Sen. Obama countered Rev. Jeremiah Wright by denouncing his views and his association with his campaign period. Is this too little too late?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Obama unleashes a Barack-barrage
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Stu,
It seems to me Rev. Wright is responding to the fact that he just retired and he feels the need to “build his Legacy”. I don't think he is after Oboma. I think he is Using him to build his "Street Rep". Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter set the standard for this type of thinking. I think Rev. Wright will start to show up at the rallies with Jackson and the other race baiters of their generation.
Best Regards,
Frank Collins
I think that's a good theory, Frank.
In listening to several callers this morning, I heard things like Barack Obama seems intelligent, he's articulate, he's sincere, etc., BUT, I won't vote for him because he's a Democrat.
When I was in college I remember a professor saying something like, " eventually we tend to become what we hate." I didn't quite understnd that, but I think I do now.
It's tribalism that has replaced our democratic form of government and it's both chilling and sad. We look to the Middle East with dismay and frustration as we can't seem to understand why the Sunni and Shiite religious sects continue to feud with eachother.
We see the feud as poisionous and detrimental to progress and enlightenment in the Middle East.
Well, guess what? Simply replace Sunni and Shiite with Republican and Democrat and we have in essence the same thing. It took thousands of years for tribalism to establish itself in the Middle East and as I see it, we've decided to begin walking down the same path. The sad part is that we seem to be doing it without even realizing what's happening to our country.
Not accepting somone who may be a solid statesman because he's not a member of your chosen tribe slaps democracy in the face.
Fred: "When I was in college I remember a professor saying something like, " eventually we tend to become what we hate."
This must be the same guy that gave his kid Mikes Hard Lemonade. IMO, being a professor and being recognized by your peers as being book smart has nothing to do with real life. Look at Professor Ward Churchill as a prime example. There are many in academia that are there because they lack the ability to function beyond the sheltered atmosphere of a college campus.
With Barack Obama's relationship with Wright, the issue of judgment takes center stage.
I believe that Obama failed to see the obvious for many years, and only realizes it now because of the potential negative effect on his political aspirations.
What I want to know is… What took Barack Obama so long to see the real Jeremiah Wright? Why did it take him over 20 years to realize what many people realized in less than 5 minutes? Why did he associate with Reverend Wright in the first place?
It doesn't take a genius (or a degree from Harvard) to realize that "G** d*** America" and Exodus 20:7 are in contradiction.
Furthermore... Obama has shown the entire country that he is a poor judge of character. If Barack Obama lacks to wisdom to choose a church, a pastor and non-terrorist associates, then why should anyone believe he has the wisdom to choose a presidential cabinet or federal judge?
Good job stereotyping college educational instructors, Eric.
About Obama and Rev. Wright: You're assuming Obama went to Church every Sunday and followed this guy around scooping up pearls of wisdom. I think that's a load of garbage. I don't consider ministers, pastors, deacons, or reverends to be any more or less rational and wise than anybody else.
I personally don't think it's smart to evalute my opinions on based upon somebody else's. If that's the case, then let's take a look at John McCain's solicitation of John Hagee's endorsement.
Your tribe is simply looking for reasons not to like Barack Obama. That's ok, but realize that's what is going on here.
As far as political leaders in both political clubs being able to evaluate talent and skill, don't even go there.
Fred: "Good job stereotyping college educational instructors, Eric."
Thanks. But like in all professions, in education there are good and bad instructors. Your instructors statement of " eventually we tend to become what we hate" seems kind of juvenile. If I don't like politician with poor judgment, does that mean I will become a politician with poor judgment? If I hate broccoli, will I become broccoli? Absolutely not. The challenge with academics is knowing their area of expertise and determining when they have spoken beyond it.
Fred: "About Obama and Rev. Wright: You're assuming Obama went to Church every Sunday and followed this guy around scooping up pearls of wisdom."
And you are assuming that Obama is an ignorant rube that is not able to judge the character of people he has had a close relationship with for over 20 years. Obama may be a poor judge of character, but he is not stupid.
Fred: "I don't consider ministers, pastors, deacons, or reverends to be any more or less rational and wise than anybody else."
Same here. Although in Wrights case, a lot less rational is my initial impression.
Fred: "If that's the case, then let's take a look at John McCain's solicitation of John Hagee's endorsement."
When you get backed into a corner and can't explain Obama's actions, then change the subject to his opposition. Nice try.
Fred: "Your tribe is simply looking for reasons not to like Barack Obama. That's ok, but realize that's what is going on here."
Wasn't it you that once said that I was a man without a candidate? That's hasn't changed. I am still without a candidate and I refuse to subjugate my principles to a political party platform, therefore I am a tribe of one. I vote for the candidate that I don't like the least. On election day, I truly looked very hard for reasons not to dislike him the least.
Fred" "As far as political leaders in both political clubs being able to evaluate talent and skill, don't even go there."
Once again, an attempt to change the subject. For this discussion, lets try and limit ourselves to the ones running in the 2008 Presidential Election who lack the support to secured enough votes for their "clubs" nomination.
"It's tribalism that has replaced our democratic form of government and it's both chilling and sad."
Yes, I have to agree. We are both chilled and saddened by the constant back and forth bickering; the unfair accusations, the press being used as a bludgeon, the race to the bottom which makes it clear just how bankrupt the whole thing is.
Yep, those pesky dems just cannot get along, can they? Sounds like that old tribalism to me.
Don't worry though - regardless of how nasty dems are to each other, they'll always be nastier to normal Americans and nicer to their natural allies - Hamas.
"Yep, those pesky dems just cannot get along, can they? Sounds like that old tribalism to me. "
That's why dems have superdelegates. They need a check and balance to the tribalism of their supporters.
Since my point about tribal politics seemed to have zoomed over your head, let me dumb it down to your level of comprehension.
The choosing of political leaders has become less about individuals and more about political teams. If some butt-hole wears the team jersey of your choosen club, he's the guy for you.
John McCain is a good example: In 2000 he was on the outside looking in as Rove and Co. squashed his run for the RNC endorsement. He was smeared and dragged through the mud as the team cheered for GW. Suddenly he re-surfaces in 2007 and now carries the tribal banner into battle for the team.
The same team members that found him unacceptable now rallies around the guy. What's changed?
As an independent, I could give a rat's carcass about which tribe claims the next victory. My guy was Ron Paul or maybe Dennis Kucinch, but both guys got crushed by their own team because they wouldn't play nice within their respective tribal tents. So much for independent thinking. John Mccain was once like that himself, but he learned his lesson........play nice with the poo-bahs running the team and you can get what you want.
So go ahead and pretend that your team will do what's best for you.
Washington is one big country club run by what I refer to as "Republicrats". You can join the club as a Republican or a Democrat. It doesn't matter. Pick the one that offers the easiest path depending upon where you live and remember when you screw up, you can blame the other team.
Fred: "John McCain is a good example: In 2000 he was on the outside looking in as Rove and Co. squashed his run for the RNC endorsement. He was smeared and dragged through the mud as the team cheered for GW. Suddenly he re-surfaces in 2007 and now carries the tribal banner into battle for the team."
In 1976 Ford won the nomination over Reagan. In 1980, Reagan "re-surfaces" to win the nomination and the Presidency. Same banner, same candidate, same team.
Fred: "The same team members that found him unacceptable now rallies around the guy. What's changed?"
What changed? The people he is running against and the number of voters that voted for him. Voting is not just the supporting of one candidate, but the supporting of one candidate over another. This time around McCain beat the competition. Such is our political system. IMO, it's a lot better than Cuba, Iran, or Iraq prior to Iraqi Freedom.
If you think that McCain carries a "tribal banner" and has the support of his tribe, then perhaps you should read McCains speech from CPAC.
Just Fred,
The exposure of the nastiness of the dems must be getting to you. You are sounding more like the the total anti-American liberal who used to haunt this board. Hopefully he's in therapy now or has moved to a better country. Funny, I don't really miss him.
I know it's hard to accept that a normal American might not agree with your theory that America has lost its democracy and degenerated into warring tribes just like the Arabs. But it's really not all that attractive to respond by implying those normal Americans are therefore dumb. That's condescension and one of the hallmarks of liberalism. It's also a belief in something that is not true - which is a hallmark of delusion.
But, one might argue that their actually may be two groups in our country: Those whose first reflex is to find fault with it such as pointing out how our democracy is dead or that we are just tribes exactly like the Arabs. And there is the other side, whose job unfortunately, is to try and keep the anti-American tribe from wreaking more families and destroying more lives as they attempt to reshape the country in their own failed and chilling image.
As a postscript, it always amazes me when libs warn us against not "accepting them as solid statemen". If I were you, I wouldn't worry so much about what other Americans think of you. We know what we believe and your statements just creep us out and make us shake our heads in pity.
Instead, I'd worry why I was so unsure of myself to have to constantly make such statements. It would probably be best to convince yourself before you try and convince regular Americans.
Here's a response from a 'regular' American (whatever the samhill that is).
One team tells me not to vote for the other team because the other team will expand government, make it more intrusive and continue to spend, spend, spend. The country will sink deeper in debt, healthcare costs will rise, and blah, blah, blah. And, oh yes, they'll raise taxes to pay for it.
Ok fine. I get it.
So we install the 'good tribe' into the white House to run the show in 2000. Oops......government got bigger, spending has reached new heights never seen before in history, and as we watch the dollar continue to decrease in value worldwide, we've gone from the biggest lender to the biggest borrower on the globe. Meanwhile almost 50 million Americans are without healthcare as our premiums continue to zoom up and up to pay for it. The only difference is that one tribe raises taxes while the other tribe runs up the credit card so somebody else can pay it off down the road. Meanwhile, the tribal members are long gone when the poop hits the fan. Great plan.
My original point was that we're talking about "Republicrats" while you want promote your chosen tribe. Go ahead.
If something works for your own personal benefit, it's more of an accident and being at the right place at the right time. Case in point:
I'm assuming you guys are members of the Repub Tribe. Well, good ole Tommy Ridge (former chieftan of the Republican Club in PA) did me one helluva favor a few years ago. He raised my pension 25% and dumped a wad of dough into new stadiums in Philly and Pittsburgh. I can't tell you how happy I was to be able to retire 3 years before I planned to, and now being self-employed I'm able to run to Philadelphia to see my Fightin' Phils anytime I want and watch 'em play in a magnificent new stadium.
I'll never bad-mouth Tom Ridge after that, no-sir-ee. So go ahead, vote for the guy from your tribe in the next election and let them run the Country Club. Maybe you to will get lucky like I did and be in the right place at the right time.
Fred: "I'm assuming you guys are members of the Repub Tribe."
Like so much of your recent post, you once again assumed incorrectly. I am unaffiliated voter, however I was a dem for the month of April. I have never been a Repub.
I agree that government has expanded far beyond the Constitutional role of government. Therefore, the 50 million imaginary American shouldn't look for the government to provide healthcare. Perhaps Micheal Moore and take the 50 million to Cuba so that they can have government healthcare and government rationed food.
FWIW, it sounds like you have some "issues" that you need to work out. Nevertheless, what does any of this have to do with the topic of Obama and Wright?
Fred: "I'm assuming you guys are members of the Repub Tribe."
You know what they say about assuming. What part of "Proud member of the American tribe" reminds you of Republicans?
Oh yes, it might be because few liberal dems would ever say they were proud to be a member of the American tribe. Instead, like Ms. Michele Obama, we'd likely all expect them to never be proud of their country.
It is a disturbing fact, isn't it? Listen to a lib and you only get a list of what they perceive as wrong with their country. And their wrongs always require a loss of freedom to fix. Garnishment of wages for heath insurance via Ms. Hillary Clinton anyone?
And if I wasn't too far gone down the spiraling chute of liberalism, I might try and make myself feel better by saying that my party might be awful, but the other party is too. Gary is famous for this type of calculus.
But truthfully, only one party has been responsible for destroying the lives of millions of their fellow Americans. Only one party can lay claim to refusing to allow drilling for oil. Only one party has been historically wrong on each and every major issue of our time - from claiming that the US could not win in Iraq to braying that tax cuts would cause less revenue for the government.
I know these truths are hard, but the way to deal with this is not to pretend that both parties are the same.
Instead the way to do it is to abandon the destructive lost cause that is the democratic party and work to force the other party to overcome its own liberal tendencies.
In order words, the join the tribe that is Proud to be American.
"In order words, the join the tribe that is Proud to be American."
Amen. God Bless America.
Hey, did you hear Rev. Eugene Rivers on Hannity's America discuss the how Black Liberation Theology is just "warmed over" Marxism masquerading as religion. It was no surprise to me, but Wow!!!
Here Rev. Rivers is on Morning Joe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1_Mt0eW8Gg
Final word from my perspective so the whole thing doesn't deteriorate into a pissing contest:
I see both federal and state governments as pseudo country clubs designed to maintain the royal status quo of it's members. Keeping "outsiders" out is a priority. 'Mavericks' and independent thinkers like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich (and on the state level, Russ Diamond) stand little chance of getting through the door.
Secondly, I still maintain that the essential differences between the two major tribes is a perception WE have, not necessarily THEM. They all play together on the same playground, whether it's Washington or Harrisburg.
I view John McCain and Hillary Clinton as long-time intrenched members of the good ole boy association, and Obama as a bit of an outside the mainstream. "Don't vote for me becasue you think I can play the game better, the problem is game itself." Maybe he's wrong, but of the three candidates left standing, I believe he offers the best chance of ending the game.
Thirdly, In my opinion the very nature of political tribalism is the biggest threat we face if we are to preserve this country. Ironically, tribalism is the very thing that allows the members of the country clubs keep their power. Tribe 'A' requires the presence of Tribe 'B' to act as a scapegoat for the failings, shortcomings, and incompetence of the tribe in power at the moment.
We did drift from the original post topic didn't we? That was my fault.
Post a Comment