with the benefit of the doubt given he hasn’t actually said he disagrees, that he did ignore it and not buy in to it.
[quote]orion wrote:
You really think the black voters will question a pastor who preaches that the US is ruled by rich white men and that the US government is capable of unspeakable acts?
No, they will unite behind Obama and make him president.
[/quote]
You need to reconsider your calculations. That’s about 11% of the electorate ( here’s the Census report for 2004: http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf ) - and about 90% vote Democratic each election cycle (here’s the totals for Bush and Gore in 2000: MSN ). It may thus be slightly more important how this affects the views of the other voters.
It’s odd watching an atheist Libertarian defend a pastor who preaches a racial and marxist theology.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It’s odd watching an atheist Libertarian defend a pastor who preaches a racial and marxist theology.[/quote]
I have not seen him do any of the two. Neither have you.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s odd watching an atheist Libertarian defend a pastor who preaches a racial and marxist theology.
I have not seen him do any of the two. Neither have you.
[/quote]
Have you been paying attention, at all?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s odd watching an atheist Libertarian defend a pastor who preaches a racial and marxist theology.
I have not seen him do any of the two. Neither have you.
Have you been paying attention, at all? [/quote]
Yes, I have. I just do not give much credit to hearsay.
This is a politically attempt to smear someone and all they can come up with is the 3 minutes that were aired on ABC and Fox?
Ridiculous.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s odd watching an atheist Libertarian defend a pastor who preaches a racial and marxist theology.
I have not seen him do any of the two. Neither have you.
Have you been paying attention, at all? [/quote]
I am not sure what world he lives in.
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s odd watching an atheist Libertarian defend a pastor who preaches a racial and marxist theology.
I have not seen him do any of the two. Neither have you.
Have you been paying attention, at all?
Yes, I have. I just do not give much credit to hearsay.
This is a politically attempt to smear someone and all they can come up with is the 3 minutes that were aired on ABC and Fox?
Ridiculous.
[/quote]
Do you know what hearsay is?
[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
It’s odd watching an atheist Libertarian defend a pastor who preaches a racial and marxist theology.
I have not seen him do any of the two. Neither have you.
Have you been paying attention, at all?
Yes, I have. I just do not give much credit to hearsay.
This is a politically attempt to smear someone and all they can come up with is the 3 minutes that were aired on ABC and Fox?
Ridiculous.
[/quote]
Wright preaches a James Hal Cone style of black liberation theology. Fundamentally marxist! If you know nothing about this brand of theology, than please read up on it. Ugh. You’re defending equality through redistributionism!
You’re defenidng a pastor who, as told in Obama’s own book, urges blacks to self segregate. To refuse to move into white communities. This is a pastor who turns the crucifixion of Christ into a racial/ethnic blame game. The same exact crap White racialists do to makeout Jews as the eternal enemy of Christians. This Pastor’s church gave the indefensible bigot Farrakhan a Lifetime Achievement award. Geeze!
You heard someone say something Anti-American, and so quick to want to get in on it, you’ve come to the defense of a bigoted, marxist, conspiracy theorist. It boggles the mind.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
…
You heard someone say something Anti-American, and so quick to want to get in on it, you’ve come to the defense of a bigoted, marxist, conspiracy theorist. It boggles the mind.[/quote]
Precisely.