So says the New York Times.
But look at the ad! It's about left-wing politics and anti-Americanism.
You can agree or disagree about whether Obama has a real problem on this score. But how is it racism? Is it racism simply because Jeremiah Wright and Obama are black? It would make more sense to accuse the NYT of racism for thinking that that anything that black people say or do is about their race. Here's how the Times explains it:
The assertion that Mr. Obama is “just too extreme for North Carolina” is a clear bid to stir bigotry in a Southern state. The ad’s claim that its target is actually two Democratic gubernatorial candidates who endorsed Mr. Obama is ludicrous.Huh? The Jesse Helms ad specifically talked about race. How is that like the anti-Obama ad?
This is too familiar. In his 1990 re-election campaign, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina ran the infamous “hands” ad showing two white hands crumpling up a letter while the announcer intones: “You needed that job, and you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a minority.” His challenger, Harvey Gantt, a former Charlotte mayor, was, of course, African-American.
Come on. There is a serious question here about whether Obama is too left wing. We damned well get to talk about it. If you're going to push us back and call us racists for trying to address an overwhelmingly important political problem with a black candidate for President, then what you are essentially saying is that America is not ready for a black President. And that would be racist. Either we can talk about him vigorously or we can't. And if we can't, he shouldn't be President.
***
And could John McCain watch the ad and think coherently before condemning it? Is this the man you want analyzing data and making life-or-death decisions for the world?
ADDED: For anyone who thinks I'm resistant to seeing racism in a political ad, let me remind that I was the one who wrote about the letters "NIG" on the child's pajamas in the "3 a.m." ad.
पोस्ट्स
१६९ टिप्पण्या:
If you're going to be push us back and call us racists for trying to address an overwhelmingly important political problem with a black candidate for President, then what you are essentially saying is that America is not ready for a black President.
They might think Thomas Sowell would be okay as President and still call you racist for criticizing Obama for what Obama can't help believing.
Adult standards do not apply only to people still on the plantation.
They do admit Sowell is black. But black isn't really the category that racism today talks about.
It talks about black liberals. Criticism of either is equally racism.
Is this the man you want analyzing data and making life-or-death decisions for the world?
No, but I'll take him over those other two.
As for the outrage over the ad, isn't this another example of the "soft bigotry of low expectations?" You can't harshly criticize him; he's black.
Rush took a couple hours yesterday raking McCain over the coals.
Contributions to the state Republican Party skyrocketed, by the way.
McCain's planning on winning without the Republicans.
It exploits the larger meme that blacks are not patriotic because they aren't really American; they should just go back to Africa. Unfotunately, this meme is still around.
"The assertion that Mr. Obama is “just too extreme for North Carolina” is a clear bid to stir bigotry in a Southern state. The ad’s claim that its target is actually two Democratic gubernatorial candidates who endorsed Mr. Obama is ludicrous."
The sad thing is, the denizens of the NYT editorial room actually believe this. They are not post racial at all. They need America to be a hellhole of ignorance and racism because otherwise their identity as savior is completely discredited.
I agree with rhhardin; McCain is running as another "compassionate" conservative (read moderate Democrat) because the other two Dems are running as far left socialists. He hopes to carve out the same niches as Rove carved out for Bush's spare victories. What McCain doesn't realize is that he would do better as a principled Republican. He underestimates the amount of worry about the free spenders such as Bush and the Dems.
It exploits the larger meme that blacks are not patriotic because they aren't really American; they should just go back to Africa. Unfotunately, this meme is still around.
Oh bullshit. You just made that up.
Just remember - and I have predicted this in the past - there will be no acceptable explaination for opposing Obama except for racism.
Any opposition will just be code for "I hate him because he's black".
I don't want anybody to be surprised by this, now...
Is it racism simply because Jeremiah Wright and Obama are black?
But how can anyone say this after hearing Melissa McEwan state a few posts down, "you can't divorce criticisms of women from the context of womanhood".
It's the same bloody idea!
(He's black; you can't criticise him because that's inherently racist)
The Jesse Helms spot was clearly far more race-baiting than this ad could ever be, but what is apparent too is that John McCain will be playing that usual slick political game of letting others say what he cannot say, then turn around to condemn it.
If he's being genuine, then in this case, he was completely wrong. Reverend Wright is but a tip of the iceberg of Obama's nefarious associations. It SHOULD be the topic of ads.
Either way, McCain's reactions are disappointing.
Cheers,
Victoria
Just remember - and I have predicted this in the past - there will be no acceptable explaination for opposing Obama except for racism. Any opposition will just be code for "I hate him because he's black".
As Mortimner and others have already shown us, it will get worse if Obama is elected. Do you oppose Presidnet Obama's budget plan? You must be a racist. Think his foreign policy approach is naive? You bloody racist.
As I said months ago, this is the same bull we have to put up with day to day in the workplace, from the employee who has to shoulder the workload of an incompetent AA hire, to the manager who's every reprimand is countered with an EEO complaint. Americans have had enough of these racial shenanigans in our everyday lives, we certainly don't need that bs coming from he White House.
And the NYTs is about to lay off 100 employees. Good riddance to anyone who tied their future to that propaganda rag.
They need America to be a hellhole of ignorance and racism because otherwise their identity as savior is completely discredited.
Exactly.
This goes a long way to explain the United Church of Christ's "Disavowal of the PURSUIT of Middleclassness" (emphasis mine), which Ann touched on in the other thread.
#3 states unequivocally:
"Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”"
Look at the words used.
Seducing. Capitalism is a pimp, and you're whores if you take it.
Training. You're nothing but circus freaks to be trotted out for show-and-tell once you've been "trained".
Hypnotises. You do things not because of free will, but because of subliminal messages controlling you.
And of course, the last point is inherently racist because though it doesn't outright say that the "us" are only black people, and the "them" are only whites, that's what they mean.
It's like the religious equivalent of FUBU jeans. For Us By Us.
And I only half-laughed when writing that. It's really very sad.
Cheers,
Victoria
I'm going to give McCain the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's perfectly happy with these kinds of ads but doesn't want to be seen as the first to go negative. He wants to say that he's running a clean, positive campaign - at least at this point.
As to the supposed racism, specific to the ad - the suggestion is idiotic. More generally, there's nothing that I can say that hasn't been said ad nauseum (not least by me): there's no racial component to the hostility to Obama's campaign, but he and his backers have to make that claim because they don't know how else to defend themselves. What they can't dismiss as racism (e.g. Wrightgate) is dismissed as being something other than the issues that the Vozhd has decided are important to the American people (e.g. debategate).
How can anyone be surprised at this predictable turn of events? The cult of victimhood dictates that any criticism of a minority be an EEOC violation. Criticize a black person and you are rascist. Criticize a female and you are misogynist. Criticize illegal immigrants and you are a bigot.
In other words, how can we criticize any class of victims without appearing to violate the basic tenets of victimhood? Compare what happened to Ferraro and Limbaugh versus Wright and Farrakhan.
Apparently we, as a society, can never do enough to right the wrongs of past sins. We can, however, continue to throw money at it but never, under any circumstance, question the qualifications of self-proclaimed victims seeking power.
You guys are missing the other NC political ad that came out a few days ago...
The do-nothing sheriff of one of the state's most racially segregated towns made a TV ad favoring a Democratic candidate for governor. See it here
Considering that this throwback to the 1950s lives with a woman who is not his wife, it tells you something about the moral standards of the state's Democrats.
Yeah, but who is Aunt Bea voting for?
This is ALL about politics, not about race. And by "ALL" I mean everything to do with Barack Obama and his "spiritual adviser", Jeremiah Wright. Only because it's in the Democrats' interest has the brouhaha over that relationship been condemned as "racist".
The RNC and John McCain are stupid to allow the Democrats to set the rules and frame the debate. But this is precisely what they've done. McCain is being particularly inconsistent (and self-destructive) when he differentiates between his being "troubled" by Obama's relationship with Ayers and others' (the NC GOP included) characterization of Obama as "extreme" based on his twenty years of being an acolyte/contributor to a Marxist, anti-American, conspiracy theorist. Even if McCain is indeed holding his fire, taking the "high road" while surrogates get the "message" out, he really should have pointed out that while he doesn't consider the NC GOP ad germane, he recognizes that it is NOT "racist". In fact what he did was to affirm that it is, thereby validating the Democrats' standard characterization of Republicans in general as "racist".
What an ass! I'm starting to doubt that I'll be able to pull the lever for McCain in November even if I hold my nose very tightly. If Hillary, rather than Obama, is on the ballot, I very well might not....
If McCain hopes to compete against Obama, he's going to have to man up (as Hillary has done), point out ALL the reasons we should not vote for the man and spit right back at anyone who tries to characterize such POLITICAL hardball as "racist".
Oh bullshit. You just made that up.
Not at all. Take a history class. "Go back to Africa" and "Only white Americans can be true patriots" are memes of the same historical origin and lineage.
You said if "we can't", "he's not".
I'm thinking we still can't and pretty sure he's not.
there's no racial component to the hostility to Obama's campaign
That's ridiculous. Absolutely none? Not one person out there? No one on the StormFront Message Boards? Not one member of the Klu Klux Klan? Not one older white person who just won't vote for a black man because he's black? Not one? It's one thing to say that not everyone who is hostile to Obama's campaign is a racist; but your assertion is so obviously false my testicles just fell off.
Not at all. Take a history class. "Go back to Africa" and "Only white Americans can be true patriots" are memes of the same historical origin and lineage.
What Fen is saying I think is that your conclusion about this ad is flawed.
Do you think this ad's underlying message suggests a "Go back to Africa" one, because the pastor is black and there are racist whites viewing the ad who will be triggered to think this?
It's not.
His words stand on their own.
Or perhaps you would've been more comfortable if Reverend Wright's Dashiki had been pixilated or his "G-ddamn America" expletive had not only been bleeped out, but voiced-over with "Gosh darn America"?
Cheers,
Victoria
Mortimer: "'Oh bullshit. You just made that up.' Not at all. Take a history class. "Go back to Africa" and "Only white Americans can be true patriots" are memes of the same historical origin and lineage."
Yeah, but Mortimer, there are no Americans outside of some insane fringe that ever says anything about wanting black people to go back to Africa. Yes, there is a historical idea there, but no one mainstream supports that today.
What I see in Wright is evidence of extreme left-wing politics, and he may think that black people ought to go for that kind of politics. His church seems to portray such politics as the "Black Value System," and that's exactly what people who don't like Wright have a problem with.
This is an argument about left-wing politics, not race. The idea that all black people are or should be leftists is offensive and racist, and it seems to be what Wright is promoting. If we can't look at this squarely and talk about it, I am going to oppose Obama for President, and I have voted for him in the primary and would like to be able to vote for him.
I'm afraid Trinity is left-wing politics as religion, and Obama has belonged to it for 20 years. That's a terrible problem, and we need to have the fortitude to stand up to those who would call us racists for wanting to talk about it. I'm not going to put up with that. I don't want a left-wing President!
Ann sai...
"I'm afraid Trinity is left-wing politics as religion...."
Worse, even, than that: left-wing politics as religion, and left-wing politics as some kind of racial obligation.
This is typical McCain behavior. His primary goal is - as always - to win the approval of "moderates" and the New York Times.
He never has -and never will- give a damn about the Republicans running for congress or conservatism in general. Its all about him.
Why the Republicans are going to nominate someone who has no loyalty to other Republicans is beyond me. But they are the "Stupid Party".
MolestorMort: Take a history class. "Go back to Africa" and "Only white Americans can be true patriots" are memes of the same historical origin and lineage.
Source it. Its so obscure that I never came across it in any of my studies, outside of this: The idea of a Back to Africa Movement, however, started long before 1848. In 1811, Paul Cuffee, “a black man who was a wealthy man of property, a petitioner for equal rights for blacks” [5] began to explore the idea of black people returning to their native land
1811.
What era are you Obama fans living in anyway? Perhaps TLC should host Obama's campaign theme song:
I just don't understand the ways of the world today
Sometimes I feel like there's nothing to live for
so I'm longing for the days of yesterday
/Sumthin' Wicked This Way Comes Lyrics
Manipulative and Shameful are undeniable. And, there is a scary black man who knows BO in the background and the narrator says BO is too extreme for NC; some will get the message that BO is too black for NC.
1) Does anyone deny that this ad indicates (without proof) that BO is just like the scary black man? 2) Does anyone deny that the scary black man isn't really a scary black man? E.g. the g-d America clip isn't actually Wright wishing this sentiment himself: he's saying bible verses damn specific historical actions of the American government.
I was shocked by the context when I saw a more complete clip in the Moyers interview.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html
This interview was amazing, it is undeniable that Wright is not the black thug that the MSM has made him out to be. Why can't it be said that racism a motivation of those pushing (without actual knowledge of Trinity) the idea that Wright is a nut? Their opinions obviously aren't based on knowledge, I think racism is a perfectly reasonable explanation for their thoughts. The only other explanation is ignorance, but that alone wouldn't explain their visceral disdain for Wright, even though they don't know Wright (they haven't even seen the Moyers thing or full sermons, never mind 20 years of sermons, the content of which they assume to inherently know (but they don't need to learn more because apparently race based ignorance is the most blissful of all ignorance.)
I haven't seen the ad in question but suspect you might have the wrong one.
The part I object to is the way they continue to take Wright's comments out of context. He's being attacked and denounced based on about 10 seconds of video clips. It's really a ignorance-based attack.
Wright was talking about putting governments before God, about injustices committed by the US government against people of African descent. If the fuller comments are heard, they actually sound "conservative": God before government.
If the response from the dominant white community to an expression of grievances from the historically oppressed African-American community is denunciation, then, yes, it's racist and polarizing.
They try to paint Obama as an extremist based on a 2-second clip of someone else speaking. It's a combination of misrepresentation and guilt by association.
You're a big one on code words and hidden meanings when it comes time to bash Democrats, Ann. All of a sudden, you can't figure this one out! Odd, that.
E.g. the g-d America clip isn't actually Wright wishing this sentiment himself: he's saying bible verses damn specific historical actions of the American government.
Riiiight. He's just quoting from the bible...
they don't need to learn more because apparently race based ignorance is the most blissful of all ignorance.
Hysterical. Obama appears to be the one with race based ignorance. All those bitter rednecks clinging to guns and God.
Whats next? You going to tell us that blacks can't be racist... because they are black?
"I haven't seen the ad in question but suspect you might have the wrong one."
Well, that says a lot!
I assure you I don't!
They try to paint Obama as an extremist based on a 2-second clip of someone else speaking. It's a combination of misrepresentation and guilt by association.
Wright's rantings are a hell of a lot more than a 2-second clip.
And Obama is being painted as an extermist because he attended this hate-america hate-whitey "madrassa" for 20 years.
Keep spinning.
"The part I object to is the way they continue to take Wright's comments out of context. He's being attacked and denounced based on about 10 seconds of video clips. It's really a ignorance-based attack."
Please read my long post, 2 down from this, about the Moyers program, which puts the "God damn America" quote in context, and only makes it WORSE. A lot worse! I discuss my reaction to the fully contextualized quote in that post.
And, John McCain is a lying sack of shit:
McCain Campaign: Linking Obama With Terrorists Is Fair Game
McCain Says He'll Bring "Every Pressure To Bear" To Stop Obama/Wright Ad -- But It's Still Set To Run
As far as Rev Wright, i can recommend the interview on Bill Moyer’s Journal this weekend. Unless you don't need more than 5 seconds of selective clipping to form your opinions - which is pretty foolish.
Ann Althouse:
Well, that says a lot!
Yeah, it says I have other things to do in my life than watch GOP tripe.
Ann, i haven't had time to find or read your long post. It's a bit windy, but I'll check it out later. You do seem unhappy Moyers didn't run the full Monty of Republican smears on the guy.
I thought it was a thoughtful interview.
Alpha Liberal,
The point of using a 2 second clip isn't to introduce Wright and Obama's association with him. It's to reinforce a story that literally everyone has pretty much heard about already. That is not taking it out of context anymore than playing just the words "I have a Dream" would be out of context.
It's out of context when the hearer is completely unfamiliar with the context. A good example is Nancy Pelosi, who is continually making up whole quotes from the Bible in her recent comments. Even if she is "paraphrasing", she provides no context for anyone to even understand what she is trying to say.
And as to whether or not the Rev Wright has always been taken out of context on this issue: please.
Wright can say he's taken out of context - that's fair. So, why doesn't He clear it all up by releasing the full recordings of his sermons? As it is said, if you are going to mount the defense of "out of context," then provide the context.
Here are some lengthy excerpts of Wright that DO provide context.
The result: He is a Marxist and racist in his preaching.
Fair Game.
I don't know about "5 seconds", alpha
"..the US of KKK"
"..AIDS invented by government to kill..."
"..chickens coming home to roos (9/11)"
Hugs for Farrakhan..
cuddling with Qdafi...
I think we have a lot more than 5 seconds worth.
We've got months and months.
I'm afraid Trinity is left-wing politics as religion, and Obama has belonged to it for 20 years. That's a terrible problem, and we need to have the fortitude to stand up to those who would call us racists for wanting to talk about it. I'm not going to put up with that. I don't want a left-wing President!
Professor Althouse, if you don't want a left-wing President, why did you vote for Barack Obama in the primary?
Yeah, but Mortimer, there are no Americans outside of some insane fringe that ever says anything about wanting black people to go back to Africa. Yes, there is a historical idea there, but no one mainstream supports that today.
It depends how you define "insane fringe". Some question black patriotism because they suspect African-Americans could be de facto sleeper agents. A talk show radio host who introduced John McCain at a rally has claimed Obama is a member of a terrorist sleeper cell. On the NRO, one writer claimed Obama was a red-diaper baby, as if mixed-raced unions were a Communist plot.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmM2NDQ3ZWQ1YWM0Y2QyZTUxMDdkY2M2OTJlNGE5MWE=
I think the Jon Stewart joke to Obama, "Do you plan to enslave the white race?" is funny because it captures some truth about the fears some people have.
Here is an excerpt from an article by Christopher Fons, in which he criticizes Tim Russert for bringing up Farrakhan and Muslim rumors at a televised debate:
"What's Russert up to here? He seems like a nice muckraking type who asks the hard questions? But he is actually using the terms of the debate framed by the Right over the last 30 years or so. The Right wants to paint anyone who might question US foreign policy or question the institutional responsibility for millions of black and poor in the country as an America hater. There are many examples but the strategy has been so effective that wounded in action Vietnam Veteran John Kerry was easily dismissed as Ho Chi Minh's secret agent even though the guy ran against a draft dodger. For Russert the way that he can show that he is a fair journalist is by outflanking anyone to the left of Joe Liberman by questioning their patriotism through association. And in this case the fact that his target of attack happens to be black helps link the idea that many black people are potential fifth columnists or sleeper cell Jihadi's, isn't that Barack Obama a Muslim? I am not saying that Russert is an active participant of the vast Right Wing conspiracy but that he has internalized the Right's terms of debate and this makes him seem balanced in a media world that has been labeled liberal and biased."
http://www.counterpunch.org/fons03292008.html
My point was not that it is commonplace for people to utter the phrase "Go back to Africa". Rather, it was that questioning the patriotism of black people is tied in with not really considering them to be authentic Americans, which has obvious historical origins.
Alpha: Yeah, it says I have other things to do in my life than watch GOP tripe.
No, it says you assumed Ann had the wrong ad, because you couldn't find any "manipulative shameful racebaiting" as described by the NYTs.
ie. in an unguarded moment, you made Ann's point for her. Nicely done.
Rather, it was that questioning the patriotism of black people is tied in with not really considering them to be authentic Americans
I have never heard of anyone ever tieing patriotism to race. Liberalism yes, race no. You're reaching.
Alpha: "As far as Rev Wright, i can recommend the interview on Bill Moyer’s Journal this weekend. Unless you don't need more than 5 seconds of selective clipping to form your opinions - which is pretty foolish."
"Ann, i haven't had time to find or read your long post. It's a bit windy, but I'll check it out later."
So let's see, first you recommend that we watch the supposedly valuable show, like we're going to learn something important. Then, when you see that I did watch and wrote a detailed analysis of it, you say you can't read it now. And first, you insult us by predicting we won't be willing to watch the whole show, and then, when you see that I did and have a substantial response to it, you say you say they you aren't willing to read it.
Aren't you just the slightest bit embarrassed by that huge, huge pratfall? Talk about bullshit. You're soaking in it. You take the prize for bullshit.
I have never heard of anyone ever [tying] patriotism to race.
This is called the "Ostrich-head-in-the-sand" fallacy. If I put my fingers in my ears and go na-na-na, and I don't hear it, then it was never said.
fen said..."'Alpha: Yeah, it says I have other things to do in my life than watch GOP tripe.' No, it says you assumed Ann had the wrong ad, because you couldn't find any "manipulative shameful racebaiting" as described by the NYTs. ie. in an unguarded moment, you made Ann's point for her. Nicely done."
Yeah, exactly. And I wasn't even counting that when I said Alpha takes the bullshit prize of all time. He's like the Cate Blanchett of the Bullshit Awards.
Here are the results of a poll on stereotypes of blacks and Hispanics, including lack of patriotism:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7D9113FF933A25752C0A967958260
mortimer brezny said.... "Some question black patriotism because they suspect African-Americans could be de facto sleeper agents. A talk show radio host who introduced John McCain at a rally has claimed Obama is a member of a terrorist sleeper cell. On the NRO, one writer claimed Obama was a red-diaper baby, as if mixed-raced unions were a Communist plot."
That's not questioning blacks as a group. That's questioning Obama, because of specific data points about his politics. This is the very problem I'm talking about. When we criticize him, we aren't criticizing blacks in general. He's running for President. If we can't criticize him, he can't be President.
"I think the Jon Stewart joke to Obama, "Do you plan to enslave the white race?" is funny because it captures some truth about the fears some people have."
It captures what people who support Obama, like Stewart, like to think other people think. It's just rank prejudice.
As for the stuff about Farrakhan and concerns about what he may have experienced as a child in Indonesia -- it relates specifically to him. It's not about black people generally. He has to defend himself and respond.
It captures what people who support Obama, like Stewart, like to think other people think. It's just rank prejudice.
Not really. That poll I cited to isn't all that old. There is a racial stereotype that blacks aren't as patriotic, and there are white people who use that stereotype as a filter. You can claim it's all just about Obama, but those filters and memes precede his run for the Presidency. Unless your argument is that all racial stereotyping utterly evaporated between 1991 and today....
Got something that's not a generation old?
"Aren't you just the slightest bit embarrassed by that huge, huge pratfall?"
Of course he won't be, as evidenced by the fact that he immediately attempted a tu quoque attack on McCain the instant his BS became apparent.
The left has a very simple, yet effective method of arguing: NEVER admit that you're wrong. NEVER. If there's no way to spin it, change the conversation to your pet issue.
Got something that's not a generation old?
No, because I didn't bother looking for it. But if your argument hinges on the notion that there is no longer any racial stereotyping of blacks as unpatriotic and all criticism of Obama is purely merits based, there's no point in me looking for it, anyway.
I'm not saying there isn't any more stereotyping in the way people think, but one of the reasons I'm upset by Wright is that he's stimulating old stereotypes.
when I said Alpha takes the bullshit prize of all time. He's like the Cate Blanchett of the Bullshit Awards.
Best answer ever.
Hoo rah.
It seems the only people who are ever race-baiting are the people who cry "race-baiting".
Wright is extremely damaging to race realtions for the reasons you cite. Yet complaining about his racist anti-american rants is -according to the NYTimes- by itself evidence of racism.
It's the Catch 22 of Marxist identity politics.
If you don't agree with me you're evil/hypnotized/racist/classist.
I'm not saying there isn't any more stereotyping in the way people think, but one of the reasons I'm upset by Wright is that he's stimulating old stereotypes.
This is no defense of Wright, but Wright is old. I know some old Jewish people who hate young Germans.
One person who did make a defense of Wright I found interesting was John McWhorter, who noted that some of his mother's friends, if I recall correctly, knew these elderly ladies who were members of Trinity Church and who had been in church on the days of these incendiary sermons. They were very genteel and pleasant ladies whom Bill Kristol would find delightful. It is strange, then, that there is a bizarre focus on these sermons as rabblerousing hate-speech, when it seems to be the case that people just listen to the sermons and pay no serious attention to the incedniary parts. This is not to say the substance can't be properly analyzed as horrible, but if no one is really listening to it seriously, it doesn't seem like all that big of a deal. I'm sympathetic to the view that it's the media that turns non-issues into issues, based on the way the media constantly pushes narratives that are divorced from facts just to sell advertising.
But I was trying to make the much narrower point that there is a persistent racial stereotype that blacks are less patriotic, it has real historical origins, and one could make the argument that's being exploited in this "too extreme" ad. That's a more persuasive argument, in my view, than Orlando Patterson's reading of that 3 a.m. ad as akin to Birth of a Nation.
I would also note I don't think this is about liberalism. I thought much of the hard time Alberto Gonzalez got in his Senate hearings, especially the way his language was parsed, had a bit to do with him being Hispanic, particularly his speech patterns.
I also think pretty women are treated nicer than ugly women. But what do I know.
What we have here is ships passing in the night.
In a record store last week I overheard a guy say that Dylan was referring to the crucifixion in the line "postcards of the hanging" from 'Desolation Row.'
Fool that I am, I said, "Nah, it's a reference to the 1920 Duluth lynching of three black circus workers over something they didn't do. As many as 10,000 people came to the jail and took them. Priest climbed a lamppost and begged the mob to go home. Mob didn't. Men got hanged. Photographers took pictures. Back then, people bought their photo postcards and sent them to their Moms. That's what Dylan was writing about."
Guy looked at me like I'd blown his mind.
That's the horror world Rev. Wright comes from. I don't like him or agree with him, but if he's gone round the bend, I can think of about 10,000 people who drove him there.
The circus is in town.
Say this about McCain, he doesn't seek, court, or pander to the conservative vote and therefore he'll not be beholding to it. Ever. He'll be free as president to pursue whatever agenda he wants without fear of alienating the right. They've already done been alienated. Contrast that to another who sought the conservative vote and who thereafter stabbed conservatives in the back repeatedly over the last 7 years, especially in matters economic and the border.
McCain will be his own man. And I take him at face value. He really doesn't want to bash Obama, particularly not over Wright, and he doesn't want it done in his name. I believe him when he says he doesn't want the campaign to be that way. McCain better be prepared for what's coming his way because I'm guessing the Dems have no such compunctions.
George,
I agree. We need to give every Black person a pass on everything they say in 2001 because 87 years ago a black man was lynched in Minnesota.
Makes perfect sense - in the bizzaro left-wing world you inhabit.
I'll say this for the sophomoric add from NC; it elevates the conversation from the demented statements of Rev. (Mother, must I use that term) Wright. From a syllogism that you can object to the add if you object to any part of it, I would agree with the Senator's objection on the following grounds. It seems to be saying that a white Democratic politician (and one other) is too extreme for NC because he endorses Senator Obama and then associates the latter with Wright the Wrong. Whew, that's a lot of association bumps to tie the local NC Democratic candidates too. My political savvy is pretty much in the idiot range if I do say so myself but I think when you're in a political party you're pretty much stuck with endorsing those people who are likely to win in your party; so then one wonders what is the point of dragging in the 2 blacks as clowns.
"I'm afraid Trinity is left-wing politics as religion..."
This is true, and it is very important to understand that it has developed into something emotional and faith-based because there is simply no historical fact to support any of Trinity's dogma. The tenets of their religion therefore acquire added power (for them) as it leaves reason behind. All Marxist societies have failed their citizens. America is not run by the KKK and does not infect black people with HIV. Wright will never renounce his beliefs, or his right to so-called "prophetic" speech (lies)--they are who he is.
McCain is playing to a national audience rather than to his base. I doubt he'll lose one vote by publicly disagreeing with this ad and might pick up a few in less-conservative states. Kind of a "Sister Soldiah" moment for him.
The major problem with BHO is that he is now being exposed as not what he seemed when he opened his campaign in Iowa -- a centrist moderate and non-docrinaire African American who was not all about race and left wing politics.
The exposure reveals a talented young man whose entire political career has been intellectually influenced, fostered, enabled almost solely by a cast of left of center characters from his mom and dad to the Dohrn-Ayers, to Pastor Wright and his black liberation Trinity congregation, to MoveOn.org and its minions.
When Geraldine Ferarro observed that any white man so influenced would never have have made it to the brink of nomination with a major American political party, she was not being racist, but politically aware.
Mort and Alpha are simply willing to ignore BHO's extreme left cant because their politics are unapologetically way to the left of center.
Unfortunately for them, the majority of the American people do not share those politics.
Thus, the (dare I say it) the shuck and jive to label their predicament "shameful racism".
Fen-
I don't think you have to worry about that one aspect of Mort-
It's all been taken care of-Mort said so himself-
but your assertion is so obviously false my testicles just fell off.
Mort!
btw- that was Lisa Shiffren at NRO and she has since apologized for it-and ya I'm a huge sucker for people that have the cojoles to do that-so have to give her cred-since I was the one that brought that here.
I'm glad the NC Republicans are running this ad. By the end of this campaign, the race card will be nothing but an Extra Joker. This debate is necessary, healthy, and long overdue.
MolestorMort: Here are the results of a poll on stereotypes of blacks and Hispanics, including lack of patriotism
Likely as "scientific" as last weeks exit polls...
This is thugish intimidation via the use of the term "racism".
The Democrats excel in this: make stuff up, repeat it enough and it becomes the narrative.
Then give it a name like "swift boating".
Prof. Althouse, your point about the ad is well taken. Do you feel the same way about the Willie Horton ad, which was denounced even more so as racist?
C'mon, folks. This is the oldest trick in the Left's playbook. You don't attack the argument, you attack the supposed motives of the arguer.
They do it constantly, in a million situations. You don't argue the geopolitical facts around Iraq, you claim "Bush is doing it for his Halliburton buddies!!" It's called "a strawman." You mind-read the other side, ignore all their "so-called facts," impute ugly motives to them, and make THEM the issue. On every topic-- from abortion to taxes-- the Left does this.
The Wright story is just more of the same.
Mortimer Brezny: On the NRO, one writer claimed Obama was a red-diaper baby, as if mixed-raced unions were a Communist plot.
"Problems Facing Our Socialism" by Barak H. Obama
To amplify my previous comment:
This is politics, pure and simple. The NC GOP was going for a two-fer-- attack Obama and attack the Dem gubernatorial candidates in the same add. The strategy? Hang Wright/Obama around the neck of every Dem running for office in NC.
Now, before you go freaking out on me... isn't that exactly what the Dems are trying to do with Pres. Bush? Make him the unannounced running mate of every GOP candidate in the country? McCain is nothing more than "Bush's third term"? Are the Dems doing this because Bush is white? Because they are anti-man? No, it's because they think it will be a winning strategy. Which is exactly why the NC GOP is doing it.
Barak Obama is an empty suit whom I believe more and more every day is simply the front man for a leftists who want to hove the First Black President down the American people's throat - whether he's worth the trouble or not. They've been grooming him for the role for over a decade.
There may be latte' sippers in the back room now instead of cigar smokers but there's no doubt he's a product of the Chicago Democrat Party machine, which is really the only political machine still running in this country. It's just their bad luck that the Clintons are still around and want the prize for themselves.
Mortimer brezny said:
I was trying to make the much narrower point that there is a persistent racial stereotype that blacks are less patriotic, it has real historical origins, and one could make the argument that's being exploited in this "too extreme" ad. That's a more persuasive argument, in my view, than Orlando Patterson's reading of that 3 a.m. ad as akin to Birth of a Nation.
I guess I'm less concerned whether something may have some tangential connection to a "racial stereotype" than whether the charge in question with respect Obama is true. If Obama's a red diaper baby -- and I think there's a good case he is, starting with the black Communist Frank Marshall Davis, Obama's mentor in Hawaii who was apparently a friend of his white grandparents! -- was one or both of them a red/fellow traveller? no one has really looked into this -- then that's a salient fact for the electorate to know. The point is that it's OBAMA's radical connections we're interested in, not some generalization about 'Everyblack'. You can't refuse to deal with reality because there are people who use the facts to argue for conclusions the facts don't support.
This debate is necessary, healthy, and long overdue.
I agree, but the one proposed seems very one-sided to me. Do blacks get to participate or do they just guide whites until the whites say the right thing?
This is an argument about left-wing politics, not race.
The problem with this is that racism is a species of collectivism, and collectivism is the essence of the Left.
It is not merely the political expedience of the race card as shield that is active here; it is the logic of the Left's anti-Enlightenment raison d'etre that compel it to inject race into the debate. It is not merely expedient, it is logically inevitable!
The evidence of this is all around us. On the large scale, we see how everything the Left does in the name of "anti-racism" is in fact racist, to the point of feeding into and sustaining the "redneck" variety of racism). From affirmative action and the re-introduction of "What race are you?" questions on job applications, to all the psychological expressions of racism cited all through these comments (e.g. the "soft bigotry of low expectations"), the pattern is clear.
On the scale of the here and now, you will see it in the fact that at least every effective criticism of Obama will be smeared as racist, if not all of them -- and every criticism of Clinton will be marked as sexist, by the same logic. The Dems are simply making clear to everyone what they can expect if their candidate wins.
I consider it a tremendous serendipity from the standpoint of exposing the soul of the Left, that Obama should show up now and knock over Clinton's "inevitability" applecart; it is now wide open for everyone to see how even the rank-and-file of the Left writhing over the contradictions at the end of his road, trying desperately to decide which particular collectivism takes precedence over the other.
In the meantime, the fact that the ideas the Democrats bring to the table are ancient and thoroughly discredited, remains obvious to those looking at the entire picture -- which unfortunately isn't a lot of people.
McCain is looking to coast into the Oval Office as the ultimate middling moderate, and that's the sole reason he's knocking these ads; he knows that he's got the votes of those moderate Democrats who aren't completely Leftist -- and that he needs those votes in order to be able to brush off the segments of the Republican base he doesn't like -- First Amendment defenders, for example.
We just have to get used to Obama's supporters screaming "racism! racism!" whenever someone points out his dirty secrets.
Sure, a few people will be dippy enough to believe it, and of course Obama's supporters in the press will spread the meme. But ordinary Americans will see the kind of people Obama associates with and draw the appropriate conclusions about his character.
Obama was at his best when he transcended race. Now his supporters are trying to help him by making it more about race. This is a terrible development, and I would like to think that Obama thinks it's terrible.
I was trying to make the much narrower point that there is a persistent racial stereotype that blacks are less patriotic
Then maybe Obama shouldn't have made excuses for Wright's behavior in his big "race speech" the other month.
But he did. He tried to make excuses for Wright hating America, saying that blacks had experienced a lot of hardship and their anger is understandable. There are many problems with that argument, but one of the big ones is that Obama effectively came right out and said "of course black people are less patriotic" and then tried to explain why. He didn't say that Wright was an outlier; neither did the countless black political and religious leaders who paraded through the press to offer excuses. They all said roughly the same thing: black people have good reasons to hate America.
Well, maybe they do and maybe they don't. But you don't get to say "I have the right to hate America" and then turn around and say "how DARE you imply that I hate America".
Althouse's ability to spot racism is remarkable.
Conflating Obama and Wright is innately about race because Wright is seen by the right as a racist. The tag "extreme" in this ad is clearly in reference to Obama's association with Wright, a perceived anti-white racist.
What else could the tag "extreme" be about? The ad doesn't say. It leaves it up to voters to decide what "extreme" means...and by making the whole thing about Wright, what else are they going to think it's about?
Duh.
Call Obama "extreme" by listing his liberal policies, his ideas, how he's voted. You could even call him extreme and throw up some of his own quotes about abortion, Pakistan, etc. I can see how these positions would be extreme to people on the other side.
Althouse doesn't consider this ad race baiting, but she touts her expertise about spotting racism in the 3am ad because of the word NIGHT on a child's pajamas? Hilarious.
Mortimer-
So what are you saying?
That Wright's parishoners sit there like zombies?
That's not fair.
And, on the week after 9/11 they aren't really listening? That they are only participating on some subliminial level-one that is akin to how people in 5 seconds or less decide who is beautiful and then favor them?
I really don't think that's a fair comparison-and claiming that this commercial is racist does Democrats an injustice.
It's just not a good way to combat the commercial.
How about that it's lame?
Or that the two North Carolina Democrats didn't know at the time about the Wright sermons?
Or how about defending against the attack in the same way that Obama did?
Why isn't Obama's defense good enough?
Why rest on racism?
Just because that's easier and deflects from the real issue?
When is the Democrat party going to realize that The New York Times is not helping?
Those lazy rat bastards.
That last thing about how Hillary needs to drop out because it's getting nasty coming from the Pantheon of Politeness -The New York Times resting on the columns of Mo Do and Frank Rich-
And liberals are trotting that "opinion" here.
It's too damn funny.
The tag "extreme" in this ad is clearly in reference to Obama's association with Wright, a perceived anti-white racist. What else could the tag "extreme" be about?
Um, hating America? You know, rejecting "God bless America" in favor of "God damn America"? Like Wright does... in the ad?
People who already know who Wright is, and identify him as an anti-white preacher, weren't the targets of this ad. If you already know the Obama spent the last 20 years being mentored by a guy who hates white people and Americans, you probably already have a pretty firm opinion about that. The targets of this ad were people who DON'T already know about Obama's associations with Wright. All those people will take away from this ad is that Obama's church hates America. The anti-white racism wasn't on display during the clip in question.
I'm not going to put up with that. I don't want a left-wing President!
Um, why?
Once you go left, you'll never be bereft.
"The targets of this ad were people who DON'T already know about Obama's associations with Wright."
I'm sure there are, what, 2 or 3 of them out there?
Jeeze Ann,
You are just figuring Obama out?
I posted this on 08 Jan 08:
Trinity United. Very link rich.
Seriously when are the Democrats going to give up this identity politics crap and actually do something for the poor oppressed masses. Like ending the fookin Drug War?
Class War
"Conflating Obama and Wright is innately about race because Wright is seen by the right as a racist".
I don't think "conflate" is the word you're looking for. No one is suggesting Obama and Wright are one and the same but we know they are very closely associated. Politician's friends and associates have always been a fair subject for political debate.
Is there a new rule in force that politicians can hang out with whoever they want to and no one can question them?
Is there a new rule in force that politicians can hang out with whoever they want to and no one can question them?
Last I heard Trent Lott had to resign his majority leadership position in the Senate for whispering sweet nothings into the ear of an old Dixiecrat.
I guess the inferene we shuld draw is that the New York Times things blacks are inherently left-wing and anti-American, so that identifying those characteristics identifies someone as black.
I'm puzzled by McCain's view that it's wrong to discuss Obama's association with Wright but okay to talk about Hamas's praise for an Obama presidency.
That's frankly bizarre.
It's a cheap shot - and I support McCain - to link Hamas with Obama. Obama's never reached out or voluntarily associated himself with anyone in that organization.
It's fair, but one has to be careful, to argue that Obama's views or approach to Middle East policies is dangerously viewed by enemies of this country as helpful to their cause.
But that is unintentional on Obama's part (in my view).
However, it's certainly fair to mention Obama's nearly quarter century long relationship with a radical, anti-American hate monger like Wright.
Obama+Hamas is okay but Obama+Wright isn't?
You got me there, John.
Ann said to Mort: ... one of the reasons I'm upset by Wright is that he's stimulating old stereotypes.
Gee, when I said something similar to Mort, he called me a "racist dirtbag".
The targets of this ad were people who DON'T already know about Obama's associations with Wright.
Uh Rev, I stated the complete opposite in a comment near the top. The point of the ad is to remind everyone about Wright, because no one - unless you're already 100% in the tank for Obama - is "settled" in their feelings about it. Wright is not going away any faster than the Swift Boaters did. Wright'll be here all the way into November - he's the gift that keeps on giving.
The main purpose is to fire up Republicans to get involved in the campaign and down ticket issues, instead of just sittin' out the election.
I have relatives (many!)in North Carolina, some Republican, some Democrat. The word from the Dems in the family, mostly Obama supporters, is that they are getting uneasy about Obama.
so then one wonders what is the point of dragging in the 2 blacks as clowns.
The point is the two governor candidates have endorsed a clown who chose as his close associate another clown.
I can see the Rs winning House and Senate Seats by asking their opponent:
Do you endorse your Party's candidate for President?
The targets of this ad were people who DON'T already know about Obama's associations with Wright."
I'm sure there are, what, 2 or 3 of them out there?
Around one-quarter of the electorate, according to the polls I've seen.
Let me see if I get this. You can't tell the truth in politics because it is unfair?
Did Hagee endorse McCain? - yep.
Did Hamas endorse Obama? - yep.
And could John McCain watch the ad and think coherently before condemning it? Is this the man you want analyzing data and making life-or-death decisions for the world?
McCain is a nimrod. He also has a habit of backstabbing Republicans and questioning their motives in a way he never does with his "good friends" like Sen Kerry, Sen Kennedy, Sen Clinton, Sen Lieberman, and Sen Durkin. When he voted against ANWAR, he announced his vote with noting that he "cared more about the environment up on the Arctic tundra and the caribou and the Gwitchin protestors and less about the business interests that bought Republican votes". It's a pattern the asshole has. He all too frequently plays maverick then preaches those who disagree with him in his own Party only have the basest of motives. Welcome to the Real McCain, North Carolinians!
Carly In fact what he did was to affirm that it is, thereby validating the Democrats' standard characterization of Republicans in general as "racist".
What an ass! I'm starting to doubt that I'll be able to pull the lever for McCain in November even if I hold my nose very tightly. If Hillary, rather than Obama, is on the ballot, I very well might not....
You know, I actually am there, too. Hillary would still be bad, but not as bad as a Hard Left Elitist and black liberation theology believer, and now, her being a monster or not, she likely better than a treacherous, old erratic dimbulb.
In the 90s, my Mom, a JFK all the way Democrat who even worked at the UN for a few years, confessed she voted for Nixon in both 68 and 72 despite hating the guy. "I liked Nixon less than any other candidate, but as time went on, the other choices showed they were unfit." (She also voted for Reagan both times, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry - Kerry, despite the rest of our efforts to convince her Kerry dishonored his service...)
Alas, we had a chance for Romney despite his little irritating flaws, Duncan Hunter, Biden, and possibly Evan Bayh and didn't bite as voters....Now we got what we got.
Althouse - Obama was at his best when he transcended race.
You might wish to amend that to the days of the media free pass, when Obama and his marketers and image-makers and himself presented the Great Obama who transcended race, partisan politics, old ways of thinking like voting predictably liberal, and who was so proud of his country as an adult he spurned "silly distractions" like flag pins as not showing true patriotism.
Then reality intruded. The transcedent Sun-God stopped glowing with Team Axelrod's infusions of media-unquestioned "Greatness in Waiting for the Bitter Masses of Dumb Proles", PR.
George, delusional (A hanging 87 years ago!) That's the horror world Rev. Wright comes from. I don't like him or agree with him, but if he's gone round the bend, I can think of about 10,000 people who drove him there..
Rev Wright grew up in a mostly white, upper-middle class neighborhood in Philadephia. He had mostly white friends and schoolmates as a kid, and worried more about Little League team spots he could make than Southern mobs with ropes. As a Marine and then a Corpsman, he was well-regarded, mainstream, again socializing across "identity groups".
His biography didn't radicalize him. Or work as a young adult. His radicalization came later in his life from university and contact with firebreathing black bigot theologians. He shifted and entered that world and quickly realized he could get a pile of money and a pile of followers by throwing read meat at a pack of angry, ignorant, S. Side bigoted blacks - by tying race to religion and blaming all their ills on Whitey.
It was a great con. Likely towards the end, he believed some of the crap he spouted.
Now his work is done but for the millions he will make off books dealing race-baiting dealing with his relationship with "I had no idea what my Rev was talking about for 20 years!!" Obama. All while enjoying his rewards in a 10 million dollar home in a mostly white gated community, playing golf with fellow multimillionaires named Skipper, Muffy, and Chaim
Not a thread jack ↓
Obama was in my dream again last night. He was my bosses boss, which is weird because I don't have a boss. So in this already weird situation he goes, "Com'on we gotta talk." And I go, "OK," in my usual cheerful and innocent way and start following him through a bunch of peons hard at work doing something laborious. I wondered what he had in mind to talk about. Right then without looking he reaches back and gropes me really hard and hangs on like a joke or like I'm a pull-toy. I was shocked and that caused me to become suspicious about his intention and to not like him any more and to wake up. Now, this dreaming about prominent Liberals simply has got to stop, it's too disturbing.
Oh, and his race was irrelevant.
↑ Ok, a thread jack, so sue me.
I respectfully ask if Ann really meant this:
"Obama was at his best when he transcended race. Now his supporters are trying to help him by making it more about race. This is a terrible development, and I would like to think that Obama thinks it's terrible."
I think it's terrible that exit polls indicate that people are voting against BHO because the candidates' race is important to them (and these folks are self-identified, presumably there are actually more.) And, I would not say that it's BHO supporters who are plastering these poll results all over the media.
I think it's terrible that the invented Wright isn't the real Wright. How many white people think that they know more about Wright's "twenty years", than do BHO or others (including white folks) that have known Wright for decades? Why are these white folks so quick to have this visceral feeling? Where does that come from, since it's not based on an intimate knowledge of Wright? Why is it impossible for these white folks who think they're Wright experts to acknowledge their views are influenced by racism? How else do they explain the intensity of their unjustified certitude?
When I read or hear their comments I think that many of them sincerely believe that they know what Wright has been doing for twenty years, even though they clearly do not have this experience. And, I also read and hear commentators who seem to be working this issue for political gain rather than the result of a sincere (but not fact based) visceral reaction. While this manipulative politicking is common, I think that it should not be accepted when the context is racial. Some things should be off limits in a decent and functioning society, and manipulating race based perceptions to scare folks should to be off limits, no matter (perhaps because of) the fact that it's very effective.
And, to be sure this is a two way street, and it is true that Wright has gone over board on some occasions. But, even some of his YouTube comments are not what they are portrayed as; when the whole sermon is heard. And, conservatives don't like moral equivalency so they should appreciate that it is more influential on society when white folks use on their preconceived racial POV to arrive at non-fact based disparaging views of minorities. I will acknowledge that it is clearly harder for the majority to empathize with the minority POV, precisely because there is no societal pressure or advantage or reason to do so. Of course, minorities do need to invest energy navigating the world as it is perceived by the majority.
It's funny how many white folks were all worked up by BHO's race speech because it wasn't totally focused on blaming black folks' problems on black folks' not taking responsibility (though he did make this point.) It's so hard for many white folks to imagine the that black folks' different view of the world could be right a lot of the time. And, yet, intellectually, it makes sense for an outsider to be more insightful (e.g. Tocqueville.) This is exemplified by Wright, where white folks are sure they know what Wright has been for 20 years, never mind that they don't know what Wright has been for twenty years. The hubris is astonishing, and the lack of self reflection is bizarre.
Mortimer Brezny said: "This is no defense of Wright, but Wright is old."
The point isn't Wright, but what it says about Obama. And Obama is not only young, he is making a play for power. We need to test him.
And the parishioners don't sit there passively. They get stirred up, laugh, clap, cheer, and on the video, we see at least one woman stand up. Watch the video. These are not little old ladies who just sit through and tolerate the preacher's odd outburst. They get involved and become especially responsive and hit a crescendo of approval at "God damn America."
"God will damn America" is a prediction of God's action. "God has damned America" is an evaluation of God's action. "God damn America" is a petition for God to take an action.
Wright was actively praying for God to condemn all of America to eternal torment in Hell. That's what he said, no ifs, ands, or buts. Wright asked God to torture you worse and longer than anything that ever happened at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the gulag or Auschwitz — combined.
He's a minister, after all. He knows full well what damnation is. He clearly, openly, and without apology expressed the deepest hatred to America possible by wishing for the most vile treatment of America he believes possible. Jeremiah Wright thinks waterboarding is too merciful for you.
And Obama says that Wright's hatred is no more objectionable than an old woman being afraid of black men.
This is, of course, excused by the fact that Obama is not actually a religious believer, and so has probably not stopped to consider exactly what Wright's statement means. After all, in a secular context, "damn you" is only a mild insult.
But this was a minister, speaking in a pulpit, calling for God to do the worst He could to America. Jeremiah Wright is an evil man. And Obama freely chose him as a guide and mentor.
And, I would not say that it's BHO supporters who are plastering these poll results all over the media.
That's dishonest [why are Obama fans so fond of strawmen?]. Its BHO supporters who are plastering every good faith criticism of Obama with charges of racism.
If thats a preview of an Obama presidency, you can kiss mainstream America goodbye in November. We get enough of that bullshit in the workplace, we don't need it coming from the Oval Office as well.
Why is race only an issue when he isn't winning? Obama never speaks of peoples prejudices that might be voting for him, presumably only people that are not voting for him that are a problem and need to be discussed. Since OH up to PA we've had speeches and debates about its inhabitants as if they were specimens from another planet in need of an examination.
Ann, in your other post analyzing the Moyers interview, you wrote You're saying the media who reported what you says, who showed a clip of you speaking, wanted to foment racism in this country?
I'd say 'yes', that's the point. Here's a minister, a month from retirement, being demonized for interpretations of what those clips show: angry black man, indicating God damns America, so he's unpatriotic and so is everyone else listening to him and it's just coincidental that most are black.
You also make a point about him lacking any self criticism when it's clear he advocates his parishioners to look deep into themselves and root out impediments, including their own.
Take all of this out of a black church and put it into a white Southern Baptist one. If you turn the sound down on most: Falwell, Haggart, etc, they sure look angry to me. They speak, at times of God 'rendering judgment' or 'punishing for sins'. Exactly the same message, minus the word 'damn'.
They get criticized for that, because they're saying the people were guilty and God punished them. Wright's speaking of the American government and people who represent power (the wealthy and corporate influences). He's not blaming every American nor even every white American.
We are all free to disagree with him, but his aim is to convince his parishioners that they should walk with God, not be seduced by power and recognize that God often disagrees with the things powerful people do.
Have his sermons fomented violence? Stirred anger against all white people? Where's the evidence of that? No, they do promote a unity among blacks, but not against whitey, against the sins and seducements.
And sure, it's got critiques of capitalism; after all, like any economic system, when carried to the extreme, it has visible flaws.
But the man has built a church of thousands, they go on with their lives, not as Marxist crusaders, Black Panthers, or any mass movement of damaging extreme leftism.
Certainly, reasonable people can discuss this stuff, but within the racially polarized Southern states, such ads have the added impact of stirring racial resentments.
Which they're counting on. Some, like you, consider it an intellectual exercise to debate meanings and intents and correctness.
Sure, it's using Wright's own words - a few over a long career, and without that rhetoric of denouncement and exhortations of moral uplift, he'd only be preaching to 78 people still. Like all loud ministers, being provocative is a way to pander to an audience to draw them in and provoke them to turn away from sin while expanding the audience to push more to do the same.
Political ads are often designed to play on existing emotions and biases for the political gain of one over the other. Evangelism also plays on existing emotions and biases, but can seek an entirely different end, like casting off sin, bonding with your community and maintaining a healthy skepticism of the powerful who exploit or do things that God indicates we're not to do.
In South Carolina, that ad will have the desired effect on many: don't trust Wright because some of what he says is outlandish, therefore everything he says is extremist, and all who listen are potentially extremist.
It may not be as overtly racist as Helms was, but it certainly triggers existing racial biases. Even though Obama's never been shown to be anti-white or threatening to anyone at all, except those who he feels abuse power or promote division over political solutions.
Sure, it's using Wright's own words - a few over a long career
Taken from the boxed set of Wright's "greatest sermons", sold in the church gift shop.
We'll probably never know what he said in all those sermons he DIDN'T think were great -- but we do know that the odious anti-Americanism displayed in this clip was something he WANTED people to identify with him. That's the objective truth.
Maybe he only said that the United States deserved the 9/11 attacks once. But once is enough, because a good person with even the slightest degree of patriotism would never say that -- not even once.
If we can't draw conclusions about Jeremiah Wright based on a fairly extensive set of his public statements, then a fortiori we can't draw conclusions about the NC Republican Party based on a single TV ad.
Oh please. It is rather obvious that a respected, centrist, democratic presidential candidate from the senate, who has a harvard education, was editor of the harvard law review, whose life has been extensively investigated and chronicled, who has a wife who is a corporate lawyer and two children, who faithfully attends an interractial, mainstream christian church known for its public good works--can't actually be "too radical" or some kind of terrorist stooge. Only in Bush's america, or Ann Althouse's fevered imagination, fueled as it is with a confused mixture of too much wine and self importance, can such absurd accusations be leveled. What ever happened to the recognition--I believe it used to be quite common--that there could be such a thing as a two party system in this country and that actual political actors might each (in different ways) honestly have the good of the country in mind?
and when did the south become the arbiter of all that is good and normal in our society? I'm from the rock ribbed, heart of the north east where we don't allow Ann Althouse or NCarolina to set our priorities for us. Much less do we allow them to tell us who is a centrist american and who is "too extreme."
As for ann's understanding of the inherent racism of this or that? She's as obtuse on this subject as she is on all others. Of *course* the ad relies on a sub-vocalized racism. White preachers--white southern preachers--damn america all the time. Literally. Why don't you ask McCain's supporter John HAgee who predicted (and cheered on) the Katrina devastation as God's judgement on the homos in America? Surely such a man is "too extreme" for america? But you won't find a republican ad excoriating McCain for Hagee's words, or Falwell's or Robertson's(remember how it was the feminists who caused god to bring on 9/11?). the prophetic tradition in american preaching (ann, do you ever go to church?) includes lots of stuff like this. Its not a black thing, at all. So to call Obama out on it, while neglecting the rantings of the republican preachers who have endorsed McCain, may or may not be racism--but its certainly hypocrisy. There's that conversation you wanted to have, right ann?
aimai
Aimai and Kevin Hayden, well said.
Having grown up listening to Robertson, James Robison, Swaggart, Hagee, Oral Roberts, and a host of others embraced by the GOP, there is a bit of hypocrisy here.
But it is in fact the hypocrisy of people who have no idea what is going on in churches, black or white. (And don't really care either).
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Accusing your opponent of bigotry seems to be among the first few.
I notice that Obama's campaign has called his critics "divisive" a lot in the past, as though disagreeing with him was some kind of political sin. Apparently, he hoped to run on his good looks alone, without anybody really knowing what he really stands for. His connections to Mr. Wright and Mr. and Mrs. Ayers are causing the mask to slip and letting his radicalism to show. The fact that Obama refuses to quit clinging to the America-hating left is a legitimate concern and I'm distressed that McCain doesn't want to make the point. He's lambasted Obama's attempt to equate Billy Ayers with Senator Coburn, but that's not enough. Americans should be worried by what Obama isn't saying as much as by what he is.
What is truly silly about the Times' editorial is that Obama is about as "black" in terms of America's history of racial struggle as his mother and her parents.
OK, I watched the commercial and I went through the comments, but I'll be damned if I can see how the ad is about left wing politics. I see Obama; I see a scary old Negro in some kind of afro-gown chanting God Damn America, then I see a tag line saying that Obama (and his Dem endorsers) is too extreme for America. Where was the left-wing part that I missed?
It is rather obvious that a respected, centrist, democratic presidential candidate from the senate, who has a harvard education, was editor of the harvard law review, whose life has been extensively investigated and chronicled, who has a wife who is a corporate lawyer and two children, who faithfully attends an interractial, mainstream christian church known for its public good works
You have every right to believe what you just wrote is true, aimai.
But "centrist" does not describe the Senator with the highest liberal voting record.
And "mainsteam Christian Church" doesn't come close to the reality of Trinity where Obama continued for 20 years.
If you believe that, you are not living in the real world. And your news sources are seriously flawed.
Oh please. It is rather obvious that a respected, centrist
Bzzt! I'm sorry, thank you for playing -- but you only made it two adjectives into your description before descending into absurdity. Obama is resolutely left-wing. Centrist? As if.
Finn,
There are many of us conservatives who denounce Falwell, Robertson, Hagee AND Wright.
Too bad you only see hypocrites.
You and aimai live in some other world.
Only in Bush's america, or Ann Althouse's fevered imagination, fueled as it is with a confused mixture of too much wine and self importance, can such absurd accusations be leveled.
So now Ann is a lush, delusional, grandiose Bush lickspittle, hell-bent on destroying a centrist Democrat who just happens to be black (but all she sees is a fanatic)?
Give me a break. You do your side no favours by being so moronic and insulting whenever someone like Ann is asking legitimate, logical questions on a political topic.
Ann VOTED for Barack Obama in the primary. She was a life-long liberal, is a feminist, and an academic who specialises in the intellectual rigour of parsing difficult topics.
You make her sound like a fringe racist loon in cahoots with Camp McCain.
Enough. We're sick of the personal attacks on this blog, and it's owner.
This is as centrist a blog as you will find on the blogosphere, with decent commentary from all sides of the aisle.
If you can't see that, and I lean much farther right than Ann will ever be in her lifetime because you wouldn't catch me even voting for Gore or Obama for dogcatcher, then surely someone in the sinister side of the political divide can too.
Cheers,
Victoria
Yeah, if the Republicans were as close to nominating a Robertson toady as the Democrats are to nominating a Wright toady, I'd be pitching a fit about it.
I was harsh enough when it (briefly) looked like Huckabee might take the lead, and he's nowhere near as bad as Robertson and (formerly) Falwell.
His connections to Mr. Wright and Mr. and Mrs. Ayers are causing the mask to slip and letting his radicalism to show.
I finally understand the conservative mind. They only associate with those whose views they endorse -- a sort of political circle jerk.
That's why conservatives have denounced Jerry Falwell for saying that God may have allowed what the nation deserved -- 9/11 --because of moral decay. He specifically listed the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the People For the American way as sharing in the blame. Further, conservatives have denounced Pat Robertson for agreeing with him.
In fact, conservatives have denounced all of Falwell's and Robertson's listeners and viewers; everyone who has sent these people a dime, everyone who has ever watched the 700 Club. In fact, conservatives have vowed to root graduates of Pat Robertson's Regent University out of government.
Give me a break.
Revenant said...
"[Obama is a centrist?] Bzzt! I'm sorry, thank you for playing -- but you only made it two adjectives into your description before descending into absurdity. Obama is resolutely left-wing. Centrist? As if."
Seconded. Whatever Obama's merits may be, he certainly isn't a centrist. Nothing in his rhetoric, record, or substantive views suggests such. Why are liberals so afraid of designating themselves liberals? Why hide behind the pretense that they're moderates?
Hmmmmm.
@ former law student
"I finally understand the conservative mind. They only associate with those whose views they endorse -- a sort of political circle jerk."
Wrong as usual.
This is the liberal standard used to excoriate conservatives. This technique was created by liberals, used continuously by liberals and complained of by liberals when conservatives dare to use their own tactics against them.
"That's why conservatives have denounced Jerry Falwell for saying that God may have allowed what the nation deserved -- 9/11 --because of moral decay. He specifically listed the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the People For the American way as sharing in the blame. Further, conservatives have denounced Pat Robertson for agreeing with him."
See. Here's a perfect example.
Only liberals really give a damn what Falwell thinks. I know hundreds of conservatives who think he's as much of a jackass as Pastor Wright.
"In fact, conservatives have denounced all of Falwell's and Robertson's listeners and viewers; everyone who has sent these people a dime, everyone who has ever watched the 700 Club. In fact, conservatives have vowed to root graduates of Pat Robertson's Regent University out of government."
And of course liberals enjoy trying to force conservatives into acting far more strenuously than they have ever done.
Really you're juvenile. But that's often a characteristic of liberals too.
I finally understand the conservative mind. They only associate with those whose views they endorse -- a sort of political circle jerk.
Thank you for providing us with yet another straw man. It has been at least fifteen minutes since another leftie did that.
I associate with people with all sorts of political beliefs. Among those beliefs, however, you will NOT find advocacy of domestic political murder and terrorism, nor will you find race-hatred or hatred of the United States. The reason you will not find these things is that I, unlike Barack Obama and, apparently, many of his supporters, think those things are bad. "Used to bomb other Americans and still doesn't feel bad about it" is a deal-breaker. Even a *child* has sufficient moral understanding to recognize that such a person is, well -- bad.
I associate with people with all sorts of political beliefs...nor will you find race-hatred
Really? You never associated with people who talked about coons, or spooks, or porch monkeys? How did you react when you heard race-hatred come from an associate's mouth? Did you knock his teeth out?
Really you're juvenile. But that's often a characteristic of liberals too.
Better juvenile than inflexible and implacable.
Aimai, your ad hominem attacks on our host aside, let's take a look at what you wrote to see where you are as a person. Trinity United Church of Christ practices a theology created by Dr. James Cone who is a 'distinguished' professor at New York's Union Theological Seminary. Cone's writings are required reading at TUCC to help parishoners "better understand their church".
In an interview, when asked what church most embodied his theology, Cone said, "I would point to that church (Trinity) first." Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition." Here is just one small sample of Cone's writings to give you the general flavor of things at TUCC:
"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."
To you, this is mainstream. So you must then agree with Cone that, "All white men are responsible for white oppression..." and "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil."
Such statements are part and parcel of TUCC's theology, and you obviously approve. Do I have that right?
Really? You never associated with people who talked about coons, or spooks, or porch monkeys?
With the exception of the handful of rednecks at my high school, whom I had no choice but to associate with because we were in the same class -- no.
How did you react when you heard race-hatred come from an associate's mouth?
I shun the people in question.
former law student said..."Really? You never associated with people who talked about coons, or spooks, or porch monkeys?"
You know, I'm 57 years old, and I grew up in Delaware, and I have never in my life encountered such people. The closest I could come is that I heard one member of my extended family express the opinion, 40 years ago, that black people don't work as hard as white people. That's it. I am willing to concede that there is racism everywhere, that it is built into the human psyche by evolution, but everyone I've ever met behaves and speaks as if he understands that this is something that decent people rise above, just as they rise above childish selfishness.
Calling the ad racist and bigoted is a smokescreen for the virulent racism practiced by Jeremiah Wright and his ilk.
Their racism is "excused" by saying that is it justified or denied by saying that black people cannot be racist. More twaddle that.
Bigotry is poison, and the left spreads it through this philosophy.
Trey
It does often seem like the Left is 40 years behind the power curve on racial tolerance. They make the most racist statements, completely ignorant that they are relying on bigoted stereotypes. Huge blind spots.
You know, I'm 57 years old, and I grew up in Delaware, and I have never in my life encountered such people. The closest I could come is that I heard one member of my extended family express the opinion, 40 years ago, that black people don't work as hard as white people. That's it. I am willing to concede that there is racism everywhere, that it is built into the human psyche by evolution, but everyone I've ever met behaves and speaks as if he understands that this is something that decent people rise above, just as they rise above childish selfishness.
You're fortunate. And perhaps too sheltered. I'm 37 years old, and have heard lots of people say stuff like that over the course of my life. I'll agree that such comments aren't spoken by decent people, but those attitudes are still out there.
You're fortunate.
Or you're unfortunate. Ann's experience sounds pretty typical to me.
I am willing to concede that there is racism everywhere, that it is built into the human psyche by evolution, but everyone I've ever met behaves and speaks as if he understands that this is something that decent people rise above, just as they rise above childish selfishness.
The problem with this is that since (white) racists have no reason to be racist toward you and racism thrives in smaller interactions that can later be described as ambiguous, it makes perfect sense that you would never have encountered it if you are not a racist yourself who keeps in the company of decent people.
I'm 37 years old, and have heard lots of people say stuff like that over the course of my life. I'll agree that such comments aren't spoken by decent people, but those attitudes are still out there.
Exactly.
[I]t is in fact the hypocrisy of people who have no idea what is going on in churches, black or white. (And don't really care either).
I agree, Finn. The behavior on those tapes is no different than the behavior of many churchgoers in many churches in response to many kinds of sermons, that many "respectable" persons would find outrageous. But that is what happens in church. It doesn't mean congregants have been brainwashed or that the service is anything but a catharsis. I admit I have watched a porn flick. Yet I still haven't stangled a woman to death out of uncontrollable, lust-driven misogyny.
So what are you saying? That Wright's parishoners sit there like zombies?
No. If I had meant to say that, I would have written "Wright's parishoners sit there like zombies." I did not write that.
[T]he parishioners don't sit there passively. They get stirred up, laugh, clap, cheer, and on the video, we see at least one woman stand up.
So? It's church.
They get involved and become especially responsive and hit a crescendo of approval at "God damn America."
But that was the climax of that section of the sermon. You can applaud the boldness and the rhetorical flair without agreeing on the deep substance. And you can agree with his interpretation of the Bible as condemning an aggressive, warlike foreign policy by anyone, including the United States, without literally believing God has laid a curse upon America. You could also recognize that he was echoing a Reagan-era ambassador's critique of American foreign policy, as he explicitly says in the sermon, which is curiously omitted from the snippet so gratuitously replayed. Edward Peck, I believe.
I'd say 'yes', [I'm saying the media who reported what I said, who showed a clip of me speaking, wanted to foment racism in this country]. Here's a minister, a month from retirement, being demonized for interpretations of what those clips show: angry black man, indicating God damns America, so he's unpatriotic and so is everyone else listening to him and it's just coincidental that most are black.
This is on point. The media makes money off of racism. It's called market segmentation.
Likely as "scientific" as last weeks exit polls...
If you doubt the General Social Survey is scientific, then you cannot be helped.
http://www.norc.org/projects/General+Social+Survey.htm
From Wikipedia:
In a sermon delivered after the September 11 attacks in 2001, Wright made comments after stating he viewed an interview of former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck on Fox News. Wright said:
"I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out — did you see him, John? — a white man, he pointed out, ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad was in fact true — America's chickens are coming home to roost."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_sermon_controversy
Well, I've come to the end of my addiction to Althouse.
I used to find myself engaged by good minds,like Simon, rev and others, but they and everyone else - including Ann - obviously skip my comments. You all probably think I'm some sort of three and ahalf year troll. But when I write something, and then someone else states it again, and others pick up and agree with the person who said it after me, well I'm obviously wasting your time and space Ann. time. So, goodbye.
I'll still check in because you are all smart. I just thought that maybe after 3 years, even though I don't write very well, and I directly call out some commenters. , that at least sometimes people couyld respond to my comment, rather than waiting until someone else says the identical words. So, I'll give you what you all want. No more me.
What am I thinking . . no one, including Ann, is even going to read this.
What am I thinking . . no one, including Ann, is even going to read this.
Get a better handle.
You all probably think I'm some sort of three and ahalf year troll.
Not at all. And I have the same problem most the time, so I know you're not being deliberately ignored.
Besides, that Evil Simon hogs up all the oxygen, which is why he seems so much smarter than the rest of us.
I think you're just having a black mood today. Buck up and stick around. No one cares who makes the good points, just that they are made. And everyone's game is improved by the experience.
I think you're just having a black mood today.
A BLACK mood?!!!? Fucking racist.
OMG. You're being light-hearted and funny. Human after all. ;)
Mortimer B: "This is on point. The media makes money off of racism. It's called market segmentation."
You don't understand the supply chain: Wright makes money off of racism - the media makes money reporting on it.
The problem with this is that since (white) racists have no reason to be racist toward you and racism thrives in smaller interactions that can later be described as ambiguous, it makes perfect sense that you would never have encountered it if you are not a racist yourself who keeps in the company of decent people.
And the most damning evidence of this secret conspiracy of racism is that it leaves no evidence. Those racist conspirators are really that good.
This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end.
Why is it significant that Peck is white? The "chickens coming home to roost" line isn't cited as an example of Wright's racism; there are other examples of that. It is cited as an example of his hatred of America. There are plenty of white people who hate America as well.
Wright's defenders try this stunt a lot -- they defend his racist diatribes by pointing out that they aren't anti-American, and his anti-American diatribes by pointing out that they aren't racist. But just because a man hates white people and Americans doesn't mean that every statement he makes reflects both hatreds.
I used to find myself engaged by good minds,like Simon, rev and others, but they and everyone else - including Ann - obviously skip my comments.
I read them. :(
Seconded. Whatever Obama's merits may be, he certainly isn't a centrist. Nothing in his rhetoric, record, or substantive views suggests such. Why are liberals so afraid of designating themselves liberals? Why hide behind the pretense that they're moderates?
Well...for some of them he's really too conservative. Some are much closer to Wright's position vis a vis America.
If replaying a recording of a person's words is racist, what does that say about the words in question?
If replaying a recording of a person's words is racist, what does that say about the words in question?
Nothing.
There are plenty of white people who hate America as well.
Ronald Reagan's ambassadors generally do not fit this paradigm. Wright is quoting a Reagan-era ambassador.
And the most damning evidence of this secret conspiracy of racism is that it leaves no evidence.
No. It leaves no evidence amongst decent, middle-of-the-road, educated, white female law professors of a certain age. Because they aren't the targets or participants.
Wright makes money off of racism -
Proof?
Proof? You've got to be kidding. He screams at a group of people telling them that the government of the US of KKK created AIDS to kill black people. He awards Louis Farrakhan "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer". Interviewed about the award to Farrakhan, he gushes, "His love for Africa and African American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose." He preaches at a church whose theology was created by a man who wrote, "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy." Reverend Wright is moving into a new 10,000 square foot house. In Wright's case, racism pays and pays well.
Wright does not make money off of racism. It just looks that way to white folks. The people who attend his church know it is not racism to say that white people invented AIDS to kill black people because it is true.
We know Obama followers are not racist because he gets 90+% of the black vote and 45% of the white vote. Blacks and whites together. I can't see one single sign of racism in that.
It is obvious. The only way to heal the racial divide is vote for the black guy. I don't see why more people have not come to that conclusion. The only way to be anti-racist is to vote for the candidate black people overwhelmingly like. Barack Hussein Obama.
"Wright makes money off of racism"
Proof?
Black liberation theology is racist; Wright earned his living promoting it. QED.
And now, we await your proof of this secret conspiracy of white racists which neither northern white women in their 50s nor Southern and Californian white men in their 30s every encounter.
Regan's ambassadors generally do not fit this paradigm
He was Carter's ambassador, first of all. Secondly, it doesn't matter what ex-ambassadors are "generally" like -- if Peck said what Wright claims he did, then he's an anti-American scumbag just like Wright is. Finally, it isn't like there's no precedent for high government officials turning against their own country; Ramsey Clark did.
Black liberation theology is racist; Wright earned his living promoting it.
This is literally the dumbest thing I have ever read. martin Luther King Jr. was promoting black liberation theology, and so does the fucking Catholic church, you idiot.
conspiracy of white racists which neither northern white women in their 50s nor Californian white men in their 30s every encounter.
Yes. There is no more racism. All black people who complain are mentally ill. Lock them up.
The people who attend his church know it is not racism to say that white people invented AIDS to kill black people because it is true.
It may not be true, but it is "white people" who own the IP for the AIDS drugs that are so expensive to poor Africans who have AIDS. There are also plenty of blacks who remember Jim Crow and the Tuskegee syphillis experiments, etc. It's not as if "white people" never did such things to black people. In fact, "they" did such thinsg quite recently. There are black people alive still bitter about it.
He was Carter's ambassador, first of all.
Oh, please. Carter's economic people also are responsible for the Reagan boom.
In Wright's case, racism pays and pays well.
That didn't look like proof to me. It looked like you getting upset and typing in some crap.
MLK was a disciple of Cone's? Who knew?
MLK was a believer in Black Man good, white man devil? Who knew?
Bhreznev,
You can believe what ever you want to of course. But we will be putting your take against mine to the general public. Who do you want to bet gets the better of the argument?
Obama 08. Because McCain will need some one to clean the floor with and I'd love to make you happy.
You know I really thought running against "Christmas In Cambodia" Kerry was fun. This is 10X better.
I also read your comments B.
Stick around!
At times I get the sense my only reactions come from trolls.
Recall Emily Dickinson
I'm nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us — don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know.
I think it was the day His Holiness The Reverend Robinson favored us with his comments on 9/11 that I threw my bible on the compost heap (it rotted rather quickly!). So the fact that nothing sensible is issued from Rev. Wright's mouth doesn't surprise me. Yet I don't blame my cousin Aunt Pearl for finding much spiritual solace in Robinson's good works. It's not a journey I understand, and since I don't insist that that nice Mr. Obama be more than twice as spotless as a white man, I pretty much ignore his spiritual mentor. Now, can we please talk about how Aunt Pearl is going to pay for dialysis next month?
Obama is NOT Jeremiah Wright. But they're both black. Therefore Obama somehow believes everything Jeremiah Wright has ever said.
Fine.
Ann Althouse continuously links to Powerline. Therefore she agrees with everything they have ever said, including the belief that it's ok to kill gay people for having sex.
Ann likes to link to Daniel Henninger. Therefore she must believe that gay people can be put on a scale of 1-10, one being ordinary gay guy, 10 being a murderous, child molester.
And Obama has condemned Jeremiah Wright's comments many times.
Ann has never condemned those statements from Henninger or Powerline. Not once.
I'm not saying that Ann is an anti-gay bigot. But we ought to be allowed to debate this.
I mean if you're going to base an entire Presidential campaign on guilt by association, then this ought to apply to everyone else including bloggers. It's idiotic of course, but if this is the right-wing meme, then they ought to get a taste of their own medicne.
And even if Ann condemns those statements, or renounces them, or rejects them - that is still not enough.
And rejecting or renouncing those people is not enough either.
She will be linked to them forever and ever and ever.
Right wing idiocy at work.
God forbid we actually discuss any of Obama's policy positions.
One thing I can say definitively is that America's racist response to the Obama candidacy will ensure that we don't have a black President for the next 100 years.
Why doesn't McCain have to speak for Hagee, the bigoted preacher who he proudly shared a stage with, the man whose endorsement McCain vigorously sought.
Oh that's right - because McCain and Hagee are white.
Downtownlad brings wingnut leftism to the level of performance art:
Ann Althouse continuously links to Powerline. Therefore she agrees with everything they have ever said, including the belief that it's ok to kill gay people for having sex.And even if Ann condemns those statements, or renounces them, or rejects them - that is still not enough.
LoL. DTL - send your resume to "The Atlantic", they might hire you as Sullivan's summer replacement. But you'll have to call yourself a "conservative".
This is literally the dumbest thing I have ever read. martin Luther King Jr. was promoting black liberation theology, and so does the fucking Catholic church, you idiot.
No, it doesn't. There were Catholic priests into liberation theology (not specifically black liberation theology) in South America, but the Vatican (including the Pope himself) does not approve of liberation theology and criticizes its Marxism.
Many commenters here are strikingly similar to both Rev. J. Wright and to Bill Ayers. Like the pastor, in the absence of an apology and a show of remorse, they can't forgive. And like Ayers and Dohrn, they expect to be forgiven without either apologizing showing remorse. When either is requested, they come up with excuses why they don't need to.
One thing I can say definitively is that America's racist response to the Obama candidacy will ensure that we don't have a black President for the next 100 years.
We'll have a black male president before a white female. That bl;ack president will be Republican.
The people who attend his church know it is not racism to say that white people invented AIDS to kill black people because it is true.
I'm wondering how much black on white crime in Chicago is influenced by this kind of propaganda.
*sets fire to all of DTLs Strawmen* WHOOSH!
Mort: It may not be true
It MAY not be true that whites invented AIDS to kill black people? You want revise and extend that remark, Mort?
it is "white people" who own the IP for the AIDS drugs that are so expensive to poor Africans
Would you like to pause and give Bush props for his fight against AIDs in Africa?
fls: in the absence of an apology and a show of remorse, they can't forgive.
I'm not a Christian, but I've studied C. S. Lewis's work. My understanding is that repentance is a pre-requisite for forgiveness.
"If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him." - Luke 17:3
martin Luther King Jr. was promoting black liberation theology, and so does the fucking Catholic church
I see you've decided to try and lie your way out of this hole you've dug for yourself. Fortunately I doubt anyone to the right of AlphaLiberal is dumb enough to believe you.
[blah blah racism racism blah] we don't have a black President for the next 100 years.
Why should we care if we ever get a black President? This is politics, not Pokemon. We're not trying to catch 'em all.
Whether it's the 'stay the course' mentality used in Iraq, or the linkage provided by conservatives (who no longer conserve anything that I've witnessed in the past two decades) to Clinton, Kerry and Obama, it's clear they're still stuck in the Sixties.
The American public OTOH have real woes and real needs today. Obama seems to recognize that. McCain's off to the America he forgot throughout his Senate career, trying to convince them he's changed.
Which still doesn't address the change the country is seeking. The Sixties are gone, Obama bears responsibility for none of it. If that's all the game the GOP has, they're gonna catch a lot of air between now and Obama's inauguration day.
Mortimer, it is comical the lengths you go to avoid having to deal with reality. Clearly, you are afraid to address the glaringly racist theology promulgated by Wright and his church.
Wright states that his church is based upon Black Liberation Theology created by Dr. James Cone.
Regarding his theology, Dr. James Cone says: "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."
Change white to black and black to white in the above quote and tell me that whoever believes such a thing is not racist.
"Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."
Change white to black and black to white in the above quote and tell me that whoever believes such a thing is not racist.
Print the whole page surrounding that quote. I can destroy my enemy by making him my friend.
Kevin: Whether it's the 'stay the course' mentality used in Iraq
I guess you've never heard of the Surge. That, or you're still working off talking points that are two years old.
or the linkage provided by conservatives (who no longer conserve anything that I've witnessed in the past two decades)
And you think Conservatism is about conservation? What an indictment of our public education system.
There were Catholic priests into liberation theology (not specifically black liberation theology) in South America
Not, were. Are. The greatest growth of Catholicism is in Africa, where liberation theology is rampant. And liberation theology is liberation theology, whether practiced by blacks or not. That Dr. Cone was a BLT guy doesn't change that so was Martin Luther King, Jr..
Clearly, you are afraid to address the glaringly racist theology promulgated by Wright and his church.
Clearly, you are David Duke.
Strom Thurmond was a decorated officer in WWII with the 82nd Airborne. He fought in D-Day. Does that make everything OK?
Obama owns Wright's statements: Marines = Roman soldiers crucifying Christ, AQ flag = US flag.
So too do Dems. He's their standard bearer. If a Dem endorses Obama, it is fair to point out that he must share these beliefs. Just like Trent Lott owned Thurmond's.
Morti: "Clearly, you are David Duke".
Ad hominem Morti? And lame ad homimen at that. Yet such a perfect acknowledgement that you are indeed afraid to deal with the facts.
Kevin says:
Which still doesn't address the change the country is seeking. The Sixties are gone, Obama bears responsibility for none of it. If that's all the game the GOP has, they're gonna catch a lot of air between now and Obama's inauguration day.
Uh, Kev, have you heard of Recreate '68 and the fun they have planned for the D convention?
Who says the 60s are over?
Me? I think it is a wonderful idea for destroying the D party. Power to the people!!!!!!!!!
Ann said: You know, I'm 57 years old, and I grew up in Delaware, and I have never in my life encountered such people. ... I am willing to concede that there is racism everywhere, ... but everyone I've ever met behaves and speaks as if he understands that this is something that decent people rise above ...
I've never encountered such people either, Ann (I'm 52). And frankly, I'm becoming less and less willing to believe that racism is everywhere.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा