:inquisitive: That's twice you've mentioned "balance" when advancing your own political leanings. Might you claim that Fox news is fair and balanced? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Printable View
:inquisitive: That's twice you've mentioned "balance" when advancing your own political leanings. Might you claim that Fox news is fair and balanced? ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Vladimir, your posts are becoming more and more incoherent. I'm enjoying it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Interesting that in the earlier video Obama says he was not present when any of the controversial statements were uttered by Wright. Then, in the second video, he claims that he was in fact sitting in the pews when Wright made controversial and divisive statements. They need to try harder to keep his story straight.
On the subject of his latest speech, I caught most of it live on the radio. Obama's definitely a good speaker, but it seemed to me that once you got passed his delivery you were left with standard Democrat "we're all victims and need the government to solve your problems" rhetoric. Wright was a victim of segregation(and therefore his bigotry is understandable), his grandmother was a victim of racial stereotypes, factory workers are victims of greedy, evil corporations and so on. We just need to make him president so the federal government under him can right all these wrongs.
I don't believe the Senator used the word "government" even once in the speech. A search of the text confirms this. A different take, from NRO:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols....
Actually, what I heard of the speech was quite good -- and I thought he took on the challenge rather well and truly did try to bring it to a new level of understanding.
I disagree with many (70+%) of his policy options, but on this issue I thought he spoke well -- the theme was a brilliant take on the larger issue and not just a limited response to the prompting event.
BTW, in making that assessment, I am speaking both from my sense of things as an amateur political news junkie and as a formally trained rhetorical critic.
Hmm, what's he running for again? Miss America? Cuz if he was running for some kind of elected office, one might assume that he means he's going to use the government to solve these problems when he was talking about being able to bring change... naaah. :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Rofl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
We can all agree that he delivers a speech better than any other current candidate, or current office holder. Is that a valuable asset in a President? I think "yes". There will be times from 2009 through 2017 when our head guy will need to clearly articulate the American position to the rest of the world (and to Americans, as well).
I thought he did a pretty good job of "explaining", without lecturing, where we stand on race relations in 2008, and how we got here. And he showed a rarely-seen ability to actually step into the shoes of the 'other' side. That too, will be important in a Prez, when trying to get laws passed in a two-party legislature, or trying to move negotiations along internationally.
I have 1 "bugs me", and one concern left:
I understand his "I can't disown him" stance on the 'crazy uncle'. It bugs me though, that the crazy uncle was a preacher of prominence, and he (Obama) remained in the same church for 20 years, whilst disagreeing and abhoring the politics of the crazy uncle. That kind of loyalty is worthy of Mr. Bush & Co, and smells fishy to me, given the hundreds of thousands of other churches available to be a member of.
And my concern is: when the day comes during his Presidency, that it's necessary to drop the rhetoric and "pull the trigger", will he shut up and act? Or fall back on his tried-and-true speechifying, and not act, getting us hurt?
One more thing: the staging and sub-text of that speech ("I am the President of the United States! See how presidential I look and sound?"), was masterful. The only thing missing was the presidential seal over his head. It could easily have been part of his first State of the Union address.
Bravo to his handlers!
Yes, much like Obama's speeches. I wonder if he was in Cambodia during Christmas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Oh, the word is nuanced.
You can better fight the system and nation that you loathe if you become the leader of it.
People who truly hate America would run for the presidency of it, I would assume. Why bother sitting on a pulpit throwing stones when you could subvert the highest levels of government with some charm?
I'm not saying that Obama hates America, but running for higher office wouldn't necessarily exclude that possibility.
Any who - I will defend him until he gets the nod - then he gets thrown under the straight talk express. My main objective in this election right now is to keep Hillary out of the White House and avoid the beginning of the end times.
With uncanny precision, I think TSMcG has hit on the probable undercurrent swiftboating we'll see from September through November this year, if Barry O gets the Dem nod. Johnny Mac won't say such stuff himself, of course, but the commentariat (Rush, Coulter, et al) won't shy away from such suggestions.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Slightly different tack if the Hil gets annointed: corruption, shady deals, personal enrichment, secret communist agenda, etc will be the order of the day.
Harder to figure is how the Dems will try to cut Mac down.
------------------------
Meanwhile, did anyone see the clip of McCain (w/Lieberman & Graham) in Jordan, saying: "It's well-known the Iranians are training al-Quaida to fight in Iraq!" (Lieberman whispers in his ear). "I mean: Irananians are training extremists to fight in Iraq." Oughtta go on Dick Clark's "Bloopers" show.
Heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
So Lieberman is going to be the VP candidate? If it wasn't for the two old white guys thing I would say set and match!Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
They're going to need it, since by focusing on Wright the 527 groups have abandoned the "he's a Muslim" line of attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
-edit-
Oops, now the loonbats are saying he's Jewish. Not sure that's gonna work for them ...
I don't even dislike him. If he wins the election I could still go on calling myself a proud American citizen. If Hillary wins I will immediately live in a state of violent open rebellion and attempt to secede from the Union.
McCain or Obama - life goes on, maybe we can get a few new things done.
Hillary - The U.S. will crash and burn in a sea of racial, gender and ideological bloodshed.
Perhaps someone needs to explain to you what tongue in cheek means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
have you ever considered a career as a comedian?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_John
What is funny? That Hillary will herald Armageddon?
Find me proof that she won't.
Answer this with a yes or no
Will Hillary ever stop trying to destroy the planet Earth and drag us all into hell?
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Let her win the election. Then we'll have definitive proof. :2thumbsup:
The proof is in the pudding.Quote:
Find me proof that she won't.
eww. who wants to volunteer to get the proof? probably bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Lemur, I think attacks on Obama will have a much greater impact if they focus on his relationship with, and excuses for, Wright than anything to do with a Muslim background. Suddenly we've gone from the audacity of hope to saying his Pastor lived in rough times, so he's got an excuse to be so very hateful. Not to mention the other tenants of his Church.
We've gone from MLK's speeches to Wright's, while Obama just make excuses for it.
Is it not odd how he's not willing to hear any excuses for washington (DC) right now, and insists he's going there to change everything, but Wright's hate is understandable?
CR
Hmm, well he clearly stated that he rejects and denounces the anti-American rhetoric. He called his former pastor mistaken, wrong, misguided and all kinds of other words. The only thing he's not willing to do is completely sever the relationship from the guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I assume that had he denounced Wright and cried "Get thee behind me," some on this board would gleefully scream that he was throwing his pastor under a bus. No winning with this crowd.
I didn't get the "making excuses" impression in the least. If anything, it sounded like he was sasssing his elders. But eye of the beholder and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
-edit-
Huckabee chimes in. Addresses the Obama/Wright stuff around the 4 minute mark.
Frankly, there really is no easy way out of this controversy for Obama now. He dodged and ignored the issue until he couldn't anymore. Then he basically lied about never hearing Wright make any of the remarks. He's had a fairly intimate relationship with this bigoted hate-monger for more than 20 yrs. The fact that he waits until it's a media firestorm before condemning Wright's hateful comments doesn't reflect well on him, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Can anyone guess who Obama was commenting about here? It wasn't Wright:Quote:
I would also say that there's nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group.
So Xiahou, does this mean you'll get Hillary like you always wanted?
Wow, you're almost as good at dodging as Obama, Lemur.
CR
Rabbit, every time I answer one of your posts directly, you scream that I'm dodging. Can we please move on to a new ad hominem accusation? And what would not constitute a "dodge" in your book, besides complete and utter agreement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
-edit-
Interesting, if it weren't for TuffStuff and me, Clinton would no longer exist in this thread. And nobody's even talking about McCain. It's the all-Obama-all-the-time thread now, thanks largely to Xiahou's Ahab-like fixed hatred.
I was talking about your response to Xiahou's post, Lemur. Perhaps I should have been more clear. And I dare say I'm not 'screaming', which is a bit funny coming from the guy who says another has 'Ahab-like fixed hatred'.
After all, how can Obama be a unifier if he calls Wright his mentor? The 'pastor' of a church that has a black values system, including 'disavowal of middleclassness' and "Pledging allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System".
He compared Wright's statements to Ferraro's, and with his own grandmother. talk about throwing her under the bus. And maybe it's just me, but those comparisons are for mitigating Wright's behavior.Quote:
I didn't get the "making excuses" impression in the least. If anything, it sounded like he was sasssing his elders. But eye of the beholder and all that.
Edit: a good article on the substance of Obama's speech : http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/M...baracks_speech
As for McCain, he's pulling further ahead while doing all sorts of presidential candidate activities - traveling the world and whatnot.
And if you want to hear more of Hilary, why don't you post some more news? Obama's the one in the spotlight right now, after all.
CR
You can't take you eyes off of the ball, and Clinton is the ball. A Giant, spiked, smelly, Ball of doom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Certainly a good article, if you're taking your advice from Michael Medved. I liked him better when he was reviewing movies in Chicago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
What ever happened to the Ron Paulites? The Washington Times reports on the issue:
Ron Paul says the legions of newcomers his presidential campaign brought to the Republican Party are getting the cold shoulder from John McCain and from the party.
The Texas congressman says neither he nor his supporters have heard from Mr. McCain or Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan since March 4, when the Arizona senator accumulated enough delegates to clinch the party's presidential nomination.
"I don't think they want them," Mr. Paul told The Washington Times.
The Weekly Standard chimes in:
Let me just say to Ron Paul supporters everywhere, and on behalf of the New Right (by which I assume Paul means the Jew Right), get lost.
There should be plenty of room for the Paulnuts in Obama's big tent. If Rev. Wright isn't exactly a 9/11 Truther, at least he's breathed new life into the Pearl Harbor Truther movement. Imagine a newsletter coauthored by the Reverend and Lew Rockwell--now that's racial harmony.
Well, crap. I hope the GOP doesn't shoot itself in the foot with regards to the youth Ron Paul attracted to libertarianism.
He's the best radio talk guy I've ever heard (unfortunately localized in Seattle) - he's smart, doesn't yell like O'Reilly or Hannity, listens and debates - doesn't just shout at - people from all over the spectrum - and is much better than Rush at actually espousing the principles of conservatism and not just preaching to the choir.Quote:
Certainly a good article, if you're taking your advice from Michael Medved
CR
:laugh4: Is that a slight at the man's upbringing? Not all of us were gifted by divine providence with a furry coat and fancy tail, some of us have had to work up the evolutionary and career ladder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
He should get rid of the stache and cut his hair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
This is too incredibly beautiful. Here we have the unassailable black candidate, the next JFK, caught with ties more controversial than those of Jesse Jackson. I bet those black liberation traitors really thought they were getting away with something. They finally found someone who could trick the white devil. I wonder how many democrats who were fooled by the latest black power candidate would like their primary votes back. Best case scenario is that he limps in to the nomination, and the 527s hammer “God Damn America” into every household in the nation.
On a personal note, I am a little disappointed. He, of course, would have never gotten my vote due to his political leanings. I did feel that if we had to have a leftist in the White House, it would have been nice to have a guy that transcended race and showed that anyone can succeed in this country. Come to find out, it was nothing more than smoke and mirrors. This man sat through sermons such as “The gov’ment invented AIDS to kill the black man” for 20 years and he didn’t soak some of that racist, anti-american, traitorous crap up? I would be willing to bet he gave a lot of money to support it.
If he gets the nom, I hope all White, Hispanic, Asian and Arab Americans band together to keep this black supremist out of the White House.
Ironically, he’s done far more to hurt race relations and black politicians in the nation than help.
JohnnyMac looks positively amazing next to this traitor.
I like Dick Morris' take on it though. Half-white Obama had to prove his blackness to succeed in Chicago politics. Therefore he needed to latch on to race-baiters like this guy to prove it.
The reality is that most Americans are racist. I forgive people for racism. It is understandable. Agglomerations of people can be abominable.
Personally, my at home bigotry is aimed at jews and blacks, which I try to temper because I know that most people bring talents and gifts to the table regardless of the color of their skin. It is tempting to target someone for perceived ridiculous qualities that they share with others who look like them and remind us of their failings..
I have said some brutal stuff about Jews and some terrible things about blacks. I even rip on eye-talians and mock the Chinese. When I hear a black man rip on whites, my blood begins to boil but I realize that we are united by our hatred of the absurd in each other. I always feel like we have more in common then and I feel less hostile.
True harmony comes through mutually understood bigotry. We just need to work on it to make it more ironic and less violent.
McCain has always looked good, although it takes the demonization of the Dem frontrunner to make the Rightists wake up and smell the coffee. John McCain was always the strongest, most centrist candidate the Repubs had. Especially in 2000.Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
He'll basically be a continuation of Bush policies as they currently stand. We could do worse, but I had hoped we would do a lot better. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
If you believe McCain will be the functional equivalent of a third Bush term, you're going to be rudely surprised.
What exactly do you think he'll do differently?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I've outlined what I see McCain doing in earlier posts. But by all means, vote for him, and tell yourself you're gonna get more Bush.
That's what it will be in practice- and it's nothing for me to get excited about. ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Will I vote for him? Possibly- as long as he doesn't do something stupid like pick Huckabee for his VP....
I see major differences. McCain is a budget hawk, Bush is a budget blowout. McCain is a torture abolitionist, Bush is a "string 'em up by their thumbs" (actual quote) kinda guy. McCain's base is Independents, Bush's is the Religious Right. I could go on, but come on, how can you declare that Johnny Mac will be Bush III with a straight face?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Hell yes you'll vote for him, especially once you're convinced that the Dem is a traitor/quisling/Communist/most librul evar/spawn of satan who will steal your guns, destroy free trade, outlaw Christianity and force you to bow before feminist committees before you're allowed to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Frankly, from a Republican perspective, you're in the bag; you don't need any convincing, and they're not gonna campaign with you in mind. All that's required is that you believe that the Dem is a danger to all that's good and just, and you're taken care of. Simple enough.
Meanwhile, I wonder why Hillary hasn't jumped on the Wright issue harder? Here's one guess:
Their base is irrelevant- it's the policies that matter. Iraq- same. Stance towards Iran- same. Illegal immigration- same. Abortion- same. With a Democrat congress, Bush has remembered where he left his veto pen. I fully expect McCain would continue that policy as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
The biggest thing you can come up with is the handful of alQaeda types that were waterboarded- who reportedly gave up valuable intel as a result. Personally, I think McCain would authorize the same thing in the aftermath of a terrorist attack- maybe he wouldn't. Regardless, McCain and Bush have far more in common than not right now and share the same views on nearly all of the major issues of the day.
Weaksauce.Quote:
Meanwhile, I wonder why Hillary hasn't jumped on the Wright issue harder? Here's one guess:
I now have complete respect for Sean Hannity and the entire Fox News team:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/20/16576/3089
:laugh4:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us...rssnyt&emc=rss
Richardson endorses Obama. This is really going to be useful with the Latino voting bloc.
I think McCain will be a step up from Bush. I thought so when I supported McCain over Bush the last time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
They may be coming from a similar place, but Bush can't communicate with people. I hope McCain does a better job.
Most people can read the same book out loud. Delivery and comprehension are where the differences will be found.
Xiahou, you're getting a bit weird, dude. You completely ignored the fiscal side of my comment, and the only way to follow your reasoning on the torture issue is if you take an absolute best-case, near-pollyanna interpretation of the administration's claims on "alternative interrogation methods." And the base doesn't matter? Fascinating, Captain.
Meanwhile, we're finally getting some polling on how the Wright business is playing in the public. Not surprisingly, based on the tenor of this thread, by far it's biggest impact is among Republicans who never would have voted for Senator Obama anyway. Read for yourself. The Wright questions begin on page 9.
Funny the kos doesn't mention how the Obama site says each group is approved by administrators.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
CR
Peggy Noonan, a writer whom we've all quoted at some point or another, has her take on the Obama speech about race:
Still, it was a good speech, and a serious one. I don't know if it will help him. We're in uncharted territory. We've never had a major-party presidential front-runner who is black, or rather black and white, who has given such an address. We don't know if more voters will be alienated by Mr. Wright than will be impressed by the speech about Mr. Wright. We don't know if voters will welcome a meditation on race. My sense: The speech will be labeled by history as the speech that saved a candidacy or the speech that helped do it in. I hope the former.
I read that this morning. I wholeheartedly agree. People are blowing Obama's words out of proportion. He has called his pastor's words abominable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
He never used them himself.
If you would never elect a black man to the white house based on the fact that someone close to them said ignorant and race-baiting garbage - I doubt we'd ever have a black president. That is the truth - there is alot of resentment by Blacks in toward whites general. They need to fix that, Obama can help them. Whether you like it or not Blacks have a huge chip on their general shoulder. Obama doesn't seem to so lets move past this.
These are cheap tricks to attack the guy for being black. I think he's being a trooper about it.
I want to see him lose because he is a democrat, not a black guy who's pastor is an ignorant, conspiratorial bigot.
The man doesn't have to say the words, he's incorporated their meaning into his every day existence. He and his wife.
If you have anything to back that up, please share.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
The author of The Bell Curve, a guy who has thought long and seriously about race, has this to say:
I understand how naïve it is to read a presidential candidate’s speech as if it were anything except political positioning, but that leads me to my final point: It’s about time that people who disagree with Obama’s politics recognize that he is genuinely different. When he talks, he sounds like a real human being, not a politician. I’m not referring to the speechifying, but to the way he comes across all the time. We’ve had lots of charming politicians. I cannot think of another politician in my lifetime who conveys so much sense of talking to individuals, and talking to them in ways that he sees as one side of a dialogue. Conservatives who insist that he’s nothing but an even slicker Bill Clinton are missing a reality about him, and at their peril.
-edit-
In happier news, looks like Team Clinton is broke:
It should be noted, however, that Hillary isn't obliged to repay the $5 million debt to herself. Nonetheless, even factoring in that, once you subtract the other debts her cash on hand number would be in the neighborhood of $3 million.
By contrast, Obama has over $30 million on hand for the primary.
Well who would want to get on a sinking ship. At this point with michigan and florida out of the picture it's almost impossible for her to win the nomination. So why throw your money away, even if it just a donation. This just shows that even the rich corporate insiders are starting to move away from her.
Don't count Clinton out yet. There is money enough for PA (barely) and the momentum is all hers following the Rev. Wright kerflaffle. A big win there and smaller wins in the last following primaries, plus MI/FL
-- do you really think the credentials committee is going to leave those states OUT of the convention when both are virtually must-wins for a Dem victory in the general? --
and Clinton may be as close ad 100 delegates when we reach the convention. She is also polling more of the super-delegates than B.O.
It's still uphill for her, but this is NOT over yet.
Count a Clinton "out" of the race when they've a) reached their term limit and can't run; b) died; or c) lost the vote, the recount and the follow-on court fight....not before.
The Peggy Noonan article is moving.
As is this piece in today's Telegraph.
I am proud that a black man is at last a viable candidate for the presidency. I am proud that, in the primary in Virginia - one-time member of the Confederacy and the state where both Robert E. Lee and my father were born and raised - a majority of white men voted for that black candidate. I am proud that the fact that Obama had a white mother does not seem to have put off African-American voters on the grounds that he is not "black enough".
I am proud that race relations in America have come far enough that Clinton-ally Geraldine Ferraro could notoriously insinuate that being black in a nationwide American election was an unfair advantage. I am proud that this freak of political nature, a candidacy that in my childhood would have been so far-fetched as to be farcical, is not just any old racial token, but is smart, classy, poised, and extraordinary.
After two terms of an inarticulate, tongue-tied president who repeatedly pronounces nuclear "noocyoolar" on national television, I am proud to back a presidential candidate who is more eloquent than any American politician of my adulthood. I am proud of Barack Obama, but most of all - for finally elevating such a worthy man as well as a worthy black man - I am proud of my country.
I agree. Whatever happens in the elections, the citizens of the United States can be proud that they have an intelligent, eloquent politician able to address long-term taboos with thoughtful analysis - and that he is given the chance to stand for the highest office.
That's something we in the Old World have long given up on.
I don't know that we've given up on it. It is encouraging in itself to see that the U.S. hasn't given up on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
In one sense, Obama's efforts are an exercise in black leadership. They show the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons what politics is about. It is about advocating and implementing solutions, not about being a spokesman of righteous indignation or even rage, however justified it may be in some cases, and organizing a demo and a press conference before running off to and taking the lead in the next presumed racial scandal.
Obama's republican detractors do have a point: how can you sit in that church for twenty odd years and not know about and react to the preacher's hate-speech? On the other hand, when Republican Presidents or presidential candidates were seen talking and even praying with the likes of Billy Graham, they were never identified with the lunatic views of the latter either.
Maybe not identified, but criticised for it often enough. Given that he has been visiting Wright for 2 decades I think he defended himself well enough; rather than just dropping him like a brick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
But, while I've never been a christian, it strikes me as odd that he would let his own children be baptised by this fruitbasket. Even if he's an old friend.
I always thought Billy Graham didn't really say lunatic things. Are you thinking of the likes of Jerry Falwell? (Who's Moral Majority Graham refused to join.)
Graham was seventh most admired of this century according to a gallup poll, so most people probably didn't think poorly of people who talked to him : http://www.pollingreport.com/20th.htm.
From wiki:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Also, check out the controversy section : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham
For a man who's been preaching since before the 1950s, there's very, very little to be offended by. My point is that Bill Graham really didn't have lunatic views.
CR
He said that Jews control the media and that AIDS is a judgement from god ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Apart from being a warmonger, a creationist and an antisemite, enough to qualify him as a lunatic in my book. The other guy was worse, though, in that sense you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
And backtracked quickly on both.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Adrian - a warmonger? And forgive me if being a creationist doesn't quite reach the same level as Wright's preaching, in that its mainly harmless.
CR
How about blaming fellow Americans for 9/11 just a couple of days after the event? That seemed to be a common idea at the time, both on the extreme left and extreme right. Of course, everybody who said that sort of thing wound up looking the fool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
And what about the rabidly anti-Catholic John Hagee? Does his hatermongering rise to the level of "notable"? Seems to me that religious leaders often say boneheaded things, and are routinely forgiven by their congregations, not to mention the politicians who solicit them.
Some quotes from Rev. Hagee:
The Roman Catholic Church ,which was supposed to carry the light of the gospel, plunged the world into the dark ages.
When Hitler signed a treaty with the Vatican in Rome, he said "I am only continuing the work of the Catholic Church." In this chapter I've included a comparison of the historical record of church policy and Nazi policy.
Consider Adolph Hitler. As a spiritual leader in the Roman Catholic Church...
Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolph Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.
He certainly violates Godwin's Law with cheerful abandon ...
-edit-
More polling on the Wright/Obama issue confirms what this thread already shows -- the controversy plays well with base Republicans, and has little impact elsewhere.
Most voters following the events say they will make no difference in their vote. Seventy percent say the events will make no difference in their vote. Among those who said it would, 14 percent said it makes them more likely to vote for Obama while an equal number said it makes them less likely to support him.
Nearly a quarter of Democrats say the events have made them more likely to back Obama, while a similar number of Republicans say they are now less likely to do so. Three in four independents say the events make no difference, and the remainder are nearly evenly split between those more likely to support him and those less likely to do so.
What duh, Lemur? That video was of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
And what of that bigot Hagee?
I'm talking about Billy Graham. :dizzy2:
Let me repeat this:
I'm not talking about Falwell.
I'm not talking about Robertson.
I'm not talking about Hagee.
I never said I was talking about them not being lunatics, so I don't know where in the world you got the idea I was.
I. Am. Speaking. Only. About. Billy. Graham.
Not anyone else. Just Billy Graham.
I hope that is clear enough for you.
When its used against him int he general election, and lots of people get to hear Wright's actual remarks, not just bull**** from the media about 'controversial statements', it might have a wee bit more effect.Quote:
More polling on the Wright/Obama issue confirms what this thread already shows -- the controversy plays well with base Republicans, and has little impact elsewhere.
CR
Don't get all worked up, friend. My point was simple enough -- these are all evangelical leaders whose support has been sought by Presidential candidates, and they've all said offensive, nutty things. It's perfectly germane to the discussion. If we are to hang Obama because of his connection with Wright, we are applying something of a double standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
In fact, Billy Graham got completely burned by politics (specifically his support of Richard Nixon) that in 1974 he said, "I'm out of politics." Details:
In refusing to join the Moral Majority in 1979, he declared, "I'm for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice. We as clergy know so very little to speak with authority on the Panama Canal or superiority of armaments. Evangelists cannot be closely identified with any particular party or person. We have to stand in the middle in order to preach to all people, right and left. I haven't been faithful to my own advice in the past. I will be in the future."
Truthfully, I think Graham was an admirable man of faith. But he's not the beginning nor the end of this discussion.
The others like Falwell and Hagee are neither here nor there to my discussion, which was that Billy Graham is not on the lunatic fringe.
Yes, there are others who are crazy. None that I know of who have been pastor to a candidate for 20 years though. We can hold Obama's associations with Wright worse than McCain's with Hagee without applying a double standard, while still criticizing McCain.
And I already had that Bill Graham quote in an earlier post of mine.
CR
We're all in this thread together, friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
So it's the length of association that makes or breaks the crazy stick?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Sorry, missed it on first read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Hey, keep hammering on Wright until November, by all means. Don't let anyone persuade you otherwise. According to the CBS and Fox polls, 70%+ of respondents said they were already quite familiar with the video clips. So flog it, baby. Fire up the base.
No, tis not just length, but also level of craziness and level of America hating.
Also, where are these polls you speak of?
CR
I see you and I are equally guilty of skimming.
Fox poll, and the summary article.
CBS poll, summary article.
-edit-
Just to save you time, the Wright questions begin on page 9 of the Fox poll PDF.
-edit of the edit-
My kind of article: 14 Reasons Why Hillary Should Quit
...and the guy who wrote that article probably doesn't have a problem with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Don't get me wrong, most of the reasons listed are valid. It's not in the party's best interest for Hillary to continue and doubtfully so for her own. I don't follow American newspapers obviously, but when Dutch newspapers talk about the American elections, half of it is about Obama alone.
The obvious cases like Fox news aside, is it common that newspapers or other news outlets explicitly endorse a candidate?
And of course the goofy thing is that because of their Obama boy-crushes, the talking heads have been, if anything, super-gentle with Madam Clinton. It's as though they're trying to prove how very not-in-love-with-Obama they are.
Can you imagine, if their positions were reversed, how the coverage would have differed? If Obama lost 12 states in a row, was behind in popular votes and delegates, would they walk on eggshells around him, saying it was a "competitive" race? No they would not. They'd be howling for him to step down.
No, if anything, their guilty love of Obama makes the MSM much more Clinton-positive than otherwise.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Can you imagine, if their positions were reversed, how the coverage would have differed? If Obama lost 12 states in a row, was behind in popular votes and delegates, would they walk on eggshells around him, saying it was a "competitive" race? No they would not. They'd be howling for him to step down.
Maybe you can help my imagination a bit. Why would that be?
It is a competitive race. Clinton, by now, is consistently lagging behind but by a margin small enough for her to win if she gets enough superdelegates.
Obama got a lot of help from the media early on. I think you're mistaken in your analysis, Lemur. It's only recently that Obama's been asked any hard questions. And the media have been tight lipped about what Wright said.
They may have finally realized it and stopped the blatantness of the love for Obama, but I don't think that's the whole reason they're still calling Clinton competitive.
Clinton is still competitive in upcoming primary states and is close behind in delegates, and is polling even to Obama. If Obama had lost all those states in a row, would he be in the position Hilary has maintained? I don't think so.
CR
Well yes, I guess it is a common slip of the tongue. I've often slipped up and saids things like "jews control the media" when I meant to say "I'll have three bud light's".Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
In other words, if the superdelegates overturn the expressed will of the voters, Clinton can win. If the superdelegates nullify the candidate who will end the race with more delegates and more popular vote, Clinton can win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenring
Think about that and let's talk about it tomorrow.
Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.
Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.
People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.
All the same, those are two instances from 50+ years of preaching. And both times he said he was wrong.
Is he perfect? No, but he's far from a lunatic.
CR
Rabbit & Lemur (sounds like a comedy act :devilish: ):
Actually, I think the media has almost precisely what they want right now. The media, as an institution, wants to sell advertising. They are now looking at with scare-concealed glee at a brokered convention. A convention that costs them almost Zip-Squat to produce and for which they will sell a snot-load of advertising because, for the first time since Kennedy in 1960, the convention actually matters.
Yes, the media built up Obama early on -- it is in their interest to make as much of a horse race of things as they can. Now Obama is up front, and its his turn to get bashed while Hillary gets a bit of soft glove.
Journalism is about reporting on a "conflict" of some sort. Nominations wrapped up in late February don't have nearly enough to suit them.
Given that most of the media is, personally, more inclined towards left-wing politics than toward right-wing politics, I suspect they'd be happy (on a personal level) with either one.
The only way it oculd have been more fun for the media ws to have the same sort of thing happening on the GOP side as well. Huckabee and Romney split things up too much though, so McCain sailed clear too quickly.
Astute analysis as usual, Seamus.
We'll just have to work out who does the prop comedy and who gets stuck with the dancing dog.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
-edit-
Two contrasting views on the Wright business, one from a founder of the Religious Right:
Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. [...]
The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed.
And a moment of shocking honesty from NRO, which has become anti-Obama central:
Obama's the enemy — a far-left Democrat. We should be attacking him at every weak point. That's politics.
A pro-Obama emailer whines to me that the Pastor Wright business is "a Swift Boating of Obama." Well, duh!
I found this breakdown (through Truthout) rather enlightening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I love how people never learn from the past mistake of standing over the shark carcass that is Hillary. Whatever the likelihood that she could win is, multiply that by at least 5. If there is "no possibility", giver her a10%.
Shark Carcass - never let your guard down even if it has been rotting on the deck for over an hour.
She will get up, go down, get up again. She is a "horror film that will never end" (Andrew Sullivan).
We won't be finished with her until her final breath. She will keep coming back until she is the President. I just hope that we have enough political ammo or passionate, intelligent minority candidates to keep her at bay until she finally crawls back into hell.