Wright’s Stance on Israel Could Cost Obama Jewish Votes
One aspect of Jeremiah Wright’s comments that hasn’t gotten enough scrutiny, in my opinion, is his anti-Israel stance. I’d heard this bit from one of his sermons:
But I think that, in the repeated showings of “God damn America” and “the chickens have come home to roost,” we’ve underemphasized the full extent of Wright’s anti-Israel sentiment — something that could have a serious effect on Jewish Democrats, if they saw Obama’s denunciations of these statements as inadequate.
Wright is, after all, a fellow who wrote in July 2005:
The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for almost 40 years now. It took a divestment campaign to wake the business community up concerning the South Africa issue. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community up and to wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.
The Divestment issue will hit the floor during this month’s General Synod. Divesting dollars from businesses and banks that do business with Israel is the new strategy being proposed to wake the world up concerning the racism of Zionism. That Divestment issue won’t make the press either, however.
Recently, while I was analyzing some of the content of the Trinity Church’s bulletins, one thing jumped out at me, from a July 8, 2007 bulletin:
Another bulletin turned over a couple of pages to someone from Hamas (reprinted, of course, from the L.A. Times)!
Poking around the web to see if anyone else had been written about this, I ran across this excellent post by Tom Blumer, which notes these items and more. I suggest you read it all.
Did Wright discuss these issues consistently enough that he believed it might be a problem for Obama? Yes. Wright seemed to think so when asked about it in a February 2007 interview (though, to be fair, he said he had not talked to Obama about it):
I just shared with, I was trying to remember who it is, somebody in public life was asking me about Barack, and I said listen, Barack might be forced by the media and/or by supporters to be very absent from this church and to put distance between our church and himself. As a politician, he might be forced into that. I have not talked to him about that at all. It’s just that my read just of the blogs and what the right-Christian-wing leaders have said about him being a part of our church over past three months says this is — you think it’s ugly now, it’s going to get worse, it’s going to get much worse. For survival’s sake, as a politician he just might have to not — not that I love you less, I love me more. I’ll never get elected as long as they keep harping on this. And that’s — again, I haven’t talked to him about that at all.
Q: How do you feel about that?
A: I would understand. I really would. I would understand. For instance … he can’t afford the Jewish support to wane or start questioning his allegiance to the state of Israel because I’m saying the position we’ve taken in terms of Palestinians is wrong, and I think we need to revisit that. Just that kind of statement would cause negative repercussions in some quarters in terms of some supporters, in terms of some people he needs to support his election campaign.
Yeah, better to distance yourself from that.
But you know, Barack’s crazy old grandma probably said some bad stuff about Israel too — and he can’t disown her!
UPDATE: Don’t forget this quote:
“When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli to visit Moammar Gadhafi — with [Louis] Farrakhan — a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”
As well it should.
The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for almost 40 years now.
Unless the “Reverend” has given Indians the right of return to his church and home, then the “Reverend” is illegally occupying part of South Chicago.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 3/20/2008 @ 1:14 amThat the jewish community has not already abandoned the Democratic party has often baffled me. Perhaps they will start to pay attention this election cycle.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:53 amObama has told Jewish audiences that Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state should never be challenged.
If I could ask him one question, it would be, “Senator, when you speak to predominantly Arab and Muslim audiences, what do you tell them about Israel? Do you tell them that Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state should never be challenged?”
And my follow up would be, “Why do you say one thing to the Jewish community and another thing to the Arab and Muslim communities?”
aunursa (499b81) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:55 amYou think Jewish democrats (and the number of non-dems is so small, we might as well say “Jews”) will ever abandon the left? This is the party, after all, that saw no reason to go after Hilter, sinces “The Jews will vote for us anyways”…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:58 amI don’t seeing the Jews leaving the Democrat party except in death when an AlQaeda operative saws their heads off, except in Chicago where they’d still vote Democrat after their deaths.
PCD (5ebd0e) — 3/20/2008 @ 5:00 amAt first, I was shocked that a campaign as seemingly well run as Obama’s would not have vetted Wright and all of his collateral baggage, which (to me) would have prevented Wright’s appointment to such a high-profile position and role within the campaign. Either the campaign staff and David Axelrod are absolute morons, or Wright’s affiliation brought an element to Obama’s campaign that outweighed the risk, or Wright’s beliefs are Obama’s and therefore their campaign dogma.
This post, and the others by DRJ and WLS and so many commenters, underscores that none of this Wright hate-speech fiasco came accidentally or by oversight. Obama has clearly stated he believes in the man, respects the man, loves the man. Obama has only distanced himself from the more notorious epithets, not the ideology begetting them. Wright’s tenets are obviously Obama’s core beliefs, and Wright himself a deliberate campaign strategy.
As my grandmother would say, “If you lay down with dogs, you rise up with fleas.” I find that an appropriate theme for the coming Democratic convention, as well as for the inscription on Obama’s political tombstone.
EHeavenlyGads (f29174) — 3/20/2008 @ 5:25 amBoy, if the presidential election was going to be between Wright and McCain, I have to agree with Patterico that McCain might actually have a shot at winning. In fact, I might even vote for McCain.
Unfortunately for McCain and Republicans — and fortunately for everyone else — Wright is just a retired Chicago minister who is not running for president.
There’s this Harvard grad named Obama running for president on the Democrat side. You’d never know it from reading this blog, but he’s actually a young, educated, progressive, reasonable, well-spoken, even-tempered guy who advocates community, tolerance, understanding, and cooperation between races.
Of course comparing THAT GUY to McCain, rather than Wright or Rezco or various other people who are not runnning for president, would probably be pretty depressing for you guys, so I can understand the frequent digressions.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:08 amOn a related note, today’s Sun Times reports on the Tony Rezko trial:
“When Levine [the prosecution’s first witness] and Rezko talked about the governor, Rezko told him he had high aspirations for Blagojevich.
“He had raised a great deal of money for Gov. Blagojevich,” Levine said. “He had great hopes and expectations that Gov. Blagojevich would run for president.””
Heh!
nk (34c5da) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:10 amGood point, Phil: There’s never been a presidential campaign where a candidate’s choice of advisors became an issue.
kl (592cb4) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:28 amI hadn’t seen Obama’s choice of advisers being discussed. If that’s an issue, it left the table long ago, long with Obama himself. At this point, we’re just talking about Wright and nuthin’ else.
Phil (6d9f2f) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:33 amRemember, Ralph Nader (Lebanese Arab) said that Barack Obama was openly pro-Palestinian back in the day.
But Barack doesn’t seem to remember any controversial statements that Barack Obama made, let alone Jeremiah Wright.
I don’t trust him. Not one little bit. He voluntarily associated himself with terrorists (Bill Ayers, who thinks he didn’t set enough bombs), haters (Jeremiah Wright), whiners (Michelle Obama), Jew-haters (the pro-Palestinian crowd), corrupt Chicago fixers (Rezko) . . .
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:41 amPersonally, it wasn’t until this stuff about Obama’s long time association with Wright surfaced was I able to work-up a visceral dislike for the candidate approaching my intense dislike of HRC.
I listened to O’s apologia for Wright and found myself thinking that any KKK member should be able to use the same defense – the Kleagle is a product of his generation, and is much like O’s racist grandmother – and you wouldn’t have O disown his grandmother, would you?
O really, really, missed the mark with that speech. For me, his call to party unity was the perfect corker; forget all that racial divide stuff, the real problem in America is the the workers must control the means of production.
He managed to convince me that he doesn’t really care about racism (at the very least he let his children soak that stuff up – I wonder if they heard what he didn’t while in the pews), and he avowed to carry on the class warfare that really is at the core of modern Democrat values.
What a Wobbly poltroon he is!
JSinAZ (c83b50) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:50 amTrue enough, but there has never been a candidate who:
1) had an advisor who spewed this kind of bile in recent history
AND
2) that the candidate donated money to for 20 years while eating that bile up
AND
3) that the candidate volunteered to all the world that the bile factory in question was his mentor
AND
4) the candidate in question – who portrays himself as a racial healer/uniter – has not admonished the aforementioned bile factory for his pollution.
The Reverend Wright is a poverty pimp – race hustler like Jackson or Sharpton … or (shudder) even worse, given his rhetoric
quasimodo (edc74e) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:16 amScott Jacobs, that’s a pretty striking remark, and it doesn’t comport with my understanding of history, which is that the Democratic President engaged in all sorts of questionably legal activities to help keep Britain afloat in 1940-1941, over the objections of the prominent Republicans Vandenberg and Taft.
Got a citation, or even an explanation, for the claim?
aphrael (db0b5a) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:18 amNo, you don’t have a progressive guy running for Prez. You have a shallow sycophant who’s made it into the top 1% of American society speaking out of both sides of his mouth who throws his grandmother under a bus to get elected, and yet who can’t recall a single factual error in over 22 years of sermons at a church he attended, was married in, had his children baptized in, and gave tens of thousands of dollars to.
If Obama was a member of Westboro Baptist Church for 22 years, would he get your free pass?
steve miller (3a9833) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:19 amWe will see if the Clinton Machine is done with him. I think not. This was just the first real salvo. Look for more “god awful” stuff to surface. You simply cannot live the lie that is Obama and not have tons of ugly hidden somewhere. Shillary and her cohorts will dig it up.
Sue (a42428) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:29 amquasimodo – If I forgot, I meant to apologize for being so snarky previously. Uncalled for.
Phil, on the other hand, deserves everything thrown his way. Racist.
JD (75f5c3) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:35 amDon’t forget about that wacky Samantha Powers that Obama had to jettison once people started digging into what she said and wrote about the Mideast in the past and on her current book tour. He seems to make a habit of picking advisers who undercut the public persona he is attempting to cultivate.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:38 amYou know, obama must be really perfect, if the things that cost him are what other people do.
stef (e66d8d) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:47 amPerhaps the issue with Obama is (a) his inability to make good choices and (b) his inability to admit his bad choices.
Other than that, what a great guy to be Prez! Imagine getting the phone call on the red phone. “What will the lefties think of me if I pick it up? Will it poll well? Can I blame my grandmother if I make a mistake?”
steve miller (3a9833) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:50 amOkay, let’s discuss Obama’s inability to separate himself from an anti-American racist. Let’s discuss Obama’s involvement in a land deal with a man currently on trial for corruption. Let’s discuss Obama going to bat for Rezko’s request for a government loan for his public housing. Let’s discuss Obama earmarking a million bucks for the hospital where his wife works. And, since Obama tells us that judgment is more important than experience, let’s talk about his lack of good judgment in these issues.
Steverino (e00589) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:03 amSeriously? A million bucks for a non profit hospital? The nerve. I wonder what other health facilities this guy tried to fund?
stef (bf72d1) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:26 amThat gave his wife a huge raise REALLY soon after Obama got elected to the US Senate?
Really? You see nothing wrong there?
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:31 amScott, get with the program and drink the Kool-Aid already.
If Barry gives a hospital a million bucks and they give his wife a huge raise, that’s just normal. Anyone can see how a hospital needs high-powered PR staff when nurses’ salaries are in the 5 figure range.
There is absolutely NO back-scratching here or quid pro quo.
steve miller (3a9833) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:35 am“That gave his wife a huge raise REALLY soon after Obama got elected to the US Senate?”
Clearly her being paid as a VP is unrelated to her elite education.
“If Barry gives a hospital a million bucks and they give his wife a huge raise, that’s just normal.”
The hospital did not get a million bucks. Now, in FY 08, Obama requested 3 million for children’s hospital, and then 1.8 for memorial hospital. I wouldn’t be surprised if that sneak is trying to fund even more hospitals! Looks like U Chicago hospital is getting the short end of the stick here.
Like you, I can’t believe that a senator would seek to fund medical institutions in his district that his wife doesn’t work for.
stef (87fe55) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:50 amHere we have a politician who was born to a mixed couple – and has not real connection to the Black Community in America (remember, his father was Kenyan). He probably spent most of his childhood looking for some sort of identity, but what treated as an outsider in both the white and black communities. He goes to Columbia and Harvard, and after graduation, is looking for “roots” to a community. He goes to Chicago and starts in the local community as a activist, and finds a “father figure” at the local church. He not only hears the gospel from this person, but his “views” on how the Black community in America is a victim of the Government.
Obama has used every elected office he has held as a stepping stone for the next personal goal in his life (read this article to see – Obama screamed at me) and probably bucked the system, and pissed off his peers in the process. But I don’t think that he has a single unique idea on health care, Iraq, the economy or any other issue that he may encounter if he was elected POTUS – he is a talking head. He reminds me too much of another president in the late 1970’s that preached almost the same message, and came from out of nowhere to win the White House, and hurt this country in ways that we are still trying to recover from – Jimmy Carter.
If you want to see what a Obama presidency would look like – just look at the Carter presidency….and see what it did to this country. Obama would probably be just as ineffective as Carter was back in the 70’s, and after his term in office would go jet setting around, being angry at America, in the same manner as Jimmy is today. We, the voters need to be careful about who we elect to be the next POTUS this year…for if we are not, then it may haunt us for years to come.
fmfnavydoc (affdec) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:52 amSen. Obama and his staff were surely aware of this.
He addressed this head-on in his speech:
He said that primary blame for the Israeli-Palestinian must be laid at the feet of Islamic extremists, with a “perverse and hateful” ideology.
He didn’t name HAMAS/Hizb’allah/etc. individually, but it’s only a matter of time before an interviewer asks him to elaborate on that quote. If there’s a hateful, perverse Islamic ideology driving the conflict, who is promoting that ideology? At that point, he will have to name specific terror groups (or admit that he just hates Israel).
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:20 amThis comparison between Carter and Obama is very unfair – to Carter. Sure, Carter never met a dictator he wouldn’t kiss. Sure, Carter was happy to deep-six Israel. Sure, Carter’s religiosity was off-limits to serious discussion. But Carter never tried to demean America in his speeches, did he?
steve miller (3a9833) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:21 amstef wrote: Clearly her being paid as a VP is unrelated to her elite education.
The hospital didn’t give her a job title like “Brain Surgeon,” they just gave her a plausible job title (VP of whatever) and boosted her salary along with the promotion. Sure.
But why the promotion? They promoted her so they could increase her salary (no other reason–her job duties didn’t change) because she was then the wife of a Senator.
Daryl Herbert (4ecd4c) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:22 amI’m shocked – SHOCKED – that gambling is going on here.
Kinda like I’m shocked – SHOCKED – that Ms. Obama got perked up when her husband became senator. There’s NO connection here between a raise for a make-work job and a suddenly powerful spouse.
steve miller (3a9833) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:25 amSo, if a Republican earmarked money for a company his wife worked for, that’d be okay with you? That wouldn’t be a conflict of interest in your eyes?
I just scratched the surface with Obama’s conflicts of interest, there’s more out there, should you choose to open your eyes.
I find it amusing you completely ignored the Rezko stuff. I’m even more amused that when we start talking about Obama’s lack of judgment, you deflect.
Steverino (e00589) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:31 amThe new Obama campaign motto:
Hope to Change the Subject
Merovign (4744a2) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:36 amPhil and kl,
You Democrats did, in 2004, make a campaign issue of Karl Rove. Want some salt to eat your words with?
PCD (5ebd0e) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:37 am“They promoted her so they could increase her salary (no other reason–her job duties didn’t change) because she was then the wife of a Senator.”
I see. Not because she deserved it. But because she was the wife of a senator. Nice.
“So, if a Republican earmarked money for a company his wife worked for, that’d be okay with you? That wouldn’t be a conflict of interest in your eyes?”
It could be. Is it something that said politician would be earmarking anyway? Then again, if said politician was asking that other hospitals get even MORE money, then I don’t see how the interests are helping that one hospital that much. Or said politician could just not disclose its earmark requests.
I dont ignore the rezko stuff. I think its shocking that Obama wrote letters for public housing projects in his area.
stef (82ac88) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:40 amLet’s stay focused on the topic at hand. We all agree that Obama directed federal dollars to the hospital his wife works at, and at the same time his wife gets a snazzy new salary many times greater than people who actually do the work at the hospital. We all agree that the Obamas are in the top 1% of taxpayers living off the public dime, and carrying a great sense of entitlement. Those are simply stipulated.
Let’s look at what this is about – Wright didn’t think Israel was a legitimate state, and Obama didn’t have a problem with that until the media took a look at him. Now Obama is spouting sincere-sounding words. Do we take Obama at face value, or do we see him as any other partisan hack trying to get ahead by walking on his grandmother?
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:58 amToast. Toast. Toast.
The sooner the Kool Aid drinkers realize this and get behind Clinton (shudder) so that independents have a real choice it will be better for the party and the country.
The legacy of Obama’s candidacy is that whites will now look at middle class blacks and wonder if they also attend a ‘hate whitey’ church. Now if Obama were to try to fix this over the next four years (cross country speaking tour at ‘hate whitey’ churches) the Dems have a winner in 2012.
Sweetie (2fd7f7) — 3/20/2008 @ 10:09 amThe odd thing is, I don’t think most ‘blacks’ attend hate-Whitey churches. This is an anomaly today. Barry just happened to happily absorb Wright’s sermons for 22 years, and then tried to deny it ever happened.
One thing good about an Obama presidency is that Nixon’s character will be redeemed.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 10:19 amBarking up the wrong tree.
Go over to Alternet and other similar sites, and you’ll see much more vivid statements of Israel-hate. They wouldn’t settle for saying Israel had illegally occupied territory for the last forty years. They would have said sixty years. It was encountering that hate that started me on the road from conservative leaning Democrat to libertarian.
The question is not whether Obama shares Wright’s love of Hamas and hate of Israel. The question is whether Obama shares the love of Hamas and hate of Israel that is rampant throughout the left, or whether he shares the pro-Israeli stance of the national Democratic party. Publicly, at least, he sticks to the latter.
kishnevi (a117ab) — 3/20/2008 @ 10:55 amPhil wrote this hilarious line: “You’d never know it from reading this blog, but he’s actually a young, educated, progressive, reasonable, well-spoken, even-tempered guy who advocates community, tolerance, understanding, and cooperation between races.”
I wouldn’t know it from who he associates with, either.
That’s the point, Phil, I don’t know those things – and the objective evidence is that they are false.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/20/2008 @ 10:56 amOsteen (and many others) have commented on how you eventually become like those you associate with.
If you spend your time around people who are positive and upbeat, you’ll find your outlook on life improved. If you hang around people who are angry and mean, you will end up getting madder faster and easier.
The latter would explain why my friends end up so bitter…
Point is, you can’t associate so closely with someone for so long and not become at least a little like them.
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:00 amObama says “trust me because I was right on Iraq in 2002.” Then he says, “ignore what I did for 22 years up until last week.”
What do we trust? A convenient political decision, or a decades-long ability to sit through weekly sermons by a man who thinks the CIA invented AIDS?
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:17 amPhil wrote:
Well, we certainly know what he says he is and what he believes and what he wants; the question is, can we actually believe him?
Nearly as I can see, his only redeeming facet is that he isn’t Hillary Clinton.
Dana (3e4784) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:25 amOkay, this is deliberate ignorance. Rezko and Obama have been friends for 17 years. Rezko got a nice loan from the Illinois taxpayers. And, according to the article, four years after that loan, Rezko couldn’t find the money to provide heat to the building.
The real estate deal involving Obama and Mrs Rezko stinks to high heaven.
But you just fling back disingenuos comments, as if unaware of the shadiness behind it all. I’ve got your number, stef, and you won’t be able to weasel out of this.
Steverino (e00589) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:31 amIf Senator Obama was as smart as people think he is, he’d have gotten Illinois’ other senator to make that ear
waxmark for him.Just how dumb do you have to be to not see how such would seem like a conflict of interest?
Dana (3e4784) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:31 amOh, one other thing: the public housing project wasn’t in Obama’s district.
Steverino (e00589) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:32 am“If Senator Obama was as smart as people think he is, he’d have gotten Illinois’ other senator to make that earwaxmark for him.”
That sounds dishonest, not “smart.” And still a conflict of interest. Better to just disclose all your earmarks. And of course, not treat this hospital different just because your wife has a career there.
stef (450379) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:33 amPhew! For a moment there, I thought Wright was a racist! Now it’s clear that he just hates the joos. And whitey of course, but who doesn’t?
Kevin (57a31b) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:44 amNo, better NOT to deal with something involving a family member so it’s not seen as conflict of interest.
That would show smart AND integrity vs. the hope that no one sees it.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 11:45 amSo, given that the biggest hit against Obama’s candidacy has come because of previously unrepudiated affiliation with a black racist preacher, what will be the effect on the Democrats as a whole when McCain nominates Condi Rice as his VP candidate? Will the party be able to squelch the unbelievably racist rhetoric that will issue forth from the black community then? It will be so ugly and divisive, that I can hardly wait!
JSinAZ (2c9302) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:05 pmI think it’s funny how the Right decries the Left as godless but is readily willing to assume that Obama (Surprise! He’s a Leftist) regularly attended religious services for the last 22 years. At the same time, they’re will to assume that Obama is an intelligent careerist who… never realized that someone like Wright could be bad for his career? Makes sense to me!
Hunter S. Thompson wrote about “the New Dumb”. The extent of this debate perfectly embodies that sentiment.
Leviticus (9ed853) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:08 pmNo Republican will ever be acknowledged by a Democrat for anything he or she does. Bush may elevate Condi to the office of the Sec’y of State, and that is irrelevant. Condi is black, but the wrong kind of black. She doesn’t appear to have an ax to grind. (The idea that a single black female is Secretary of the United States is ignored – but that’s an extremely significant thing.) Condi appears to have gotten to where she is by competence & not by race-baiting.
Members of the eternal grievance theatre, on the other hand, are delighted to have someone like Barry Obama who will be able to lecture us for his entire dreary administration on how we are all racists, except (luckily!) him and his former pastor.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:15 pmI wasn’t suggesting credit would be given to the Republicans; instead, I would expect nasty rhetoric of the Aunt Tom / Oreo variety to issue forth from the J. Wrights of the black community. You know, the easily predicable results of Identity politics when a group is confronted by what they would call a “race traitor”.
Perhaps that kind of racism will be ignored (as it always has been) when it arises from the black community. I hope not – I hope it stings the MOR voter into realizing that the Democrats have throughly digested racial politics as a staple fare of electoral cycles. The more airing of this kind of base racialism (especially after the requisite promises are made at the Dem convention), the better it will be for everybody – especially those who truly beleive that race doesn’t matter.
JSinAZ (392555) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:33 pmYou think y ou have to wait for that? She’s been called an Aunt Tom and WAY worse (two words, first starts with H, the second with N) for years…
Scott Jacobs (fa5e57) — 3/20/2008 @ 12:56 pmValues spoken without actions taken are just slogans. Values are not just words. They’re what we live by. They’re about the causes we champion and the people we fight for. — John Kerry
Neo (cba5df) — 3/20/2008 @ 1:15 pmYes indeed, I have heard them (along with the earlier versions visited on Clarence Thomas) – but has the MOR voter heard them from people so intimate with the very apex of the party?
Frankly, I think those kinds of comments have been ignored largely because the Democrat party was not beholden to those kinds of racialists for the success of a particular candidate. Or maybe they have always had “diminished expectations” from the dusky members of their party – you know, the soft bigotry thing.
I guess I would just love to see the fuse lit on the pitard with which the Democrats have chosen to destroy others; they richly deserve a little self-hoisting.
Identity Politics Delenda Est!
JSinAZ (cf747e) — 3/20/2008 @ 1:17 pmFortunately, not all conservatives have an inablility to discern sarcasm. If there are any reading this, you’re welcome.
kl (592cb4) — 3/20/2008 @ 1:36 pmInablility, or inability, take your pick.
kl (592cb4) — 3/20/2008 @ 1:36 pmI pick (c)
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 3:04 pmYou people actually think you can make a call about somebody based entirely upon a few seconds of videotape of their pastor preaching?
I’ve heard more stupid, baseless, uncorroborated accusations against Barack Obama the past few weeks than I can remember; he’s racist, he’s anti-American, he’s anti-patriotic, he’s not a leader, he has poor judgment, he’s a victim, he hates his grandma, and so on and so on ad nauseum. All of those things can safely be assumed and treated as facts by the conservative movement about Obama, because he had the gall to listen to something crazy that somebody said and not object, as all of you noble, non-racist defenders of virtue surely would have.
You’re not being good citizens, you’re letting yourselves be manipulated by the same forces that cursed us with George Bush. Apparently, the only thing any of you people know or care to know about Obama, you believe you can learn through a few seconds of controversial videotape. I mean look at all this research you’ve got about what Wright has to say about Israel! Did you ever think to research what Obama has to say about Israel? Does that even matter to you?
Of course it doesn’t, you can just extrapolate from Wright’s comments. In doing so, your perception of Obama becomes a hodge-podge of non-important distractions that have nothing to do with him. You don’t actually know anything about the candidate beyond your assumptions and guilt-by-association judgments, there isn’t any actual thought being put into refuting Barack Obama. It’s all gossip. That’s the objective of your party’s leadership, to get you to not think about what Obama,himself, actually has to say, but rather to get you to hate him, irrationally, for no reason. Just like John Kerry and Al Gore and all the critics of the Bush administration. Wake up.
Levi (76ef55) — 3/20/2008 @ 3:40 pmYou seem a little exasperated, Levi.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/20/2008 @ 3:53 pmOK, I’m awake now, and I still don’t think Obama is trustworthy or honorable. He lies about his past, and when his lies are discovered, he throws his grandmother under the bus to cover up his lies.
Now what do you do, Levi? You haven’t convinced me of Obama’s purity, and his perfidy still shows through.
I’m not so sure that G. Bush has a hand in that. Maybe Obama is the one responsible for Obama’s actions.
It’s a crazy thought.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:13 pmApparently the only thing you know about Obama is that he is not Bush. You seem to be ignoring everything about him to maintain your delusions about him.
Hardly impressive Levi.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/20/2008 @ 4:15 pmWhat strikes me about the general reaction here to Obama’s speech is that it ignores the whole point of the speech: past racism justifies every big government program on the progressive agenda.
You’re so buy attacking the messenger that you’re ignoring the message. And no matter how many times you whack down the messenger (Gore, Kerry, H. Clinton, Obama), until you whack down the message, it’s going to keep coming back, like Freddy Kreuger.
Are you so caught up in attacking the messengers that you’re not paying attention to the message? Or do you attack the message because you’re afraid that if you attack the message, you’ll lose?
kishnevi (a117ab) — 3/20/2008 @ 5:16 pmLevi has descended into the Hell the Left creates for itself when it realizes that its’ rhetoric has no traction, and all it is left with is hyperbole and bile.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/20/2008 @ 5:18 pmWe democrats have now found the quintessential explanation for why Obama didn’t rise up and shoot Wright in the foot or something:
We believe this was out of imprudent curiosity.
Psyberian (d18acc) — 3/20/2008 @ 5:25 pmKishnevi,
I addressed policy issues at the end of this post. Specifically, I suggested that Obama has adopted John Edward’s negative, socialist “Two Americas” message. But modern politics is visual and based on the messenger as much as the message, which is why we probably won’t see any more candidates like Adlai Stevenson, Franklin Roosevelt, or (maybe) Ike.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/20/2008 @ 5:26 pmPhil & co. believe an anti-American, black nationalist, cryptic- Muslim communist is going to get elected President of the United States. Sure. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. The only real question is will B. HUSSEIN Obama lose 40 states, 45 states or 49 states?
cubanbob (409ac2) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:40 pm“Phil & co. believe an anti-American, black nationalist, cryptic- Muslim communist is going to get elected President of the United States.”
– cubanbob
Why not? We’re open-minded people, and the Black Panthers were baaaadaaaaaaaassss!
Nice handle, by the way. I’m sure an entire ethnicity likes being stereotyped as morons based on the ill-advised, half-baked flounderings of some anonymous troll.
Leviticus (efb732) — 3/20/2008 @ 6:52 pm“No, better NOT to deal with something involving a family member so it’s not seen as conflict of interest.”
Uh, what if he wants to give earmarks to hospitals in Michigan? I know his wife’s employer shouldn’t benefit from employing her, but should his wife’s employer suffer because of who they employ? no. They should get no special treatment: favorable of unfavorable.
“That would show smart AND integrity vs. the hope that no one sees it.”
Hope no-one sees it? He discloses his earmarks!
stef (5e1d16) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:07 pmso you did, DRJ. But I was thinking of the overall reaction here, and at the other couple of sites I visit regularly. It’s almost as if conservatives are afraid of arguing for their ideas. They’d rather label individuals as anti-American, defeatist, and so forth (even when they’re merely repeating memes going the round of the dextrosphere that don’t necessarily match the reality of what the individual is doing/saying) than state in plain English why the ideas are wrong.
The Obama speech is a good case of this: instead of seizing on the point that Obama wanted to put across–that we must all let big government solve the problems that slavery still (allegedly) causes–and showing how wrong it is and how it merely echoes the same old same old thing that’s been going on for the last thirty odd years–it’s attacked for every other reason. Now some of them are good reasons–like the fact that Obama didn’t choose to criticize Wright for the first 22 years he attended that church–but some of them are dubious (like the idea that he shares Wright’s anti-Semitism and black nationalism, for which there is no hard evidence and which is contradicted by Obama’s public statements rather consistently) and won’t win any points with people who haven’t made up their minds.
Just because politics has operated like this for the past few decades does not mean we have to play by the same rules.
kishnevi (6273ad) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:20 pmFrankly, Kishnevi, I’m not that interested in rehashing why socialism, big government, and welfare (just to name a few) don’t work. It’s apparent that some Americans believe that big government is the answer and I doubt there are any words that will convince them otherwise.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:28 pmHe was foolish to give money to his wife’s hospital, especially given that his wife gets a big raise & promotion. (You do know that he & his wife don’t live lives of the common people, do you?)
He should be aware of the conflict of interest with the hospital HIS WIFE WORKS AT. If it were Boeing, he would ask his fellow senator to do the work.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:38 pmIt’s more than some Americans, DRJ, it’s probably most.
And if we don’t convince them otherwise, we are dooming ourselves and those that come after us to more of the same big government.
kishnevi (6273ad) — 3/20/2008 @ 7:59 pmI agree. But some people only learn things the hard way.
DRJ (a431ca) — 3/20/2008 @ 8:21 pmstef – Although Obama released his 2007 earmarks, he refused requests to release his 2005 and 2006 earmarks from June 2007 until releasing them earlier this month. He’s a model of transparency on everything. He doesn’t give out information on anything until he’s backed into a corner, like the prospect of facing an anti-earmark Senator such as McCain in the fall.
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:20 pmkishnevi said: “… conservatives are afraid of arguing for their ideas. They’d rather label individuals as anti-American, defeatist, and so forth…”
That’s funny! Conservatives are constantly arguing for their ideas, ideas that are constantly attacked by Libs as heartless, cruel, etc. What they never attack our ideas for are the merits, mostly because (as said many times before) Liberals argue from feelings, Conservatives arguer from facts. You feel, We think.
This is also why we are able to attack our political/idealogical opponents with those evil words “…anti-American, defeatist, and so forth…” because we label you as your words describe yourself. You see, we believe that words mean something, that they are used to describe a specific, not a gossy penumbra, warm-all-over feeling of self-superiority.
Perhaps when you grow up, you’ll realize where you went wrong.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:33 pmGee, I wonder what SNL will talk about this week? I’m guessing we’ll have a “throw Granny under the bus” skit.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:34 pmArgh! “argue”, not arguer. Sorry.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:35 pm” “Phil & co. believe an anti-American, black nationalist, cryptic- Muslim communist is going to get elected President of the United States.”
– cubanbob
Why not? We’re open-minded people, and the Black Panthers were baaaadaaaaaaaassss!
Nice handle, by the way. I’m sure an entire ethnicity likes being stereotyped as morons based on the ill-advised, half-baked flounderings of some anonymous troll.
Comment by Leviticus — 3/20/2008 @ 6:52 pm ”
Panthers were indeed baaadaass…as for moron your silly snark is proof positive of moronic tendencies. Have your doctor proscribe you a heavy duty pain-killer,anti-psychotic and anti-nausea medications the day before the general election. Your going to need them. 40 states, 45 states or 49 states? Wonder what the Vegas odds makers are offering. Hillary is a left wing Nixon but without the charm and not as smart and Obama another race hustler and communist albeit more charming than J. Jackson. I doubt that even McCain can blow this election. The Democrats are going to give us a remix of 1968 and 1972. The only real questions are will the Republicans win a trifecta in-spite of themselves and will the Party of Marx and Treason provide us a riot at their convention for our entertainment value? Please do. TV has been so boring of late.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:46 pmFor all his faults – which center around his appalling lack of judgment – Barry’s no Muslim. I don’t think he’s a communist, either. He’s just a good old-fashioned liberal who steps on old people to get to the top.
steve miller (0574db) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:47 pmI’m curious to know why Wright isn’t all pissed off at the Arab/Muslim slave traders that pioneered slave trafficking in Africa
SteveG (71dc6f) — 3/20/2008 @ 9:47 pm“so you did, DRJ. But I was thinking of the overall reaction here, and at the other couple of sites I visit regularly. It’s almost as if conservatives are afraid of arguing for their ideas. They’d rather label individuals as anti-American, defeatist, and so forth (even when they’re merely repeating memes going the round of the dextrosphere that don’t necessarily match the reality of what the individual is doing/saying) than state in plain English why the ideas are wrong.
The Obama speech is a good case of this: instead of seizing on the point that Obama wanted to put across–that we must all let big government solve the problems that slavery still (allegedly) causes–and showing how wrong it is and how it merely echoes the same old same old thing that’s been going on for the last thirty odd years–it’s attacked for every other reason. Now some of them are good reasons–like the fact that Obama didn’t choose to criticize Wright for the first 22 years he attended that church–but some of them are dubious (like the idea that he shares Wright’s anti-Semitism and black nationalism, for which there is no hard evidence and which is contradicted by Obama’s public statements rather consistently) and won’t win any points with people who haven’t made up their minds.
Just because politics has operated like this for the past few decades does not mean we have to play by the same rules.
Comment by kishnevi — 3/20/2008 @ 7:20 pm ”
Hate to burst your bubble but the best judge of a person’s character and beliefs is watching their conduct and actions and not just going by their words. At best Obama is a deeply cynical politician “making his bones” in the Chicago African-American community for his political purposes and unwilling to blow his credibility among that constituency and foregoing any political future. Or he buys in to it. Either way he is unfit to be Head of State, Head of Government and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. At best he will ultimately wind up as a Congressman from the Chicago area.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 3/20/2008 @ 10:14 pmAs for the big government/socialist clap-trap, that is just tired old sixties crap. Still he just might have done the nation a favor. By exposing the Black Nationalist nonsense the next Congress just might be willing to start reigning in “entitlement” spending.
zionists are murderers. full stop.
palestine was NOT available for colonisation by blue eyed “jews”.
they can go and live here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/17/wsib17.xml
this is what they are like:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/17/wsib17.xml
NEVER feel sorry for zionists. NEVER.
they are jewish nazis and should be treated as such. they are just as bad for the jewish peoples as anyone..
bollos de mayer
bollos de mayer (cc70bd) — 3/21/2008 @ 5:21 amsorry, that 2nd link should be:
bollos de mayer (cc70bd) — 3/21/2008 @ 5:22 amhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-hebron-confessions-508296.html
I see this brings out the usual anti-semites.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/21/2008 @ 6:39 ambollos de mayer: practice what you preach and go back to where ever your people came from and take a few Palestinians who have been illegally occupying Zion for the last 1400 years with you.
cubanbob (409ac2) — 3/21/2008 @ 1:21 pm