Jeremiah Wright Is Not the GOP Pathway to Victory
Is Rev. Wright the GOP pathway to victory?
My response to that is: don’t get cocky, kid.
I still believe that whichever Democrat wins the nomination will win the Presidency. The war is just too unpopular and the economy is just too shaky.
A commenter asked: would I still rather have us run against Clinton than Obama? The answer is yes. I still think Hillary’s years of negatives add up to more discomfort than one Jeremiah Wright can cause.
We have seen Jeremiah “God damn America” Wright on our TV screens nonstop for days — but in the general election, Big Media will back him up. They will be like the Los Angeles Times and run dishonest stories to minimize the controversy in people’s memories. They will be like the New York Times and declare him absolved when he gives a speech that fails to show any understanding of why people are so upset by this.
And it will work. It doesn’t always work, but this time, with the war and the economy, it will.
Come on now .. Barack Obama has expanded our universe.
By his example, there is now the “Obama-Wright escape” clause for those embarrassing situations where you can now say .. “I can no more likely renounce him/her than Obama could renounce Rev. Wright.”
Wow. Doesn’t that make the world a better place ?
Or .. I would like to invoke my “Obama-Wright escape” clause rights.
Ranks right up there with the 5th amendment and has the Constitutional feel.
Example:
Mary Jo Kopechne could no more likely renounce Ted Kennedy than Obama could renounce Rev. Wright.
Yeah. That feels right, doesn’t it ?
Perhaps we should all automatically consider this repsonse the next time we consider demanding a repudiation of someone.
Neo (cba5df) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:48 amhttp://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-rutten19mar19,1,776450.column?track=rss
Tim Rutten is a complete idiot.
slp (1565be) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:00 amPatterico…
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:06 amTo quote Donald Sutherland’s character in “Kelly’s Heros”:
Would you stop with the negative waves, Moriarty!
You know, if Obama gets elected president, he’s got a tall order to fill. He should be able to instantly stop the drug crisis just by ordering the CIA to stop selling them, right? And if AIDS was invented in our labs to get black people, then he should be able to order a cure. At the very least, Obama should be able to at last produce all the evidence for the guilt of our government in drugs, AIDS, 9/11, UFOs at Roswell, and more. All that stuff would make great evidence at the New Nuremberg Trials of Bushitler and Cheney, right?
Of course, to find out all this he’s got to get elected. Too high a price to pay for the satisfaction of laying those stories to rest.
Don (12e832) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:17 amPlus, Barak has just discovered that standing in front of American flags looks cool and stuff so, you know, he’s got that going for him.
D-lo (550f98) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:22 amIt may not be the GOP’s path to victory, but it may well be Hillary’s path to the nomination.
steve sturm (40e5a6) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:23 amNeo, here’s the problem with your analogy: Mary Jo Kopechne has cost Ted Kennedy about as many elections as Jeremiah Wright will likely cost Barack Obama.
None of this is to say, as our host seems to be implying, that there is no GOP pathway to victory. I think there is one; I just don’t think Jeremiah Wright is it. I see three possible paths:
- Barack Obama wins the nomination decisively, and his hard-left record, while a popular “feature” in the primary, turns out to be the fatal “bug” that sinks his candidacy in the general.
- Hillary Clinton wins the nomination decisively (with or without help from Jeremiah the non-bullfrog), and her overall negatives and her flip-flopping on the war (which Americans don’t like, but would like even less to lose) and McCain’s relative independence on the economy help him secure the nomination.
- Either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton ekes out a narrow victory among democratically elected delegates, but loses the nomination anyway, courtesy of the democracy-proof royalty they call “superdelegates.” Now roughly half of all Democrats are just as P.O.’ed over a “stolen” election as they were in 2000, only this time they are right, and more importantly, their ire is directed at their own party rather than their traditional adversary. Good luck uniting that Democratic Party in November against a common “enemy” most of them never considered all that much of an enemy in the first place.
Xrlq (b71926) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:28 amWhich will mean a superdelegate coronation of someone with incredibly high negatives who is not the hopey, changey, unitey black man which will cause a lot of committed lefties to stay home or vote for Nader. She will be the imposed result of Democrat civil war. And she’ll be running against the guy with the highest favorability ratings of the last 8 years. So, if it gives the nomination to Hillary, it gives the White House to John McCain.
Pablo (99243e) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:33 amXrlq, Mary Jo Kopechne has cost Ted Kennedy one big election – the presidency. He’s never been able to run outside of his given area because of it.
luagha (6a98e6) — 3/19/2008 @ 8:37 amPA is the key now. If Obama bombs out in what was supposed to be a close race there, it means Hillary can sell the “he’s unelectable now” arg to the superdelegates. But if he wins PA, the superdels will have no reason to abandon him. So PA probably determines the Dem nominee.
As for Iraq – a non-issue, now. As things inprove there, it fades from the MSM’s view.
As for the economy – McCain can blame any probs on pork and overspending, the one econ area he looks strong. Whomever his opponent, he can just say “their pork (insert stats here) is exactly what’s wrong with the American economy today!”
ras (fc54bb) — 3/19/2008 @ 9:23 amThe war is just too unpopular and the economy is just too shaky
So sayeth the news creators. After listening to the news creators I admit I was a little shaky last Friday about what would happen on Monday but Tuesday came along and I noticed that the world didn’t fall apart.
At this point, I’m having a hard time accepting the premise that the war and the economy are as bad as I’m being led to believe.
IF I were to relate to my NYC real estate experience, in 1999 things were a lot worse then than they are now; the layoffs beginning in 1999 were happening left, right and everywhere in between yet I don’t recall hearing the news creators pound away the idea that the entire American economy was in a tailspin heading toward a ‘Hubert Hoover depression’.
As for the war specifically Iraq war, if we were losing, the news creators would not be pounding bad economic news.
syn (1017f1) — 3/19/2008 @ 9:38 amWhat luagha said.
A look at the RandyGraf race in AZ might be helpful here. Rather than get behind a Republican who supported our laws, the GOP withdrew most of their support and might as well have campaigned for the winner, GabrielleGiffords.
Likewise, it would be incredibly easy for the GOP to greatly reduce the popularity of either Hillary or Obama by striking at the issue where both are the weakest.
But, by doing so they’d cost their backers money, so don’t expect them to do that. However, that doesn’t prevent those who put country before party raising the issue by going to appearances by all the candidates and pressing the issue, then uploading their responses to Youtube and other sites.
TLB (4e2083) — 3/19/2008 @ 9:57 amHe may not be the path to victory, but he proves Obama’s beliefs. For reference, would you hang out with a preacher who said ‘n*ggers have destroyed America’? Could you hear that, and say nothing? If you did, could you honestly believe that you weren’t a racist?
Kevin (57a31b) — 3/19/2008 @ 10:24 amYou’re using the wrong metaphor, Patterico. It’s not a matter of pathways but a matter of deflating the balloon that is Obama.
nk (34c5da) — 3/19/2008 @ 10:44 amMaybe Obama SHOULD be President.
Dealing with Islam, or at least some violent portion of those holding to that religion, would seem to be the major threat or challenge.
Consider:
– The Islamic “line” is that their’s is “The Religion of Peace”, but the vast majority of terrorist violence seems to be done in the name of Islam, though others lightly “condemn” that violence when convenient.
– The Islamics in countries where they do not hold power demand their civil rights and freedom of religious expression, while in places they rule they essentially deny those same things to others. They demand the right to “honor kill” in Western countries while they refuse admittance of even a Bible into their lands.
– The Islamics apparently delight in publicly spouting insults, parading about gross images of others, and burning folk in effigy, but react with vast offense at any hint of reply in kind. They happily call Jews the product of “pigs and monkeys” yet attempt to kill any who would publish a drawing of Mohammed.
Meanwhile, Obama:
– can point to both White and Black parents/grandparents,
– can claim some Islamic origin through his father and his middle name,
– can claim to be a Christian through his upbringing,
– can claim to be Black Christian through the last 20-odd years with Wright, and has apparently convinced the Black Christians that he is of them because he sat there listening w/o complaint to Wright all those years, got married by him, etc
– has apparently convinced other Christians he is theirs because of his recent doublespeak speech, despite the videos of vile hate and absurd accusations he condoned and tithed in support for over two decades,
– has apparently convinced Liberals with his Senate votes, lefties with his non-flag posturing, etc. all the while playing Rezko and whatever games.
Maybe Obama really is the right one for the times.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 3/19/2008 @ 11:10 amIf Obama is the right one for the times, then we have reached “the best of times, the worst of times”.
Where is Scott Joplin when you need him?
Or, will this be a Confucian “Interesting Time(s)”?
We will have enough problems in the coming years dealing with IslamoFascism in all of its’ barbarity, we don’t need the added complecation of being led by an empty suit.
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/19/2008 @ 11:37 am“complication” Sorry!
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/19/2008 @ 11:38 amThe Wright is a racist so Obama must also be a racist tactic may or may not be effective if the big O get the nomination.
It WILL give persons who don’t want to vote for a black man an excuse not too. So he may lose a bunch of votes there.
It may convince people already on the fence becuase of the Rezco case that Obama may not be the best candidate for the job.
On the other hand it may not work, not only for the reasons listed above but because thinking people will see that
EdWood (a9a2eb) — 3/19/2008 @ 11:39 am1)Wright is just another ticked off racist ranter… more racist than anybody else.. well, who knows?
2)that all of his sermons are NOT rants about “Amerikkka” or “Whitey” and therefore he isn’t some kind of Farrakahn lite.
3) and that the attention given to Wright and the attempts to somehow turn his ranty sermons into some sort of measure of Obama’s “true” character or personality are being done not out of any concern, but for purely political reasons by people who wouldn’t vote for Obama anyway.
Jim, is dealing with radical Islam really more important than ensuring that the US continues to develop on the right path culturally, economically and technologically?
Now that I write that question it looks so lopsided as to be obviously rhetorical, but what I mean is that radical Islam is just one of a number of candidates vying to chip away at American power in order to carve out a power base for itself. The Soviet Union did the same thing much more successfully for years but ultimately failed not because the US particularly dealt with it any differently over time but simply because the US defended itself against the obvious (and, at times, perilous) threat without taking its eye off the primary purpose of the state (the development of its society and citizens).
So, for sure lets do what we can to keep radical Islam from causing any more damage than it has but if that’s Obama’s key selling point then his weaknesses as a socialist in favour of universal health care and a continuation of the fiscal irresponsibility that both parties have colluded to perpetrate then America could certainly do better.
Bernard (28865b) — 3/19/2008 @ 11:48 amMaybe I should have given my post a title, say, something like, “A Modest Proposal for President Obama.”
jim2 (a9ab88) — 3/19/2008 @ 11:54 amPatterico — you have completely lost it here.
This connection to Wright is a death blow. A very quick CBS News overnight poll (with a fairly small sample so it will have a higher margin of error) taken from Monday to Tuesday showed 36% of independents and 47% of Republicans have a less favorable view of Obama as a result of his connection to Wright. The poll showed that ZERO PERCENT had a more favorable view of him in the aftermath of the affair.
For a candidate who claims to be able to attract independents and Republicans so that he can carry states like Ohio, New Hampshire, and Missouri, those are HUGE numbers to row back from.
Will the episode fade somewhat over time? Maybe — but the Clintons are reading these numbers too. I think they’ve been silent for two days because they’re doing MASSIVE polling right now to figure out how best to exploit it. Until they have the angle nailed down, its best to leave Obama out there swimming in quicksand. When they have their approach established from their polling, they are going to POUND HIM for the weeks leading up to Pennsylvania and then to the convention.
Where else might they benefit? How about white rural voters in North Carolina and Indiana, two of the states to come that have a combined delegate total greater than Pennsylvania.
She can’t win the delegate math without the superdelegates, and the only path to the superdelegates is to tar Obama as a presumptive loser in the general election because that’s the prize in the eyes of the superdelegates. Last week the only way clear to achieve that if there was a gaffe in the Obama campaign.
And what do you know, along comes Brian Ross of ABC News with an armful of Rev. Wright DVDs.
Funny how that works, isn’t it.
Between now and August Obama is going to be caricatured by CLINTON as a race-huckster.
WLS (68fd1f) — 3/19/2008 @ 11:55 amRe: Post 21
If you’re right then McCain will lose to Clinton. And you probably are right. Which is why Republicans who voted for Clinton, at Rush’s urging, in Texas and Ohio with the idea of creating “chaos” in the Dem party blew it big time. Obama is the far weaker candidate and always has been.
Gerald A (b9214e) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:01 pmI don’t get it, Republicans. What’s so bad about saying “God Damn America?” Certainly, it would be nice if we as a nation were so infallible that it was inappropriate to take our country’s name in vain, but I don’t think we quite make that standard.
So yeah, what’s so bad about saying that? Anyone care to explain to a dumb liberal?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:04 pmLevi: are you sure you’re a liberal? Or, did you just misspell “America” by mistake?
Obama is the far weaker candidate, so if you’re just a partisan hack and you can vote in the Dem primaries, vote for him. However, given a choice between Hillary and Obama, She would do less damage to the U.S. and would also be more of a polarizing figure thus creating somewhat more divided government. So, if you want to think of what’s better for the country and you’re GOP, vote for Her.
TLB (4e2083) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:14 pmGod Damn Trolls.
ras (fc54bb) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:15 pmWho is Obama? His twenty year membership in a rascist anti-American church is more conclusive than his carefully scripted racially neutral speeches.
jason (52bfb2) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:16 pmBTW, guys, I think Jim2’s comment on Obama being the “right one for the times” was intended as an ironic comment on the state of the culture, not as an endorsement of Obama himself.
ras (fc54bb) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:17 pmYes, I’m a partisan hack and a troll.
Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, can we get back to my education? I’m genuinely curious as to why so many people *claim* to find ‘God Damn America’ so offensive.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:23 pmGod Damn slow-on-the-uptake trolls. Yeesh.
ras (fc54bb) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:27 pmLevi – If you have to ask, you are prolly French, or named Levi. Just sayin’
Leviticus – This clown is trying to sully your name.
JD (75f5c3) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:29 pmI’m genuinely curious as to why so many people *claim* to find ‘God Damn America’ so offensive.
Why don’t you ask Obama? He’s claiming to find Wright’s comments unacceptable. Shoot an email to his campaign with your brilliant question.
Gerald A (b9214e) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:29 pmLevi,
paul from fl (47918a) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:30 pmIf Mr. Wright was speaking on his own behalf in a private conversation, I don’t think anyone cares what his opinion of this country is.
But to accept the mantle of a relgious leader of a community, whose rights and protection come from one of the better political models on the planet, and then condemn, berate and malign that country, displays either massive ignorance or arrogance.
We choose our national leaders based on many factors. One of these is judgement. Ted Kennedys’ judgement was found to be lacking at Chappaquidick. He lost his shot.
Obama, sits, listens and supports a man who spews hate and vitriol in an arena where our society expects compassion, understanding and healing for 20 years shows a massive deficit in judgement.
so it is not about the ‘sanctity’ of Americas’ name being ‘taken in vain’ it is more about Wright’s lack of respect for what this country gave him and Obamas’ willingness to tolerate it.
“If a man don’t stand for something, he’ll fall for anything.”
I need -WE need- our President to stand for our Country. Not his race,his church-his country.
OK, new approach to this thread: ain;t it a bitch for Hillary: Obama’s on rubber legs and the way for her to knock him out and win over the superdelegates is to prove his unelectability post-Wright by trouncing him in PA…
… but …
her track record is that the harder she campaigns and the more people see of her, the worse she does…
… so …
she is totally dependent on Obama taking himself down; all she can do is sit helplessly and hope and watch. I think that really stresses rats in a lab when they do that to them.
ras (fc54bb) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:31 pmIs the comment system for conservatives only?
Are all liberals trolls?
Scared to talk to me?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:32 pmLevi @ 23
You need to consider it in the context of a religions consignment to “damnation” by the creator. Damnation is the opposite of salvation, and in the Christian venacular it means to be cast into the fires of hell for eternity.
That’s the context in which it was spoken by a Christian minister from the pulpit of his Church, and that’s the way Christians are going to interpret his words.
It was juxtaposed against the question “God bless America?”
But the America that God is being exhorted to condemn to “damnation” is “Rich Whitey”.
End of Lesson. Pay on your way out and don’t let the door hit you in the @ss, though I suspect that might be hard because you appear to be all @ss to me.
WLS (68fd1f) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:33 pmLevi,
Are all liberals trolls?
Not necessarily, but you are, as confirmed by your own self-characterization above, in your own words; even you know it.
Scared to go away now?
ras (fc54bb) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:35 pmDon’t you know that “Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”
With regard to his speech:
Out, out, brief candle!
Horatio (a549f7) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:37 pm[The campaign’s] but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by [a Chicago pol], full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
paul from fl
Thanks, first of all.
Secondly, if Wright is such a no-no, why are Pat Robertson and John Hagee still cluttering up my TV screen with all of their ‘gays caused 9-11’ and ‘we need to invade Iran to start armageddon’ B.S.? They might not have had 20-year relationships with any Republican candidates, but they’re basically foundational to the base of the Republican party, are they not? If you can dismiss Obama solely because of his taste in pastors, can’t I do the same for the entire Republican party based solely on theirs?
Double standard?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:41 pmras
Don’t like any anomalies in the echo chamber, eh? Harder for you to hear the hive-mind?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:43 pm“God Damn America”, however, is a piece of evidence that Obama is not a Muslim after all. The majority of Islam does not believe that anyone is damned before death and it is blasphemy to call damnation on any person. That is reserved to God for Judgment Day. 😉
nk (34c5da) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:45 pmnk –
Good call (#40).
Islamics shout, “Death to America” instead.
I think they are willing to trust the judgement of Allah as to what happens after that.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:50 pmIf you can dismiss Obama solely because of his taste in pastors, can’t I do the same for the entire Republican party based solely on theirs?
You sound to me like that would be reason #286 for you, Levi. Reason #1 being the GOP’s refusal to give you six figure income out of goverment funds and a free lifetime supply of KY Jelly.
nk (34c5da) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:53 pmPatterico wrote: My response to that is: don’t get cocky, kid.
It’s actually Great, kid. Don’t get cocky!
(No, I’m not a total SW geek. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:54 pmnk
Okay, good for you, we’ve established that I’m a liberal, and you have all your assumptions about liberals and that’s great.
But don’t you like talking to people that have different opinions than you? Here one of us stupid, America-hating liberals wanders into your presence, accusing you of being an over-reacting hypocrite, and all you’ve got is a stock joke?
Come on!
Levi (76ef55) — 3/19/2008 @ 12:59 pmLevi,
A troll is one who inflames for no reason other than to inflame. It’s a narcissism thing; see, it proves you exist and it’s easier than cutting yourself.
And you are a troll and you even self-describe yourself as such (see previous comments above) so there’s not much left to discuss, is there? Go play dead parrot with someone else.
ras (fc54bb) — 3/19/2008 @ 1:07 pmWell, Levi, if you’d bothered to read mine and WLS’s initial comments you would have seen that this is not an echo chamber. And your comments are not constructive — basically you’re noisemaking.
nk (34c5da) — 3/19/2008 @ 1:10 pmIf you can dismiss Obama solely because of his taste in pastors, can’t I do the same for the entire Republican party based solely on theirs?
The Republican party doesn’t choose a pastor. Robertson is a part of the GOP by his choice. That’s one place your analogy is false. Obama deliberately chose Wright. False analogy is a specialty of the liberal troll along with the straw man, ad hominen and various kinds of red herrings. I don’t know whether Hagee even is a Republican, but if he is the same would apply to him.
Gerald A (b9214e) — 3/19/2008 @ 1:11 pmWe keep on hearing how awful the economy is, and that’s an infectious disease. The dollar is slipping horribly (as it tends to in drawn out wars), but is the economy worse now that it was in 2001?
And how bad is the economy? Aren’t we doing a good job keeping the ups and downs minimized? Is a bad economy worse than… say a hurricane? I think it’s not as big a deal, though inflation (government spending) is a huge problem, and social security is a huge problem.
I accept that Patterico is right and the economy disfavors the party in power (as it did for Bill Clinton)… but why? Why vote for Hillary or Obama to fix the economy? Obama claims environmentalism will create jobs, which is patently opposite to reality. They both talk about isolationism… Is that it?
Jem (8b827b) — 3/19/2008 @ 2:24 pmIs Hagee a Republican?
Until this winter, I had never even heard of him. Just how big is his following?
Another Drew (f9dd2c) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:08 pmAnd, is it any bigger than the group of love-bots that drool over every jewel from the mouth of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-KKK)?
What a weird thread. Some fake Levi drops by to call the site an echo-chamber when I, the real Levi, have said – nay, decreed – otherwise on numerous occasions.
Fake Levi: if you can’t understand why a lot of people – families who’ve lost loved ones to war, for very obvious instance – find “God DAMN America” to be an offensive sentiment, then you don’t get out enough. Personally, I feel a stronger, more tangible loyalty to my state than my country, but I think that’s got a lot to do with my age and the limited scope of my experience; “America”, as a concept, is still too abstract for me to fully grasp/appreciate.
That said, I think it’s rather disingenuous for you to drop in and demand a satisfactory explanation of National Affinity – a subject as illusive as it is grand in scale – and then act wronged when people get pissed off at you.
Leviticus (c87745) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:39 pmYou sound to me like that would be reason #286 for you, Levi. Reason #1 being the GOP’s refusal to give you six figure income out of goverment funds and a free lifetime supply of KY Jelly
You may be correct in your estimate of Levi’s reasons for supporting the party he supports; I don’t know.
What I do know is that there are *many* of us who don’t agree with the Democrats on economic policy but who vehemently disagree with social conservatives on social policy.
Objecting to the latter does not per se constitute objection to the former, nor is it reasonable to presume that it’s a mask for the former.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/19/2008 @ 3:48 pmLevi writes: “…why are Pat Robertson and John Hagee still cluttering up my TV screen with all of their ‘gays caused 9-11′ and ‘we need to invade Iran to start armageddon’ B.S.?”
Uh, because they aren’t.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/19/2008 @ 4:12 pmLevi the Troll wrote: [Pat Robertson and John Hagee] might not have had 20-year relationships with any Republican candidates, but they’re basically foundational to the base of the Republican party, are they not?
One need not embrace either Robertson nor Hagee (whom I had NEVER heard of until people like you unearthed him) in order to register Republican. Neither does every Dem sign on to Wright’s fanaticism. But Obama, as civilian, State Senator, and U.S. Senator has done so of his own volition. Not just recently, but for the past two decades. And he wants to be President.
I don’t believe you’re stupid enough to buy your own argument. And if you do, that’s a shame, but not a surprise.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 3/19/2008 @ 4:35 pmOf course, I don’t see any difference between pointless stories about the meaningless comments of religious icons, but apparently there’s all kinds of little nuance and subtlety that dictate that it’s okay for one side (or race) to have a couple of crackpot blowhards, and not okay for the other. Like if Republican Presidents and Presidential candidates trot out the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson at political rallies, it’s okay, but if an up-and-coming Democrat against whom you have little to no defense sits in the audience of Rev. Wright, it’s not. That’s called a double standard, folks.
You people know Obama is half-white, don’t you? And additionally, nothing I’ve ever heard the guy say even remotely suggests he agrees with any of the ‘offensive’ stuff that all of you are pretending to be so upset about. I don’t think you’re going to have to worry about him appointing Black Panthers to the Supreme Court, okay?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:12 pmMan, you sure can tell when a story hits home by the troll-o-meter’s denial gauge, can’t you? Methinks he doth … etc etc.
ras (fc54bb) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:15 pmI don’t think you’re going to have to worry about him appointing Black Panthers to the Supreme Court, okay?
Now why should we worry about that? Why not just make sure the corrupt, hypocritical child of privilege, demanding entitlement, remains Mayor Daley’s favorite pet waiting for a seat on the Chicago City Council?
nk (34c5da) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:18 pm‘troll-o-meter’s denial gauge’
Calling people trolls is what 12-year olds do. You don’t own the internet, I wandered in here, read this article, and wanted to leave a comment. That’s what ‘Comments’ sections are for.
And nk, is that George Bush you’re describing?
How’d that whole George Bush thing go for you people, anyways?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:39 pmJust keep on keeping on, Levi. 😉 We’re all just passing time here anyway. You are civil and non-profane, so welcome. Forgive me if, from time to time, I mock you or ignore you.
nk (34c5da) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:42 pmYeah, I know how this works. Bush-era conservatives typically respond to criticism of their ideology by either mocking the criticizer or ignoring them. No need to explain, I’ve read up on you people, I know what I’m getting into.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:54 pmLevi,
paul from fl (47918a) — 3/19/2008 @ 6:58 pmIt’s not just sitting in Wrights’ presence for 20 years. It is his total lack of political “Chops”. He didn’t vet himself well before he started this run at the nomination. He has made some rookie fumbles too.
Getting photographed not saluting while others around him were.
Wright.
Rezko.
Si se Puede.
each of these little things have an anti- american stink to them. Add them all up and you start to reek.
If you’re running for president you better smell like Hot Dogs, Baseball and apple pie.
How many more screw-ups before you realize his inexperience …
…is coming home to roost.
Why are you guys picking on Levi?
I strongly disagree with his views — and I find it bizarre that anyone would have to ask why we would take offense at someone saying “God damn America” . . . but like nk says, he’s not profane and he’s not insulting you. So why insult him?
Patterico (6874db) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:01 pmLevi,
This phenomenon is not unique to conservatives. It’s the nature of the Internet. You come into a space where most people disagree with you, you’re bound to be insulted. I don’t like it, and the best I can do is ask people not to do it.
Patterico (27c981) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:08 pmLevi #38,
Yep, some of us haven’t forgotten about those guys. And the fact that “real conservatives” have bigoted, batsh*t crazy religious nuts in their own playpen sort of tempers the racist nut on the “lib” side doesn’t it (Yah yah the religous right CHOSE the Repub. party not the other way around but the Bush admin. CHOSE to make a lot of promises to the religious right to win the presiency so those nutters belong to the GOP and to “conservatives” just as Obama is saddled with Wright).
So maybe Patterico is right after all….if the Obama campaign can figure out a way to flip Wright into a mirror of the Pat Robertsons out there,(but maybe they won’t know how, see Paul from FL’s comment above) and it will come down to the war and the economy…. maybe.
EdWood (c3ef9c) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:25 pmBush-era conservatives typically respond to criticism of their ideology by either mocking the criticizer or ignoring them.
No Levi.
Mocking and ignorane happen when someone come up with an uninformed argument that’s pathetic and can easiy be refuted…an argument so bad that we think even the commenter doesn’t believe it. Or an argument so obtuse that we believe no one can be that stupid.
It’s untrue to say that we “typically respond to criticism of their ideology by either mocking the criticizer or ignoring them” because too many on the left have forgotten–or never knew–how to have an honest discussion of the issues. Some get mocked for weasely link interpetations and flat-out lying. Others simply seem to forget to bring their ‘A’ game and post up lame comments.
Generally, if a lefty posts a well thought-out honest comment from their viewpoint, honest discussion can take place…and does. Check out aphrael’s comments; I’ve never mocked him, and I don’t remember anyone else doing so, either.
Paul (249390) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:37 pmArrrggghhh.
*ignorance*
Paul (249390) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:39 pmpaul from fl #59:
each of these little things have an anti- american stink to them.
I would add in some of the anti-American comments that Michelle Obama made to your list.
Paul (249390) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:41 pmYep, some of us haven’t forgotten about those guys. And the fact that “real conservatives” have bigoted, batsh*t crazy religious nuts in their own playpen sort of tempers the racist nut on the “lib” side doesn’t it
There’s a difference, Ed.
The right denounces their nuts.
The left doesn’t.
Paul (249390) — 3/19/2008 @ 7:45 pmNo Paul, all smart politicos denounce their nuts, and then they play to those nuts’ base by creating the department of Faith Based Initiatives (not saying that all Christians are nuts of course).
That seems to be part of the sub-text here. That if Obama does manage to win the Presidency that he will do all sorts of out of the spotlight things that will have a specific racial slant to them because he is some sort of manchurian candidate for the black power movement… or at least agrees with it secretly even tho there appears to be no solid evidence (yet) that he espouses their views.
Swiftboat veterans for racial justice probably have an essay he wrote in his freshman year of college defending Huey Newton or something but they are saving it for the general election if he makes it there.
EdWood (c3ef9c) — 3/19/2008 @ 8:00 pmHate motivates.
Victimization is easier than overcoming, so it sells – and enslaves.
Ask the (rich, powerful) Muslim masters (thieves, extortionists, thugs) and listen to those they’ve enslaved in blinding, dehumanizing hate for centuries).
If black separatism is based on blame the other guy and victimhood, the “flock” is being conned into slavery, fed on hate, will never overcome.
It is the opposite of the Judeo-Christian values.
Rev. Wright is not preaching Christ’s message.
Christ took on the sins of the world, faced all temptations and showed the world how to follow him, become stronger and more like him throughout life by doing so until worthy of a seat next to His father in Heaven.
lost (3028bd) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:37 amIf Obama gets elected, I will have to leave the country and may be relocate to Italy.
Randy (239fa7) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:49 amI did insult Levi @35, and after rereading the entire thread this morning I regret having done so. He’s not here as a troll, but simply a contrarian with a point of view. That’s to be encouraged IMO.
So, if you’re still here and still reading, please accept my apology.
wls (e9f058) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:59 amIf Obama gets elected I will unsay the things I say about the lottery being a game for fools.
steve miller (3a9833) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:02 amI don’t know that speculation that “God Damn America” doesn’t mean anything is contrarian. It’s more like someone who just wants to argue about pointless or irrelevant details.
Fact: Wright called for God to damn America
Fact: Wright is calling for HIS God to come down upon the America he lives in and destroy it
Fact: Barry Obama didn’t condemn this when he heard it
Fact: Barry Obama sat under this man, Wright, for 22 years, with no apparent discomfort
Speculation: Saying “God Damn America” from the pulpit during a sermon to a congregation in the thousands is like saying “excuse me” when you bump someone on the bus or “shoot” when you miss an exit on the freeway.
steve miller (3a9833) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:06 amWasn’t George Bush a worthless drunk when he was Obama’s age?
Didn’t he get arrested for drunken driving?
Where were you people in 2000? Getting drunk and driving around seems to speak more to George Bush’s terrible judgment than does Obama, well, all he’s really done is listen to somebody, then publicly disagree with him.
Whatever you have to say about Obama, he hasn’t been a drug addict for his entire adult life, like your beloved President had been at his age.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:04 amHey, I didn’t know G. Bush is running again! Cool way to try to change the subject!
Let’s focus like a laser here – it’s BARRY who wants to transcend politics, and BARRY whose lapses in judgments we’re discussing. You want to discuss G. Bush, feel free to invent a time machine to 1999 so you can talk about it there.
steve miller (3a9833) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:06 amIt’s not changing the subject. You see, this story for liberals is about a hysterical and disingenuous conservative movement that is feigning outrage at something that is totally insignificant because dragging down Presidential politics to the grocery store tabloids level is the only thing that nets you any electoral success.
I’m just wondering why for Obama, judgment is all of a sudden such a big issue, when, as evidenced by Bush’s rampant alcoholism until his forties, the judgment of conservative Presidential candidates isn’t something that any of you care too much about. Poor judgment isn’t something that Obama’s exhibited in the past; you simply don’t get this far this quickly in politics if you have poor judgment, do you? I mean he’s obviously been making lots of smart choices over the past few years, wouldn’t you agree?
What’s more, if you’re a liberal, he’s right on all the issues. His judgment on Iraq was certainly correct, and everything he says about health care and the economy sounds good to me, too. None of his positions on any of these issues seem in any way informed by Reverend Wright, I might add.
Now just because you think that he suffers from poor judgment because he doesn’t meet some absurd and impossible standard set up by his bitter, hypocritical political opponents 20 years after the fact doesn’t make all the many examples of his good judgment disappear, does it?
We can stop talking about George Bush when he stops driving the country into the ground. He’s still the President, he’s still destroying our government, he’s still fair game.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/20/2008 @ 10:35 amLevi, Bush moved past all your complaints, long before he was President. Doesn’t your side believe in redemption?
Barack was still participating in the bias and hatred of his pastor until about a week ago….
So, when Barack changes his beliefs, and his actions, and spends many years redeeming himself, then he can come back and run for President, right???
reff (bff229) — 3/20/2008 @ 10:44 amyou simply don’t get this far this quickly in politics if you have poor judgment, do you? I mean he’s obviously been making lots of smart choices over the past few years, wouldn’t you agree?
It depends on what the meaning of “smart is. He is where he is because Emil Jones decided “I’m going to make myself a U.S. Senator” (literal quote) and the Daleys decided to make themselves a U.S. President. For a talentless, affirmative action, allowing himself to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Cook County Democratic Central Committee was probably a “smart” choice.
nk (34c5da) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:05 amLevi writes: “We can stop talking about George Bush when he stops driving the country into the ground. ”
This is just typical nonsense, George W. Bush has not done anything to “drive” the country in the ground. Silly fatuous rhetoric.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:09 amHowever, it does get the light off Obama’s failure in leadership and onto the leftists’ focus on the past.
Bush will be out of office in 9 months. He’s not running again. Obama has been running for the presidency for quite a few years. Let’s focus on the future and not the past.
Obama’s the one that sat contented in church while Wright ranted about AmeriKKKa. Did he walk out? Did he stop attending? Did he at least keep his children out? No, that was all fine and dandy.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:11 amLevi the Troll wrote: I’m just wondering why for Obama, judgment is all of a sudden such a big issue, when, as evidenced by Bush’s rampant alcoholism until his forties, the judgment of conservative Presidential candidates isn’t something that any of you care too much about.
Taking your sincerity at (ahem) face value, here’s my response:
The race for the White House is always one-on-one; It is always a case of which of two persons is going to be best for the job, even if — as is the case this time around — the choices we have are BOTH bad. In 2000 and 2004, it wasn’t about whether Bush had displayed good judgment as much as whether or not his was worse than Al “No Controlling Legal Authority” Gore or John “Reminiscent of Jenn-jiss Khan” Kerry.
Judgment is best demonstrated by a track record. Whatever G.W. Bush did in his youth, he did a good enough job as Governor of Texas that he was re-elected, a rarity for a Republican. As it turned out, what were dings on his record then and during his 2000 campaign made themselves manifest throughout his administration; the cronyism and misplaced loyalty, the squishiness on border enforcement and complete capitulation to Mexico on immigration, the inability or lack of desire to forcefully blunt specious criticism even when the facts clearly were on his side (e.g., the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson circus), and, of course, his woeful speaking ability.
Poor judgment isn’t something that Obama’s exhibited in the past; you simply don’t get this far this quickly in politics if you have poor judgment, do you? I mean he’s obviously been making lots of smart choices over the past few years, wouldn’t you agree?
You seem to have forgotten how Obama got to where he is “this quickly.” Here’s a quick recap: Obama faced GOP State Senator Jack Ryan in 2004 for an open U.S. Senate seat abdicated by a Republican. Ryan would have, at the very least, would have given Obama a fierce fight for the seat, had not it been the priority of Chicago media giants to try to destroy him, suing to unseal his divorce papers. Ryan, embarrassed by the court file’s revelation of allegations of exhibitionistic behavior from actress Jeri Ryan (despite her support for his candidacy and disgust the info was unsealed), pulled out of the race. No other Illinois Republicans wanted to jump in the race late, and the party was reduced to trying to draft former Chicago Bears coach Mike Ditka. In the end, Maryland resident and bombastic quadrennial campaign loser Alan Keyes moved to Illinois and took up the challenge, knowing full well he would get the thrashing he did.
For better or for worse, John McCain has a military record, a record of prescience on what would and would not work in Iraq, and a record of leadership in creating bipartisan legislation (which is one of the reasons I don’t dig him). The thinness of her own resume aside, Hillary Clinton has factually sited Obama’s strategy of silence on the thorniest of issues, choosing to vote “present” rather than take a side. Now, when it comes to Obama’s track record, I ask respectfully to you, sir: Where is it? Do you have a better answer than did Texas State Senator Kirk Watson, whose tongue was tied in knots on Hardball last month?
Obama’s good judgment was choosing to be a cipher promising “hope,” “unity,” and “change” with sketchy specifics this deep into a Presidential campaign, something I have never seen before and never would have thought possible. He even had the chutzpah to adopt a new slogan – “Judgment to lead” — based solely on his vote against the Iraq War vs. Clinton’s vote for it. That’s all he’s got, but he’s just so darn appealing that you want to believe in him (by “you,” I mean YOU, not moi).
Until very recently, B.O. was still riding the wave of his Democratic National Committee speech and his appearances on Oprah. Then it became evident that there may be more to Tony Robbins-with-a-tan than “hope,” “unity,” and “change”; there may be some residual racial bias and anti-patriotism beneath the mask that he is reluctant to explain. Now that he’s been boxed into a corner by one of his longtime pals, people are waking up to realize he’s not Your New Messiah and is Just Another Politician. And it’s about time.
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:40 pmThe courage of Barry Obama is voting “present” on controversial issues.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:48 pmSmithee
You realize how illustrative this is of how pathetic your argument is? ‘There may be.’ That’s called rampant speculation. There’s no proof that there is so much as a hint of residual racial bias or anti-patriotism, anywhere in Obama’s campaign. But proof and evidence aren’t what you people are about, with Republicans it’s all about the suggestion. You’ll keep adding to your little bag of suggestions, you know, like “Obama might be a Muslim” or “Obama might hate black people” or “Obama might be Saddam Hussein,” and that’s what gets people to vote for Republicans. You don’t have any reason to believe Obama is a racist or against patriotism other than your own desire for it to be true, because that’s the fuel that runs your party’s electoral victories. And Diebold.
The rest of your post isn’t worth addressing. If you’re so convinced that Al Gore and John Kerry were both worse choices than George Bush, we’re just not going to get anywhere. It really has to do with my inability to even imagine a worse state that our country could be in. I simply can’t. Pointless, absurdly expensive war, government-approved torture and warrantless wire-tapping, and a rapidly flagging economy… I mean what’s worse than that? SOCIALIZED MEDICINE?!?!
So too is your conservatively white-washed history of the rise of Obama unworthy of addressing, we just don’t agree from the premise. To you, Obama might just be a guy with some slogans, that’s what you need him to be. Objectively, he’s much more than that, and you’re just being facetious, you don’t set turnout and fund-raising records by being just another politician. To liberals, Obama’s probably the last opportunity we’re going to have to elect somebody that is sincerely, legitimately different than the usual slate of candidates. One of those ‘Washington outsiders’ that George Bush could only pretend to be. And I’ve liked everything I’ve heard him say. Of course you don’t think he has any substance, you’re primed to hate him and his ideas from the get-go. Like I said, anybody that’s stuck with Bush this long, I don’t expect you to understand a candidacy like Barack’s, I expect you to fear it and pretend like it’s insignificant. Because that’s what your party needs.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/20/2008 @ 1:33 pmPeople had it right last night. Levi is a troll, but also a brain dead liberal. David Mamet, prior to his awakening, would have loved Obama too. Those generalities you express about your candidate are heartwarming Levi. How different is he from Hillary?
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/20/2008 @ 2:28 pmThere’s nothing special about Hillary. She’s a mediocre, run-of-the-mill politician that’s only gotten anywhere because of who she’s married to. She uses all the phrases and little anecdotes that I consider the hallmark of insincere politicians that like to talk a lot but not say anything. She’s more of the same, she’s part of the problem. Her politics are okay aside from a few things like voting for the war, but she’s just too uncharismatic and too established, she’s already bought and paid for by lobbyists and interest groups. We need a new direction, and Obama’s more likely to give us that than she is.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/20/2008 @ 2:52 pmPure comedy gold.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 2:54 pmLevi @ 77 — it took Obama 22 years and until his political fortune was in jeopardy to find the courage to publicly denounce the comments.
That’s a lack of political courage and a lack of leadership on his part.
George Bush’s youthful transgressions are of little consequence when he’s 52 years old and running for President.
Barack Obama’s transgressions of last week, last month, and last year, are much more significant.
WLS (68fd1f) — 3/20/2008 @ 3:10 pmLevi, when you write: “To liberals, Obama’s probably the last opportunity we’re going to have to elect somebody that is sincerely, legitimately different than the usual slate of candidates” – I have to seriously wonder at the amount of self-delusion that something like that shows.
It is really astonishing that you think that Obama is anything but what he really is: someone who has come out of the Chicago/Daley Democrat machine.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/20/2008 @ 3:29 pmI don’t mean to disparage Levi, but I have to think he’s a conservative masquerading as a liberal. No one actually thinks like that, do they? I mean, no one with an adult mind, at least.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:10 pmWLS,
Obama’s ‘transgressions’ are… what again? Listening to a guy? Remember, he never really did anything, he didn’t even say anything. It’s his inaction, I was under the impression, that has you all pretending to be so outraged.
And honestly, ‘youthful transgressions?’ Into his forties? You’re not sugar-coating and minimizing that, just a bit, are you? All this concern over Obama’s children ‘hearing hate speech,’ what about the concern for the children that George Bush could have drunkenly driven over?
So you’re telling me, that if Obama hadn’t been in church these past 20 years, and instead was getting drunk and driving around, you’d chalk it all up to ‘youthful transgressions,’ and we could move on completely?
Also, I don’t need Obama to show me leadership in church, or anything else for that matter that doesn’t have anything to do with public policy. It’s church, who cares?
Levi (76ef55) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:23 pmHere’s the 4-1-1.
Barry sits for 22 years under a guy and sees nothing wrong. This guy spouts lunacy about the CIA inventing AIDS. Lunacy about WWII and nuclear weapons. Anti-semitic drivel about Israel not even being a “state.” He doesn’t protest this lunacy, yet calls for Imus to be fired for an on-air remark.
This guy Barry then says, “Trust my judgment on Iraq,” but then says “Ignore my judgment on race-baiting.”
Can’t have it both ways. If he is right on protesting Iraq, then he’s right on remaining silent AND assenting in silence to racism and lunacy.
Most people in America (not “AmeriKKKa”) choose the church they go to because it fits their way of thinking. It stands to reason that Barry was comfortable – for 22 years – with this man’s sermonizing about the white devil.
You want that appalling lack of judgment to be in the Oval Office when the next world crisis crops up?
At any time in the past 22 years, Barry could have examined his premises and asked himself, “Do I believe what this guy in the pulpit is saying about the white devil?” And Barry could have simply stopped attending that church. At any time. Over 22 years.
John McCain shakes Hagee’s hand once, and the entire world crashes down.
Barry goes to a racist church for 22 years, and we’re supposed to say, “Oh, it’s just an old doddering man.”
Talk about soft bigotry of low expectations.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:32 pmYou realize how illustrative this is of how pathetic your argument is? ‘There may be.’ That’s called rampant speculation.
Uh huh. This from a guy who called Bush “a drug addict.” You have no proof of THAT. Doctor, heal thyself.
There’s no proof that there is so much as a hint of residual racial bias or anti-patriotism, anywhere in Obama’s campaign…You don’t have any reason to believe Obama is a racist or against patriotism…
Oh, noooooo. Not a hint.
Only that he himself “confesses” (one of his new favorite words) that it was the Rev. Jeremiah “God D–N America, it’s in the Bible” Wright that brought him to Christ. That’s the same Rev. Wright that says Jesus was a poor black man persecuted by rich white Italians. That’s the same Rev. Wright that mixes the truth about the Tuskegee Experiment with inner-city urban legends about the HIV virus being created by the U.S. government for the purpose of killing people of color. That’s the same Rev. Wright who gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, who supports Obama for racial reasons and who is nothing resembling a patriot. That’s the same Rev. Wright who referred to the United States of America as the “U.S. of K.K.K.A.”, not in 1928, not in 1958, but in 2008. This coming out of the man who supposedly is the moral compass of The One Who Can Heal and Unite This Nation.
Oh, but Barack didn’t absorb any of that, he only retained the lovey, faithy, neighborly, Jesus-y parts of Wright’s sermons. He even once said in an interview something in the realm of “I don’t think my church is controversial” before finally admitting on Monday he was in the pews when Wright said things that could be considered controversial.
And to top it off, we have the spectacle of Michelle Obama telling TWO Wisconsin campaign rally attendees within hours that “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country…” As I said in a Patterico thread on that subject, “See, this is what happens when people like the Obamas accidently say something instead of nothing.”
But yeah, you’re right, Leev. No hint at all.
You’ll keep adding to your little bag of suggestions, you know, like “Obama might be a Muslim” or “Obama might hate black people” or “Obama might be Saddam Hussein,” and that’s what gets people to vote for Republicans.
Where was this attitude among liberals when George Allen called an opposition research guy “Macaca?” Democrats scoured lexicons around the world trying to find the worst possible implication for what Allen said. In the end, those unproven “suggestions” sunk Allen’s chances of becoming President.
The rest of your post isn’t worth addressing.
Especially the part when I challenge you to display Obama’s track record. Couldn’t find anything either, huh?
If you’re so convinced that Al Gore and John Kerry were both worse choices than George Bush, we’re just not going to get anywhere. It really has to do with my inability to even imagine a worse state that our country could be in. I simply can’t. Pointless, absurdly expensive war, government-approved torture and warrantless wire-tapping, and a rapidly flagging economy… I mean what’s worse than that? SOCIALIZED MEDICINE?!?!
Putting aside for a moment the way that socialized medicine would devastate the economy, which, remember, is built largely on the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries, you are obviously too young to remember Jimmy Carter — that, or you’re in denial of his real legacy. Double-digit inflation. Double-digit interest rates. Double-digit unemployment. Americans held hostage for 444 days in Iran. And a foreign policy that ushered in the era of state-sponsored terrorism. Ronald Reagan, the supposed warmonger, mopped up Carter’s mess and won the Cold War without firing a shot, fighting liberals every inch of the way.
What’s worse than Bush? IMHO, what could happen if another closet pacifist is elected.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:36 pmSPQR
You’re not in much of a position to ‘break Obama down’ for me. I’ve been watching, I can make my own calls, thanks. He is different, in my estimation, than other politicians. The language he uses, the positions he takes, others do not, other’s can’t. What’s more, his is a record-setting grassroots campaign, and regardless of our political affiliations we should be able to agree that he is very unique in that regard, at the very least.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:43 pmLevi wrote: Also, I don’t need Obama to show me leadership in church, or anything else for that matter that doesn’t have anything to do with public policy. It’s church, who cares?
“It’s church, who cares?”
I don’t think I need to add anything to this.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:44 pmOr in other words, “It’s not what Barry says or does, it’s what I think about him.”
You could not find a more simon-pure example of solipsism if you tried.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:48 pmLevi wrote: He is different, in my estimation, than other politicians. The language he uses, the positions he takes, others do not, other’s can’t.
See if you can do this: Explain “the language he uses, the positions he takes” that others don’t and can’t. This should be good for a laugh.
What’s more, his is a record-setting grassroots campaign, and regardless of our political affiliations we should be able to agree that he is very unique in that regard, at the very least.
Oh, I agree with that. I firmly believe that at times he is standing on stage scanning the adoring crowds, and thinking, “I can’t believe they’re falling for this…!”
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:48 pmLevi, your comments are literally self-parodying and you don’t even realize it.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:49 pmWhat, exactly, has Barry done except vote “present” on difficult topics?
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:54 pmFrankly, no one with less accomplishment than Obama has run for President since Pat Paulson.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:57 pmAlcohol is a drug, a drug that Bush was addicted to, by his own admission. So yeah, you know what the word ‘proof’ means?
Nope, and after that big long post, still not a hint. You might notice you still can’t reference anything that Barack has said or done that could reasonably construed as being even a little bit racist. It’s all what Wright says, or what his wife says. And I think with regard to the ‘racist’ label, we should give Obama the benefit of the doubt until, you know, he actually says or does something that is obviously racist. Obama hasn’t. Again, not even a hint, from him, the man himself, the only one he’s absolutely responsible for.
Look, judging whether or not someone is a racist is easy. I’ve known black racists and white racists, as I’m sure all of you have, and you can see them coming a mile away. Obama just doesn’t fit the mold. Again, there’s no amount of misinterpretation you could do to any of his statements or actions that even remotely suggest he thinks the way Wright does. And I’d like to reiterate, he is half white. So he hates 50% of his heritage, okay yeah that makes perfect sense!
Still hintless.
Especially the part when I challenge you to display Obama’s track record. Couldn’t find anything either, huh?
I love his track record. He did honest, selfless work in Chicago until he became a legislator, where he voted exactly the way I’d want him to vote. Carried on in the U.S. Senate, he even authored more bills than Hillary did, and got more of his passed.
I know where this goes usually, that Obama’s inexperienced and he can’t point to some massive accomplishment, but that’s not exactly how the legislative process works. Nobody can get very much accomplished after two years of being a Senator, it’s the nature of our government. The bottom line is that there is enough of a record there for Obama to demonstrate where he wants to take the country, and I’m all for it.
And Al Gore and John Kerry were closet pacifists? Meh, you have your opinion, I have mine. More people around the world and around the country agree with mine, of course, which is reassuring, if you’re curious what that feels like. But hey, you can always hope for that Truman-style redemption Bush seems so pre-occupied with!
Levi (76ef55) — 3/20/2008 @ 5:21 pmObama’s Senate record pales in comparison to the order of magnitude greater accomplishment that Dan Quayle could show.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/20/2008 @ 5:25 pmI’m not sure how to follow this argument:
“Look at what Barry is doing!”
“Nevermind that, look at what Bush did!”
“But Bush isn’t running for President.”
“But he’s a convenient distraction!”
How does what Bush did in 1994 or whatever have anything to do with what Barry has done continuously (by his own admission) since 1986?
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 5:35 pmIts the changiness, Steve, the changiness.
Can’t you feel it?
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/20/2008 @ 5:39 pmApparently the Clinton campaign thinks Obama’s minister will help her with the superdelegates.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/20/2008 @ 5:39 pmAlcohol is a drug, a drug that Bush was addicted to, by his own admission.
Levi – I know Bush said he drank too much when he was younger, but I don’t recall him saying he was addicted to alcohol. Do you have a link to support your statement or does anyone else?
“He is different, in my estimation, than other politicians.”
Levi, first, the quality of your estimations are making most of the people here laugh. You denigrate critics of Obama for speculation, but the criticisms you offer of conservatives baseless, fuzzy headed fantasies at best. That seems to be the way you roll.
I agree that Obama is different because as others have pointed out he has no experience or track record. That seems to be a plus in your book because he is not a Washington insider. Go figure.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:34 pmdaley,
If you wikipedia ‘bush alcohol’ it will take you to the George W. Bush Substance Abuse Controversy entry, where Bush is quoted as saying he doesn’t think he was an alcoholic, but couldn’t remember a day that he hadn’t had a drink since high school. So basically, he admitted having alcohol every day of his life for more than 20 years. That makes him an alcoholic, and a drug addict.
If you continue, it also documents his drunk driving and how he facilitated underage drinking.
I know. I don’t expect anything else of you, really.
I’m just calling it how I see it, and how I see it, you people owe all of your electoral success to wedge issues like gay marriage and baseless suggestions like John Kerry shot himself to get his Purple Hearts. That was Bush’s strategy, we’re in the age of Karl Rove politics, that’s what’s given you your electoral success.
With the assist from Diebold, of course.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/20/2008 @ 10:44 pm