Obama's spiritual advisor

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

Fugu

Post by Fugu » Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:09 pm

RebLem wrote:
Werner wrote:On the other hand, I see no point in transferrring our many criticims of GWB on to his wife. As far as I've been able to see, in her many [public appearances she's been flawless.
And, when she visits a classroom, she reads to the kids. When W visits a classroom, the kids read to him.

Posted on March 16, 2008, the 310th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem
Not quite true. It's when he reads to them, they help by correcting his grammar, pronunciation, and spelling.

Auntie Lynn
Posts: 1123
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42 pm

Post by Auntie Lynn » Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:33 pm

Ergo, my dollinks, when this thread dies, as it inevitably will, Cindy McCain will still be a cutie pie cupcake with style and savvy and Michelle Obama will still be an ugly twit with no social skills...

Boy, it musta been a real dull day around here before I showed up...

It must be time to go listen to all that Telemann!

piston
Posts: 10767
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:50 am

Post by piston » Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:14 pm

Auntie Lynn wrote:Ergo, my dollinks, when this thread dies, as it inevitably will, Cindy McCain will still be a cutie pie cupcake with style and savvy and Michelle Obama will still be an ugly twit with no social skills...

Boy, it musta been a real dull day around here before I showed up...

It must be time to go listen to all that Telemann!
And so will Barbie Doll and her pharmaceutical kit.....

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Post by RebLem » Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:34 pm

Auntie Lynn wrote:Ergo, my dollinks, when this thread dies, as it inevitably will, Cindy McCain will still be a cutie pie cupcake with style and savvy and Michelle Obama will still be an ugly twit with no social skills...
Boy, it musta been a real dull day around here before I showed up...
It must be time to go listen to all that Telemann!
Aunti Lynn, I'm willing to cut you some slack just as I am Michelle Robinson Obama. After all, yer a Republicant in San Francisco. It must be very lonely.

Posted on March 16, 2008, the 310th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

Madame
Posts: 3552
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:56 am

Post by Madame » Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:13 am

Anyone look at this as also thumbing his nose at the IRS? That DAMNED American agency of the DAMNED American government that exempts churches from taxation, as long as they don't campaign from the pulpit?

I'd be tiptoing around this is if I were O, gotta protect both himself and his church.

On 3/14 it was 'noted' that Wright was no longer serving on the Barack Obama Campaign African American Religious Leadership Steering Committee -- he was listed as a member in a press release last December, with a CYA qualifier that stated: Endorsements from religious leaders are extended in their personal capacity, and not on behalf of any house of worship, organization or denomination. Oops!

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com ... committee/

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:49 pm

March 17, 2008

In today's Political Diary

Does Obama Know a Blowhard When He Hears One?

Barack Obama insists he wasn't present at his local church when his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made incendiary remarks attacking America. Mr. Obama also insists he wasn't aware of many of Rev. Wright's controversial opinions.

His claims may already be unraveling. Ron Kessler of Newsmax.com reports that on July 22 of last year, Mr. Obama was at Mr. Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ. He was observed in the pews by Jim Davis, a freelance reporter for Newsmax, and was also seen to be nodding in agreement with the fiery minister's remarks. In his sermon that day, Mr. Wright condemned America as the "United States of White America" and said young blacks were "dying for nothing" in Iraq. He called the Iraq war an "illegal" war based on lies and "fought for oil money." The Obama campaign says that the candidate did not attend church services that day, flying instead to speak to an Hispanic group in Chicago. Mr. Kessler stands by his story.
Still more evidence has surfaced that Mr. Obama likely knew a great deal about the content of his pastor's sermons. Last year, the New York Times reported Mr. Obama personally called Mr. Wright to tell him he was being disinvited from giving the public invocation at the announcement of Mr. Obama's candidacy. Mr. Obama explained the move by pointing out to his pastor that a recent Rolling Stone story called "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" had reprinted excerpts from Wright sermons. "You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public," was Rev. Wright's recollection of what Mr. Obama told him.

The Rolling Stone story included the following Wright quote describing the United States: "We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS.... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.... We conducted radiation experiments on our own people.... We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!... GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS S***!"

At least one member of Rev. Wright's church apparently had her fill of such rhetoric. Oprah Winfrey, a staunch backer of Mr. Obama, began attending the church in 1984. But sometime in the mid-1990s, Christianity Today reports the superstar abruptly stopped going. It may well have had something to do with her desire to distance herself from his fiery speech. Rev. Wright criticized her absence, claiming that Ms. Winfrey has broken with his notion of "traditional faith."

Mr. Obama took a different path. He not only remained in the church, but in 2001, the same year Ms. Winfrey left, had his daughter Natasha baptized by Rev. Wright. The question more and more people are asking is: Why?

-- John Fund
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There will probably need to be more than one reporter from a conservative source here, but if proof emerges that Obama was at one of these sermons, after he said he wasn't at them, he may be history. I can already see NY possibly going for McCain even if the story doesn't go any further. Many Jews see Farrakan as a black equivalent of David Duke. Imagine if McCain's or Clinton's spiritual adviser gave an award to David Duke. I think Jews are going to vote Republican at the highest rate in a number of years if Obama is the Democratic nomination, and while that may not matter in much of the country, it does in NY.
If you doubt me on this, my mother, who is has voted for nothing but Democrats for president for a number of years now, and who also has a black husband, will not consider voting for Obama in the primary at this point, and I think there is a real chance she'd either sit out the presidential race in November or vote for McCain if she feels she must vote and Obama is the Democratic nominee. I know that's not exactly a scientific sample, but if a woman with my mother's history won't vote for Obama at this point, I don't think that bodes well for him in November in areas with a heavy Jewish population (New York, some Philadelphia suburbs and parts of Northeast Philly, etc.) where Democrats do well in most elections.
On top of that, this story has real potential to eat away at his support among white swing voters who have liked McCain in the past, but had been leaning towards Obama this time around, at least up until now.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

GK
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Silver Spring, MD

Post by GK » Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:32 pm

A significant development--In the USA Today/Gallop poll released today, for the first time in a long while, Clinton does better against McCain than Obama.

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Post by RebLem » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:29 pm

Barry wrote:March 17, 2008

At least one member of Rev. Wright's church apparently had her fill of such rhetoric. Oprah Winfrey, a staunch backer of Mr. Obama, began attending the church in 1984. But sometime in the mid-1990s, Christianity Today reports the superstar abruptly stopped going. It may well have had something to do with her desire to distance herself from his fiery speech.

Mr. Obama took a different path. He not only remained in the church, but in 2001, the same year Ms. Winfrey left, had his daughter Natasha baptized by Rev. Wright. -- John Fund
So, which was it, mid-1990's, or 2001? And if Mr. Fund is this sloppy about reporting little details like this, why are we supposed to take the rest of his story as Gospel? Did he talk with Ms. Winfrey about this, or did he rely, as seems to be the case, on a second hand report in Christianity Today? And if he didn't contact her, or at least try, why? And what was it that kept her in the congregation as long as it did? Could it be that the kind of thing we saw in the clips was only a very occasional thing when she started? That, perhaps, as he got a little older, Rev. Wright's judgment, as will happen with older people, became somewhat clouded?

Could it be that people stay with him because they don't want to abandon an old friend in a time of need, and, perhaps, mental distress? Has anybody, familiar with Senator Obama's writings, knowing that a belief if these kinds of things would be out of character for him, decided to take the more charitable--and in view of his record, writings, and personal conduct--more probable, view? No? Why not?

Posted on March 17, 2008, the 309th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:34 pm

I think you need to be more careful when making an accusation of inaccuracy, Rob. The story says Oprah "stopped going" at one point and "left" at one point. Those two don't have to mean the same thing. She may have stopped going to services in the 90s, but not bothered to officially withdraw her membership for another few years (maybe it never occured to her, then she discovered she was listed in their membership rolls somehow and requested that it be removed ... I don't know, but you're approaching the discrepency pretty aggressively, when there may, in fact, be no discrepency at all).
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Auntie Lynn
Posts: 1123
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42 pm

Post by Auntie Lynn » Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:53 pm

The Talking Heads over the weekend claim the O campaign is unravelling.

Anybody recollect the Muslim infiltration campaign that started in the 1950's or did I dream it?

From the top, the Monday polls list McC, Cl and O in descending order...

But then, I haven't listened to the whole mess.

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Post by RebLem » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:58 am

Barry wrote:I think you need to be more careful when making an accusation of inaccuracy, Rob. The story says Oprah "stopped going" at one point and "left" at one point. Those two don't have to mean the same thing. She may have stopped going to services in the 90s, but not bothered to officially withdraw her membership for another few years (maybe it never occured to her, then she discovered she was listed in their membership rolls somehow and requested that it be removed ... I don't know, but you're approaching the discrepency pretty aggressively, when there may, in fact, be no discrepency at all).
All the more reason to have called OW to refine the details.

But. UGH!

I wanted to track this down and so I went to the Christianity Today website. I found out enough to know the information is probably contained in an article called The Church of O by LaTonya Taylor published April 1, 2002. I can't help the date. Anyway, they give you about five paragraphs, and then there is this little blurb saying you have to subscribe to get the whole article. I went to Google and typed in LaTonya Taylor; sometimes people have blogs where they republish stuff. She doesn't seem to have a blog, so I am at a dead end on that line of investigation, anyway.

But I want you to know I tried.

Posted on March 18, 2008, the 308th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

Agnes Selby
Author of Constanze Mozart's biography
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Australia

Obama

Post by Agnes Selby » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:24 am

Obama's spiritual leader's sermons can apparently be purchased
at the Church's gift shop. Anyone interested? :twisted:

---------------------------

Teresa B
Posts: 3057
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 11:04 am
Location: Tampa, Florida

Re: Obama

Post by Teresa B » Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:22 am

Agnes Selby wrote:Obama's spiritual leader's sermons can apparently be purchased
at the Church's gift shop. Anyone interested? :twisted:

---------------------------
:lol: Agnes, I suspect if we didn't buy it already, we ain't gonna buy it in the gift shop!

Teresa
"We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad." ~ The Cheshire Cat

Author of the novel "Creating Will"

Auntie Lynn
Posts: 1123
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 10:42 pm

Post by Auntie Lynn » Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:26 am

Wonder if the gift shop takes American Express...

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:40 am

Thoughts on the speech? If he wins, it will be looked back on as historically significant.

I liked much of it very much (trying to make whites understand what blacks are feeling, followed immediately by trying to reverse it and make blacks understand what workingclass whites are feeling was a powerful moment), but not all of it. He may not have actually come right out and said it, but he frequently insinuated during the second half of the speech that the only way to deal with these problems is via the solutions that liberal Democrats have been advocating for years. I have to go to work, but the most notable example before I end this post is that he kept saying fix up the schools or this problem is going to keep getting worse. But throwing more tax money at public schools that are in lousy shape is not the only solution. Why not give vouchers to people in these communities and make schools compete for students? There is nothing unsympathetic to AfricanAmericans in advocating for this solution as being a better one for getting young blacks a better education and in turn eventually creating more productive and happy citizens.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Post by RebLem » Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:24 am

Sometimes I think it’s a shame that the Dalai Lama is constitutionally ineligible to be president, and that we could all just “compromise” and elect him. But let us reflect on this. What if we were to obsess on the fact that the first white person the Dalai Lama made friends with was a man who had been sent to meet him, and to study Tibet and Tibetan society by Adolf Hitler? What if we just refused to move beyond that until the Dalai Lama condemned his first white friend? How much poorer would our understanding of the world be? And wouldn’t that be painfully similar to what many have been doing for the last week or so with reference to Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright?

Posted on March 18, 2008, the 308th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:48 am

RebLem wrote:Sometimes I think it’s a shame that the Dalai Lama is constitutionally ineligible to be president, and that we could all just “compromise” and elect him. But let us reflect on this. What if we were to obsess on the fact that the first white person the Dalai Lama made friends with was a man who had been sent to meet him, and to study Tibet and Tibetan society by Adolf Hitler? What if we just refused to move beyond that until the Dalai Lama condemned his first white friend? How much poorer would our understanding of the world be? And wouldn’t that be painfully similar to what many have been doing for the last week or so with reference to Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright?
Having the Dalai Lama as president would lead to sure disaster unless there were Dalai Lama-like figures placed in charge of all of the other world powers simultaneously. Otherwise, the real-world leaders of those powers would immediately begin taking advantage of the fact that the formerly leading power in the world is now run by a pacifist, much to the detriment not only of the U.S., but much of the rest of the world as well.

Obama is running for president; he's not a religious leader. Much of the country wants to know that he's not part of a culture that hates the United States and white America. Thus, the need for the speech today. I know the following is bound to be controversia, but whether you agree or disagree with it, it's an interesting piece from one of the leading AfricanAmerican intellectuals in the country:

WSJ
The Obama Bargain
By SHELBY STEELE
March 18, 2008

Geraldine Ferraro may have had sinister motives when she said that Barack Obama would not be "in his position" as a frontrunner but for his race. Possibly she was acting as Hillary Clinton's surrogate. Or maybe she was simply befuddled by this new reality -- in which blackness could constitute a political advantage.

But whatever her motives, she was right: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." Barack Obama is, of course, a very talented politician with a first-rate political organization at his back. But it does not detract from his merit to say that his race is also a large part of his prominence. And it is undeniable that something extremely powerful in the body politic, a force quite apart from the man himself, has pulled Obama forward. This force is about race and nothing else.

The novelty of Barack Obama is more his cross-racial appeal than his talent. Jesse Jackson displayed considerable political talent in his presidential runs back in the 1980s. But there was a distinct limit to his white support. Mr. Obama's broad appeal to whites makes him the first plausible black presidential candidate in American history. And it was Mr. Obama's genius to understand this. Though he likes to claim that his race was a liability to be overcome, he also surely knew that his race could give him just the edge he needed -- an edge that would never be available to a white, not even a white woman.

How to turn one's blackness to advantage?

The answer is that one "bargains." Bargaining is a mask that blacks can wear in the American mainstream, one that enables them to put whites at their ease. This mask diffuses the anxiety that goes along with being white in a multiracial society. Bargainers make the subliminal promise to whites not to shame them with America's history of racism, on the condition that they will not hold the bargainer's race against him. And whites love this bargain -- and feel affection for the bargainer -- because it gives them racial innocence in a society where whites live under constant threat of being stigmatized as racist. So the bargainer presents himself as an opportunity for whites to experience racial innocence.

This is how Mr. Obama has turned his blackness into his great political advantage, and also into a kind of personal charisma. Bargainers are conduits of white innocence, and they are as popular as the need for white innocence is strong. Mr. Obama's extraordinary dash to the forefront of American politics is less a measure of the man than of the hunger in white America for racial innocence.

His actual policy positions are little more than Democratic Party boilerplate and hardly a tick different from Hillary's positions. He espouses no galvanizing political idea. He is unable to say what he means by "change" or "hope" or "the future." And he has failed to say how he would actually be a "unifier." By the evidence of his slight political record (130 "present" votes in the Illinois state legislature, little achievement in the U.S. Senate) Barack Obama stacks up as something of a mediocrity. None of this matters much.

Race helps Mr. Obama in another way -- it lifts his political campaign to the level of allegory, making it the stuff of a far higher drama than budget deficits and education reform. His dark skin, with its powerful evocations of America's tortured racial past, frames the political contest as a morality play. Will his victory mean America's redemption from its racist past? Will his defeat show an America morally unevolved? Is his campaign a story of black overcoming, an echo of the civil rights movement? Or is it a passing-of-the-torch story, of one generation displacing another?

Because he is black, there is a sense that profound questions stand to be resolved in the unfolding of his political destiny. And, as the Clintons have discovered, it is hard in the real world to run against a candidate of destiny. For many Americans -- black and white -- Barack Obama is simply too good (and too rare) an opportunity to pass up. For whites, here is the opportunity to document their deliverance from the shames of their forbearers. And for blacks, here is the chance to document the end of inferiority. So the Clintons have found themselves running more against America's very highest possibilities than against a man. And the press, normally happy to dispel every political pretension, has all but quivered before Mr. Obama. They, too, have feared being on the wrong side of destiny.

And yet, in the end, Barack Obama's candidacy is not qualitatively different from Al Sharpton's or Jesse Jackson's. Like these more irascible of his forbearers, Mr. Obama's run at the presidency is based more on the manipulation of white guilt than on substance. Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson were "challengers," not bargainers. They intimidated whites and demanded, in the name of historical justice, that they be brought forward. Mr. Obama flatters whites, grants them racial innocence, and hopes to ascend on the back of their gratitude. Two sides of the same coin.

But bargainers have an Achilles heel. They succeed as conduits of white innocence only as long as they are largely invisible as complex human beings. They hope to become icons that can be identified with rather than seen, and their individual complexity gets in the way of this. So bargainers are always laboring to stay invisible. (We don't know the real politics or convictions of Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, bargainers all.) Mr. Obama has said of himself, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . ." And so, human visibility is Mr. Obama's Achilles heel. If we see the real man, his contradictions and bents of character, he will be ruined as an icon, as a "blank screen."

Thus, nothing could be more dangerous to Mr. Obama's political aspirations than the revelation that he, the son of a white woman, sat Sunday after Sunday -- for 20 years -- in an Afrocentric, black nationalist church in which his own mother, not to mention other whites, could never feel comfortable. His pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a challenger who goes far past Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson in his anti-American outrage ("God damn America").

How does one "transcend" race in this church? The fact is that Barack Obama has fellow-traveled with a hate-filled, anti-American black nationalism all his adult life, failing to stand and challenge an ideology that would have no place for his own mother. And what portent of presidential judgment is it to have exposed his two daughters for their entire lives to what is, at the very least, a subtext of anti-white vitriol?

What could he have been thinking? Of course he wasn't thinking. He was driven by insecurity, by a need to "be black" despite his biracial background. And so fellow-traveling with a little race hatred seemed a small price to pay for a more secure racial identity. And anyway, wasn't this hatred more rhetorical than real?

But now the floodlight of a presidential campaign has trained on this usually hidden corner of contemporary black life: a mindless indulgence in a rhetorical anti-Americanism as a way of bonding and of asserting one's blackness. Yet Jeremiah Wright, splashed across America's television screens, has shown us that there is no real difference between rhetorical hatred and real hatred.

No matter his ultimate political fate, there is already enough pathos in Barack Obama to make him a cautionary tale. His public persona thrives on a manipulation of whites (bargaining), and his private sense of racial identity demands both self-betrayal and duplicity. His is the story of a man who flew so high, yet neglected to become himself.

Mr. Steele, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A Bound Man: Why We Are Excited About Obama and Why He Can't Win" (Free Press, 2007).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1205795 ... mmentaries
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

jack stowaway
Posts: 922
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:17 pm

Post by jack stowaway » Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:37 pm

Brilliant analysis, one that cuts through all the 'Oprahization' of Barack Obama and reveals him for the man he undoubtedly is.

The article touches on several topics that make America, especially White America, uncomfortable; namely, Black racism and the ennervating guilt that saps White confidence and vitality.

Perhaps the most telling point is the reminder that Barack Obama's mother would not be comfortable in --nor, presumably welcome in, her son's church. And that's not even to mention the rather appalling Mrs Obama.

Obama has obviously decided that Blackness is a political asset and plays to the Black community, and its anti-Americanism, while holding out the palm of redemption to guilt-stricken Whites.

Steele has brilliantly pointed out the contradictions in Obama's personality as well as his essential mediocrity (not that the other candidates are any better, in this respect). The Faustian bargain Obama has struck may win him office but will be his undoing as a man.

Darryl
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 11:36 am
Location: Dallas, Texas

Post by Darryl » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:15 pm

An interesting analysis Barry. I wonder if Steele overemphasizes the collective guilt-complex of whites with whom Obama has found favor. Would we rather Obama's popularity the result of yet another election season with the masses clamoring for change? Either way, Obama's problem is one of not having a concrete vision of leadership, based on principle, and sufficiently articulated.

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:30 pm

I've only read a little by Steele, Darryl, but I think collective white guilt and the negative impact that has on the country is very central to his theories on race relations in the U.S., a topic he's written a lot about.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Wallingford
Posts: 4563
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:31 pm
Location: Brush, Colorado

Post by Wallingford » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:19 pm

Werner wrote:On the other hand, I see no point in transferrring our many criticims of GWB on to his wife. As far as I've been able to see, in her many [public appearances she's been flawless.
Astonishing, isn't it.....how a First Lady who committed vehicular homicide can be considered FLAWLESS!?!?
If I could tell my mom and dad
That the things we never had
Never mattered we were always ok
Getting ready for Christmas day
--Paul Simon

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:34 pm

Wallingford wrote:
Werner wrote:On the other hand, I see no point in transferrring our many criticims of GWB on to his wife. As far as I've been able to see, in her many [public appearances she's been flawless.
Astonishing, isn't it.....how a First Lady who committed vehicular homicide can be considered FLAWLESS!?!?
Sorry Wallingford, but that's also a cheap-shot. First, Werner didn't say she was flawless. He said she acquits herself flawlessly in her public outings. Second, this is the first I've heard of this, so I just looked up the details, and while she was clearly at fault in the accident, it was an accident. She was 17 years old in the car with a friend on the way to a party. I'm sure they were gossiping away and she wasn't paying as much attention to the road as she should have. But to hold that aginst her in her role as first lady 45 years later is a bit much.

And she was apparently a good friend of the boy whose death she caused. I'm sure it's been a heavy burden she's carried around with her ever since.
Last edited by Barry on Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Post by JackC » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:34 pm

I watched Obama's speech on this issue. It is difficult not to be impressed by his skill. He is truly intelligent, articulate and gifted.

On substance, however, I thought the speech was a mess. The issue is how he could so closely embrace a preacher who spews such anti-white, anti-american hate speech/bile. He didn't explain that, at least to me. Instead he tried to bury and confuse the issue by raising a lot of other issues, all of which have merit in themselves but which to me were not on point. Saying that his old white relatives sometimes said racist things or acted in a bigoted manner, doesn't cut it for me. He is the one who decided to embrace this preacher/hater. I have no idea how that embrace fulfilled his stated desire to move beyond race.

So, he very effectively used the MO of a snake oil salesman. A lot of god sounding talk, but no real, convincing answer.

There is nothing about his record, which is that of a knee-jerk liberal, that suggests that he has ever been inclinded to "reach across the isle" or close a racial divide. If he thinks that his speeches will convince conservatives to run across the isle to give him a hug, he's dreaming. If he is elected President there are lot of people who were waiting for some unspecified "change" in something who are going to be disillusioned very quickly.

Still, I'll be happy as long as he denies the nomination to Hillary, whom with her husband, are born liars and as corrupt a couple as we have had.
Last edited by JackC on Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:40 pm

McCain is clearly the candidate with far and away the best track-record in terms of reaching across the aisle to compromise with the opposition on difficult issues; not Obama.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Post by JackC » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:46 pm

Barry wrote:McCain is clearly the candidate with far and away the best track-record in terms of reaching across the aisle to compromise with the opposition on difficult issues; not Obama.
I agree 100% and couldn't be happier that the Republicans nominated him rather than Romney or Huckabee or some others more to the right. I'm tired of the the religion thing and am so happy that McCain doesn't go there the way others do.

He's also the only one of the three left standing that is serious about foreign policy. I bet that in the end he is trusted more than either Hillary or Obama on these issues, his support for the surge notwithstanding.

JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Post by JackC » Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:58 pm

When I heard the speech, I was left wondering - would this cut the mustard if the preacher at issue was Louis Farrakhan?? Would it be acceptable to say that he could not/would not "disown" Farrakhan and then offer all the same reasons that he offered today for not "disowning" Wright.

While Farrakhan may be more notorious for a longer period, I see little significant difference between what Wright has said and what Farrakhan routinely says. Both are virulently anti-semitic, anti-white anti-american haters.

Agnes Selby
Author of Constanze Mozart's biography
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Australia

Obama

Post by Agnes Selby » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:28 pm

I wonder, does his grandmother stand in the pulpit denouncing
Blacks? Does she rave and and rant so that she can influence
White people against Black people? I am not surprised she was
on occasions frightened of Black men. So was I when I lived in Philadelphia. I was terrified of the Blacks in Rittenhouse Square standing there all day long doing nothing except frightening people so that the old ladies would have to take a different path to cross the Square. It did not seem easy to me to watch them negotiating the grass with their walkers.

I have a word for the speech Obama made, but it is a juicy Australian word and I prefer not to use it in polite company.

As matters stand economically, Obama might just get his wish together with his preacher and "white" conglomerates may collapse leaving both whites and blacks unemployed. (I guess that would serve America right
just like 9/11 ?!).

He would make a devisive President
and having heard this preacher's remarks about the poor, guiltless
Palestinians, I would suggest that the American Jewish community
rethink its voting options.

Listening to the same rhetoric for 20 years has had its impact and what
the man says today has no meaning for his actions in the future. This speech simply allows him a place in both camps, Black and White

However, I liked his admission that he actually heard Wright's sermons which in a previous statement he refused to admit.

Agnes.
---------------

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Post by RebLem » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:48 pm

First of all, I see a lot of people here who say Obama has a record as a knee-jerk liberal. I'll bet most of those who parrot this stuff that the RW commentators have spewed out would be hard pressed to give a single instance of a piece of legislation he has sponsored which demonstrates this. The fact is that when he was in the Illinois Senate, he headed a successful effort to get Illinois's death penalty system back on track so that it would be fair and equitable, and preserve the rights of defendants, after the Republican governor had commuted the sentence of everyone on Death Row to life, because he had had to release 13 Death Row inmates who had been proven innocent. That's not knee jerk liberalism, which calls for abolishing the death penalty.

During his whole public life, in his two books, in the Illinois legislature, in his keynote address at the 2004 DEM Convention, and in this presidential campaign, Barack Obama has always looked at the glass half-full part of white America. And we have been glad he did. But somehow, people are unwilling to apply the Golden Rule, and keep insisting that he look on Rev. Jeremiah A Wright as the glass half-empty.

Repeat after me:

Do unto others, including Jeremiah Wright, as you would have others do unto you, and as Barack Obama has always done unto everyone.

Keep repeating it until you believe it, even if it takes the rest of the year.

Posted on March 18, 2008, the 308th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Tue Mar 18, 2008 6:54 pm

Agnes,
While I wish Obama would have quit the congregation and while I agree with you that comparing your minister to your grandmother is a stretch since you choose one and not the other, I think you're going too far with that last post; particularly when you said he'd be a divisive president. When you look at our current and last president, and how divisive both have been, then the type of person Obama is, I have little doubt that he'd be less divisive than either Bush or Clinton (and the same can be said of McCain, but not Clinton). He just doesn't have the kind of persona that will inspire hatred from the opposition like either of those other two.

Even with all that's come out in recent days, I still think Obama would make a positive difference in race relations in this country if he were to become president, because I believe him when he says he deplores the things Wright has said. Unfortunately, that alone is not enough to overcome the fact that he is too far left for me and I believe off the mark in his foreign policy positions. So I can't vote for him in spite the positives I see in him.

He's in a tough position trying to please two communities that see things in very different ways, and I feel for him because of that.

I'm not even sure how cohesive this post is. This is such a difficult issue for me. I know I've mentioned on here before that I come from an interracial household (black stepfather) and heard a lot of unpleasant things because we were the only Jews and black on the black in the same household. I really do like Obama as a person, his liberal political views aside. I want to understand why he stayed at the church with his family. I don't think the fact that he stays there makes him a bad person. But it also isn't something that can be easily ignored because of the nature of what seems to have been said and absorbed there on a fairly regular basis.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Agnes Selby
Author of Constanze Mozart's biography
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Australia

Obama

Post by Agnes Selby » Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:45 pm

Barry wrote:Agnes,
While I wish Obama would have quit the congregation and while I agree with you that comparing your minister to your grandmother is a stretch since you choose one and not the other, I think you're going too far with that last post; particularly when you said he'd be a divisive president. When you look at our current and last president, and how divisive both have been, then the type of person Obama is, I have little doubt that he'd be less divisive than either Bush or Clinton (and the same can be said of McCain, but not Clinton). He just doesn't have the kind of persona that will inspire hatred from the opposition like either of those other two.
----

****(denotes response) Barry, I do appreciate your response.
First of all, I do believe he used his grandmother to illustrate that
White people are as prejudiced as Black people. I do not begrudge
him that sentiment because it is true. He could have illustrated it in a different way. I believe he used his grandmother in his books as well.
There alone is a hint of the divisions to come, divisions he imbibed at his pastor's church.

People are always frightened of the "other", the unknown quantity of another race. Hence, as a President how will Obama please both sides of the coin? The Blacks will in the end hate him because as President he will not be able to ease the lot of those who most expect it. Where there is no will to help themselves, there is no way even a Black President can help. All the advice Bill Cosby attempted to give his people earned him nothing but hatred.

As for the White voters? How will their lot change? Will he be able
to satisfy their demands or will they be angry because he cannot fulfil
the promises he made, or will they accuse him for doing to much for the Blacks.
Anyway you look at it, he will be Uncle Tom to one lot and traitor to the others.

-----------

Even with all that's come out in recent days, I still think Obama would make a positive difference in race relations in this country if he were to become president, because I believe him when he says he deplores the things Wright has said. Unfortunately, that alone is not enough to overcome the fact that he is too far left for me and I believe off the mark in his foreign policy positions. So I can't vote for him in spite the positives I see in him.

-----------------

****Barry, if Obama deplored the sermons of his spiritual advisor,
he need not have stayed as member of this church. Moreover, did he not invite Wright to be on some sort of a committe where Wright is now
no longer a member? If Obama trusted this man to be his spiritual advisor, sat through his sermons, did not resign his membership of the church and invited Wright to serve on whatever committe, why should I believe that his address today reflected what he really feels?
-----------------

He's in a tough position trying to please two communities that see things in very different ways, and I feel for him because of that.
-----------

***** Yes, that's true. Surely, he would not jeopardise the Black vote.

-----------------

I'm not even sure how cohesive this post is. This is such a difficult issue for me. I know I've mentioned on here before that I come from an interracial household (black stepfather) and heard a lot of unpleasant things because we were the only Jews and black on the black in the same household. I really do like Obama as a person, his liberal political views aside. I want to understand why he stayed at the church with his family. I don't think the fact that he stays there makes him a bad person. But it also isn't something that can be easily ignored because of the nature of what seems to have been said and absorbed there on a fairly regular basis.
------------------

***** I do understand your position. His colour has nothing to do
the way I feel. As I have mentioned to you before, my best friend
in Philadelphia was the late Jack Jones and he was a Democrat.
As a Liberal (Conservative) Australian voter, his politics did not
diminish my husband's or my friendship with him. We liked him for
the person he was and if you are too young to remember him, ask
your stepfather about him. I can assure you, knowing Jack as well as we did, he would only had to hear one of Wright's ugly sermons,
he would have been out of that church in a jiffy.

Perhaps I am naive and I definitely do not understand Americans or American politics even though I lived in Phily for 12 years. But a man who rants and raves like Wright does, frightens me to death. I cannot imagine anyone sitting through such rubbish and have the raving lunatic as my spiritual advisor. I do not like the position Israel will find itself
when and if Obama becomes President. I heard his pastor's
rantings about the Palestinians. No one will convince me that this
man has not got through to Obama no matter how savvy Obama may be.

Regards to you and Phily,
Agnes.

Agnes Selby
Author of Constanze Mozart's biography
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Australia

Obama

Post by Agnes Selby » Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:51 pm

Repeat after me:

Do unto others, including Jeremiah Wright, as you would have others do unto you, and as Barack Obama has always done unto everyone.

Keep repeating it until you believe it, even if it takes the rest of the year.

Posted on March 18, 2008, the 308th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem[/quote]
-----------------


:lol: :lol: As an Australian citizen, am I obliged to pray to Obama?
The Pope will be here in July, I will ask his advice!!! :wink:

--------------------

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:58 pm

Agnes Selby wrote:
:lol: :lol: As an Australian citizen, am I obliged to pray to Obama?
The Pope will be here in July, I will ask his advice!!! :wink:

--------------------
I'm probably not the right guy to ask who you should pray for in light of the fact that I don't it :).

I saw a couple commentators put it in a way that I think I am comfortable with. They said they don't question that Obama genuinely disagrees with the more radical things that Wright says or think he's an extremist, anti-Semitic or anti-American in any way. What they think his Wright association (and association with the guy from the Weathermen) and staying in that church for so long shows is a terrible lack of judgment that is not a good sign for a perspective president, especially one who is so eager to meet with some of the more troubling world leaders.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Madame
Posts: 3552
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:56 am

Post by Madame » Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:11 pm

Barry wrote:Thoughts on the speech? If he wins, it will be looked back on as historically significant.

I liked much of it very much (trying to make whites understand what blacks are feeling, followed immediately by trying to reverse it and make blacks understand what workingclass whites are feeling was a powerful moment), but not all of it. He may not have actually come right out and said it, but he frequently insinuated during the second half of the speech that the only way to deal with these problems is via the solutions that liberal Democrats have been advocating for years. I have to go to work, but the most notable example before I end this post is that he kept saying fix up the schools or this problem is going to keep getting worse. But throwing more tax money at public schools that are in lousy shape is not the only solution. Why not give vouchers to people in these communities and make schools compete for students? There is nothing unsympathetic to AfricanAmericans in advocating for this solution as being a better one for getting young blacks a better education and in turn eventually creating more productive and happy citizens.
Did we not learn after the busing nightmare that we cannot turn to our schools to solve our social problems? In addition, Mr. Obama has to acknowledge that organizations like NAACP are obstacles to dealing with problem students or even expelling them. They in essence blackmail the schools, because of course nobody wants even the appearance of racism. The schools aren't the source of the bigger problem!!!!

Brendan

Post by Brendan » Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:12 pm

Amazing political system the USA has. :shock: Down Under, we time our few weeks of politicking every few years so as not to interfere with the football finals, Christmas shopping or test match cricket.

Constant exposure to politicians (especially in detail!) just ensures cynicism, IMHO. We'd have drummed the lot out of town just so we could get back to reruns of Prisoner or I Love Lucy by now.

Totally off-topic, to be sure. But I love the idea of folk from the same party tearing strips off each other in public and appearing - if you'll forgive the "sexism" - statesmanlike whilst begging for $$millions from lobby groups - all before going up against the real opposition! Better than the Circus Maximus. :twisted:

Agnes Selby
Author of Constanze Mozart's biography
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Australia

Obama

Post by Agnes Selby » Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:25 am

Barry wrote:
Agnes Selby wrote:
:lol: :lol: As an Australian citizen, am I obliged to pray to Obama?
The Pope will be here in July, I will ask his advice!!! :wink:

--------------------
I'm probably not the right guy to ask who you should pray for in light of the fact that I don't it :).

I saw a couple commentators put it in a way that I think I am comfortable with. They said they don't question that Obama genuinely disagrees with the more radical things that Wright says or think he's an extremist, anti-Semitic or anti-American in any way. What they think his Wright association (and association with the guy from the Weathermen) and staying in that church for so long shows is a terrible lack of judgment that is not a good sign for a perspective president, especially one who is so eager to meet with some of the more troubling world leaders.
--------------

Well, Barry, if you will not I will not either. This saves
me asking the Pope for advice as he will be busy with Youth Week
anyway. :lol:

Now, I am really, really intrigued by the meetings with troubling world
leaders. Did Obama ever specify what he expects to achieve at these little friendly meetings over a cup of tea? How would the Iranian leader
respond, for instance? Would he put American interests ahead of his own?
He too is a ranter and raver and the ranting and raving suits his politics well, just as the ranting and raving against America suits Obama's spiritual advisor. Would he abandon his politics for the good of America and the Western world?

Or would the Palestinians unite and form a nation where progress and
harmony could co-exist? Would they recognise the nation of Israel?

Would the Taliban abandon its quest, whatever it may be, and walk away
from the afternoon tea party with smiling faces and end the hostilities?

I wonder at the naivete of it all. The little tea parties may also turn out to be a lack of good judgment.

Regards,
Agnes.

Agnes Selby
Author of Constanze Mozart's biography
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Australia

Obama

Post by Agnes Selby » Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:31 am

Brendan wrote:Amazing political system the USA has. :shock: Down Under, we time our few weeks of politicking every few years so as not to interfere with the football finals, Christmas shopping or test match cricket.

Constant exposure to politicians (especially in detail!) just ensures cynicism, IMHO. We'd have drummed the lot out of town just so we could get back to reruns of Prisoner or I Love Lucy by now.

Totally off-topic, to be sure. But I love the idea of folk from the same party tearing strips off each other in public and appearing - if you'll forgive the "sexism" - statesmanlike whilst begging for $$millions from lobby groups - all before going up against the real opposition! Better than the Circus Maximus. :twisted:
-----------

I agree. We would have killed our politicians by now. The few weeks of
it was enough for me to last - till the next elections. And nothing, absolutely nothing should interfere with the menfolk's, at least in this household, with the enjoyment of football and cricket.

Agnes.
------------------

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Post by RebLem » Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:38 am

All of Pastor Wright's sermons are availabe at the Church's website. The networks have purchased all of them. Some people who post on YouTube have, too. And how long are the incendiary materials gleaned from all this? Maybe 20-25 minutes at the most, after 30 years of, what are they? Maybe 40 minute sermons? Can't we read between the lines and get a little perspective? And why did he retire just recently? Could it be that as he aged, he was getting worse, and a few people just gently eased him out? Do they get no credit for that?

Look at those videos again. Yes, you will hear a loud AMEN corner. Yes, you will see some people just clowning, hand-slapping in idiotic delight at Pastor Wright's more incendiary statements. You will see people, as the camera occasionally pans around the room, standing and applauding. But you will also see, if you look, if you are an unprejudiced observer, a rather large number of people sitting there in stunned, stony, unsmiling silence. Look again, I ask you, see for yourself. And then ask yourself why you never saw or commented on that before.

Posted on March 18, 2008, the 308th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

Fugu

Post by Fugu » Wed Mar 19, 2008 12:46 am

Perhaps I am naive and I definitely do not understand Americans or American politics
You're right, you don't.

Agnes Selby
Author of Constanze Mozart's biography
Posts: 5568
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Australia

Fugu

Post by Agnes Selby » Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:20 am

Fugu wrote:
Perhaps I am naive and I definitely do not understand Americans or American politics
You're right, you don't.
--------------

So what are you saying, Fugu? Is belittling your own country
a particular American characteristic? Is it particularly patriotic to say that AIDS injections were given to Black men? Does "God damn America"
have a particular resonance with you? Is the accusation of 9/11
levelled at America's Government a correct assumption? Need I say more?

No, I do not understand those Americans who level such
accusations at the own country for the enjoyment of their enemies.
I am shocked. The Americans I knew while living in America were
different kind of people. Has my 20 year absence from the USA
changed it's people?

------------------------

RebLem
Posts: 9117
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 1:06 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA 87112, 2 blocks west of the Breaking Bad carwash.
Contact:

Post by RebLem » Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:58 am

I decided to go to the website of the national United Church of Christ to see what they had to say, if anything. As it turns out, plenty. Here is some of it. RebLem

March 17, 2008

The Rev. John H. Thomas, UCC general minister and president, released the following statement on March 17 on the rhetoric of preaching, in light of recent news coverage of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., and Chicago's Trinity UCC.

What Kind of Prophet?

Reflections on the Rhetoric of Preaching
in Light of Recent News Coverage of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.
and Trinity United Church of Christ


The Rev. John H. Thomas
General Minister and President
United Church of Christ


Over the weekend members of our church and others have been subjected to the relentless airing of two or three brief video clips of sermons by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ for thirty-six years and, for over half of those years, pastor of Senator Barack Obama and his family. These video clips, and news stories about them, have been served up with frenzied and heated commentary by media personalities expressing shock that such language and sentiments could be uttered from the pulpit.

One is tempted to ask whether these commentators ever listen to the overcharged rhetoric of their own opinion shows. Even more to the point is to wonder whether they have a working knowledge of the history of preaching in the United States from the unrelentingly grim language of New England election day sermons to the fiery rhetoric of the Black church prophetic tradition. Maybe they prefer the false prophets with their happy homilies in Jeremiah who say to the people: "You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you true peace in this place." To which God responds, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. . . . By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed," (Jeremiah 14.14-15). The Biblical Jeremiah was coarse and provocative. Faithfulness, not respectability was the order of the day then. And now?

What's really going on here? First, it may state the obvious to point out that these television and radio shows have very little interest in Trinity Church or Jeremiah Wright. Those who sifted through hours of sermons searching for a few lurid phrases and those who have aired them repeatedly have only one intention. It is to wound a presidential candidate. In the process a congregation that does exceptional ministry and a pastor who has given his life to shape those ministries is caricatured and demonized. You don't have to be an Obama supporter to be alarmed at this. Will Clinton's United Methodist Church be next? Or McCain's Episcopal Church? Wouldn't we have been just as alarmed had it been Huckabee's Southern Baptist Church, or Romney's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

Many of us would prefer to avoid the stark and startling language Pastor Wright used in these clips. But what was his real crime? He is condemned for using a mild "obscenity" in reference to the United States. This week we mark the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war conceived in deception and prosecuted in foolish arrogance. Nearly four thousand cherished Americans have been killed, countless more wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered. Where is the real obscenity here? True patriotism requires a degree of self-criticism, even self-judgment that may not always be easy or genteel. Pastor Wright's judgment may be starker and more sweeping than many of us are prepared to accept. But is the soul of our nation served any better by the polite prayers and gentle admonitions that have gone without a real hearing for these five years while the dying and destruction continues?

We might like to think that racism is a thing of the past, that Martin Luther King's harmonious multi-racial vision, articulated in his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 and then struck down by an assassin's bullet in Memphis in 1968, has somehow been resurrected and now reigns throughout the land. Significant progress has been made. A black man is a legitimate candidate for President of the United States. A black woman serves as Secretary of State. The accomplishments are profound. But on the gritty streets of Chicago's south side where Trinity has planted itself, race continues to play favorites in failing urban school systems, unresponsive health care systems, crumbling infrastructure, and meager economic development. Are we to pretend all is well because much is, in fact, better than it used to be? Is it racist to name the racial divides that continue to afflict our nation, and to do so loudly? How ironic that a pastor and congregation which, for forty-five years, has cast its lot with a predominantly white denomination, participating fully in its wider church life and contributing generously to it, would be accused of racial exclusion and a failure to reach for racial reconciliation.

The gospel narrative of Palm Sunday's entrance into Jerusalem concludes with the overturning of the money changers' tables in the Temple courtyard. Here wealth and power and greed were challenged for the way the poor were oppressed to the point of exclusion from a share in the religious practices of the Temple. Today we watch as the gap between the obscenely wealthy and the obscenely poor widens. More and more of our neighbors are relegated to minimal health care or to no health care at all. Foreclosures destroy families while unscrupulous lenders seek bailouts from regulators who turned a blind eye to the impending crisis. Should the preacher today respond to this with only a whisper and a sigh?

Is Pastor Wright to be ridiculed and condemned for refusing to play the court prophet, blessing land and sovereign while pledging allegiance to our preoccupation with wealth and our fascination with weapons? In the United Church of Christ we honor diversity. For nearly four centuries we have respected dissent and have struggled to maintain the freedom of the pulpit. Not every pastor in the United Church of Christ will want to share Pastor Wright's rhetoric or his politics. Not every member will rise to shout "Amen!" But I trust we will all struggle in our own way to resist the lure of respectable religion that seeks to displace evangelical faith. For what this nation needs is not so much polite piety as the rough and radical word of the prophet calling us to repentance. And, as we struggle with that ancient calling, I pray we will be shrewd enough to name the hypocrisy of those who decry the mixing of religion and politics in order to serve their own political ends.

http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html

Posted on March 19, 2008, the 307th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem
Don't drink and drive. You might spill it.--J. Eugene Baker, aka my late father
"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."--Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S. Carolina.
"Racism is America's Original Sin."--Francis Cardinal George, former Roman Catholic Archbishop of Chicago.

JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Post by JackC » Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:06 am

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... k_oba.html

I think Dick Morris has it about right here. Obama went to that Church and got close to pastor Wright because it helped him politically in Chicago. He can't say that of course, but hey he is a polictician, not the messiah. So he has to swallow the bitter with the sweet. No big deal.

JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Post by JackC » Wed Mar 19, 2008 9:58 am

RebLem wrote:First of all, I see a lot of people here who say Obama has a record as a knee-jerk liberal. I'll bet most of those who parrot this stuff that the RW commentators have spewed out would be hard pressed to give a single instance of a piece of legislation he has sponsored which demonstrates this. The fact is that when he was in the Illinois Senate, he headed a successful effort to get Illinois's death penalty system back on track so that it would be fair and equitable, and preserve the rights of defendants, after the Republican governor had commuted the sentence of everyone on Death Row to life, because he had had to release 13 Death Row inmates who had been proven innocent. That's not knee jerk liberalism, which calls for abolishing the death penalty.

During his whole public life, in his two books, in the Illinois legislature, in his keynote address at the 2004 DEM Convention, and in this presidential campaign, Barack Obama has always looked at the glass half-full part of white America. And we have been glad he did. But somehow, people are unwilling to apply the Golden Rule, and keep insisting that he look on Rev. Jeremiah A Wright as the glass half-empty.

Repeat after me:

Do unto others, including Jeremiah Wright, as you would have others do unto you, and as Barack Obama has always done unto everyone.

Keep repeating it until you believe it, even if it takes the rest of the year.

Posted on March 18, 2008, the 308th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

I was referring to articles like this. I've never gone through his voting record, but having the most liberal voting record in the Senate in 2007, which has been reported in many places, hardly strikes me as supporting his "moderate", "cross the isle" speeches.

He's gifted, but still a snake oil salesman. Still, he's a good guy, who would be so much better forn the country in office than the corrupt devisive Hillary that it's no contest. Just don't believe for a minute that he will bring real "change." :roll: He won't get policy 1 passed.

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:07 am

Brendan wrote:Amazing political system the USA has. :shock: Down Under, we time our few weeks of politicking every few years so as not to interfere with the football finals, Christmas shopping or test match cricket.

Constant exposure to politicians (especially in detail!) just ensures cynicism, IMHO. ...
Couldn't agree with you more. And we couldn't be a much more cynical country at this point. It's a real danger to our long term prospects as a country IMO.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:22 am

I agree with Jack on Obama's liberal record. I'm afraid the burden is on you, Rob, to show how the record is misleading if you want some of us to believe Obama is not a dogmatic liberal.

As I said on here earlier, if you look at the records of the candidates, there is one who has a consistent record of reaching across the aisle on difficult issues to get things done via compromise, even when straying from his party's line earned him all kinds of scorn from his own base, and that's John McCain.

On Wright, again, if we switch it around and have a conservative white preacher who made a handful of racist remarks against blacks over the course of a number of years, the black community would be marching in the streets until the preacher was basically run out of his job and forced to get down on his knees and apologize repeatedly. A lot of Americans don't like it when people say the kinds of things about their country that Wright did, and I'm not willing to blame them for that. You just aren't going to get people to dismiss that kind of hateful rhetoric about things they hold dear by saying the guy wasn't so bad most of the time.
Last edited by Barry on Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Fugu

Re: Fugu

Post by Fugu » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:33 am

Agnes Selby wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Perhaps I am naive and I definitely do not understand Americans or American politics
You're right, you don't.
--------------

So what are you saying, Fugu? Is belittling your own country
a particular American characteristic? Is it particularly patriotic to say that AIDS injections were given to Black men? Does "God damn America"
have a particular resonance with you? Is the accusation of 9/11
levelled at America's Government a correct assumption? Need I say more?

No, I do not understand those Americans who level such
accusations at the own country for the enjoyment of their enemies.
I am shocked. The Americans I knew while living in America were
different kind of people. Has my 20 year absence from the USA
changed it's people?

------------------------
You are naive because you have the same typically conservative view that Obama (or any Democrat) will themselves naively sell-out American interests by having little tea parties. Your thinking is naive because you seem to think diplomacy is simply a matter of showing who has the biggest guns. It is time to sit down with your enemies and have frank discussions. This isn't Chamberlain redux no matter how Barry, you, and others would like to paint it. Bush wouldn't ever think to sit down with his enemies and neither will McCain.

So, you want to be taken seriously? Get rid of the "little tea party" comments and make an effort to listen to Obama first as a man who wants to focus on the problems in America (which if dealt would have been for more important than going illegally into another country to depose a tyrant). Most Democrats I know viewed Afghanistan as the true threat and had Bush stayed that course he would have had the whole country (and the world) behind him. As it is, all he has done is escalate the cycle of hatred and increased the number of terrorists in the world who would just love to inflict as much pain on the US as possible.

Fugu

Post by Fugu » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:39 am

Barry wrote:I agree with Jack on Obama's liberal record. I'm afraid the burden is on you, Rob, to show how the record is misleading if you want some of us to believe Obama is not a dogmatic liberal.
That's 100 times better than a dogmatic conservative like Bush (and McCain) is. I'm afraid Barry has fallen for the typical rightwing blather that being a liberal is somehow a curse word. Get over it Barry. Most of us who are moderate don't buy the "liberal" comments as somehow a terrible thing.

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Wed Mar 19, 2008 10:52 am

Fugu wrote:
Barry wrote:I agree with Jack on Obama's liberal record. I'm afraid the burden is on you, Rob, to show how the record is misleading if you want some of us to believe Obama is not a dogmatic liberal.
That's 100 times better than a dogmatic conservative like Bush (and McCain) is. I'm afraid Barry has fallen for the typical rightwing blather that being a liberal is somehow a curse word. Get over it Barry. Most of us who are moderate don't buy the "liberal" comments as somehow a terrible thing.
That would be all fine and dandy, Dan, if Obama wasn't trying to sell himself as someone who will reach out to the opposition; something he hasn't matched McCain in doing. On top of that, Jack and I were responding to Rob's criticism of those who think Obama is a "knee-jerk liberal." How would you like us to respond to that without using the word "liberal?"
And by the way, if liberal politicians are so comfortable with the word "liberal," why did they stop using it years ago? They use "progressive" now because they know the L word is still toxic to much of the country.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Post by JackC » Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:04 am

Fugu wrote:
Barry wrote:I agree with Jack on Obama's liberal record. I'm afraid the burden is on you, Rob, to show how the record is misleading if you want some of us to believe Obama is not a dogmatic liberal.
That's 100 times better than a dogmatic conservative like Bush (and McCain) is. I'm afraid Barry has fallen for the typical rightwing blather that being a liberal is somehow a curse word. Get over it Barry. Most of us who are moderate don't buy the "liberal" comments as somehow a terrible thing.
Mondale was no doubt a "liberal", and Reagan was no doubt a "dogmatic conservative." Mondale won, I think, 1 state, in one of the largest landslides in history.

Simlilary, Nixon was no doubt in your view a "dogmatic conservative", while McGovern was no doubt a "liberal." While Vietnam was still going on and after the bombing of Cambodia etc, McGovern still lost every state but one.

So "Liberals", is some sense, have been catergorically rejected by the American people as a whole over the last 40 years. (Obviously there are pockets of the country where being a liberal is still embraced - i.e., Vermont) That is why hardly any Democrats want to be labelled a "liberal", and Republican run to embrace the label of "conservative."

Fugu

Post by Fugu » Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:11 am

Yes, except in the case of Bush/Cheney and now McCain the conservative label has been taken over by a bunch of reactionary, close-minded, freedom-limiting, and religious zealots. McCain, in 2000, impressed me as someone who would work together with people from the other side. With his embrace of Bush policies domestically and internationally, all he has done has cemented in my mind that the only thing he will do is repudiate Bush's stand on torture. McCain was once a moderate-leaning Republican; he is now a full-fledged Bushite.

JackC
Posts: 2987
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 10:57 am

Post by JackC » Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:27 am

Fugu wrote:Yes, except in the case of Bush/Cheney and now McCain the conservative label has been taken over by a bunch of reactionary, close-minded, freedom-limiting, and religious zealots. McCain, in 2000, impressed me as someone who would work together with people from the other side. With his embrace of Bush policies domestically and internationally, all he has done has cemented in my mind that the only thing he will do is repudiate Bush's stand on torture. McCain was once a moderate-leaning Republican; he is now a full-fledged Bushite.
I think Bush is generally less "conservative" than Reagan. I know you hate the war in Iraq, but that doesn't make every one who supported it a reactionary, close-minded whatever.

Hillary voted to go to war in Iraq. So did lots of other Dems. They saw all the intelligence that Bush saw. They didn't have to vote to go to war in Iraq if they thought there was not enough evidence of WMD or that it was for other reasons a bad idea.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests