Updated March 25
The Washington Blade headline (top of page 1) proclaims Obama pastor backs gay rights. Oh, so that makes the Rev. Jeremiah Wright a good guy as far as we (that is, the "LGBT community") are concerned? Wright's gay defenders represent the sort of inbred myopia that distresses many of us who have moved away from the LGBT left-liberal party line. Rev. Wright may call on the Lord by saying "God damn America," he may blame 9/11 on the "chickens are coming home to roost" for U.S. support of "state terrorism against the Palestinians." He may declare that the U.S. government invented and spread HIV/AIDS "as a means of genocide against people of color." But hey, he upholds the progressive line on gay rights, sort of. Let's rally to his support, and that of his most-famed mentee. (Yes, Obama has stated he disagrees with some cranky statements uttered by his most revered spiritual adviser for the past 20 years. Sorry, my bad.)
More. From the funny pages.
Furthermore: Why the speech was a brilliant fraud. Writes Charles Krauthammer:
Why didn't he leave-why doesn't he leave even today-a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction….
Sure, says Obama, there's Wright, but at the other "end of the spectrum" there's Geraldine Ferraro, opponents of affirmative action and his own white grandmother, "who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe." But did she shout them in a crowded theater to incite, enrage and poison others?
And yet Andrew Sullivan, Chris Crain, and other gay pundits still find themselves in full swoon. And they argue that Wright's support for gay rights balances his instances of hatefulness (Sullivan, here, and Crain, here). Just what, one wonders, would be needed to shake their entrancement?
More still. Bruce Bawer writes:
I was no fan of the late Bill Buckley, but a piece by him in the current Commentary has proven surprisingly timely. In it he describes how he and others, back in the 1960s, dealt with the huge and unwelcome influence in conservative circles of the John Birch Society, whose nutbag leader Robert Welch believed Eisenhower was a Communist agent. What did Buckley do? Give a speech in which he refused to disown Welch, explaining that Welch was a part of the big, complex picture of American conservatism and that he couldn't disown him any more than he could disown his grandmother? No, Buckley sought, through the power of the pen, to weaken the Birch Society's influence and separate Welch from the bulk of his followers. Others, too, took part in this effort. And, over time, it worked. It's called behaving responsibly. It's called leadership
And Gregory Rodriguez writes in the LA Times on what he terms Obama's brilliant bad speech:
Just maybe more progress will be made if average, fair-minded, decent people simply chose not to associate with-and lend their credibility to-haters, extremists or sowers of racial discord. Obama could have taken that simple path any time over the last 20 years. He chose not to. Now it's too late.
Yet still more. Christopher Hitchens' take:
You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily.... To have accepted Obama's smooth apologetics is to have lowered one's own pre-existing standards for what might constitute a post-racial or a post-racist future. It is to have put that quite sober and realistic hope, meanwhile, into untrustworthy and unscrupulous hands. And it is to have done this, furthermore, in the service of blind faith.
37 Comments for “Not Alright with Wright”
posted by Brian Miller on
While I agree that Obama has questionable credibility on LGBT issues, I think the more interesting story this electoral season is the Democratic Party’s out-and-out war on the gay press and media.
We’d all better be careful, or the Democrats will be sending around nasty high-priced lawyers to threaten us, like they did to the Blade’s editors and staff:
http://outrightlibertarians.blogspot.com/2008/03/gay-media-calls-out-democrats.html
posted by Bobby on
Well, Hitler was an animal lover, does that make Hitler a good person? I think not. The same applies to Wright, who happens to be Wrong.
posted by Mike Airhart on
Actually, Wright didn’t originate the view that “chickens are coming home to roost.”
He was quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan?s terrorism task force.
Wright’s own personal reaction to seeing the attack was more humane.
Source: Roland Martin, CNN contributor
If your point is that Wright is unique among loudmouths, then I completely disagree. All the current candidates have hateful extremists advocating for them: Ferraro and Hagee, to name a few.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, I wish the layout editors at the WashBlade would learn how to read their story’s content before making the headline… if you read the article, the positive pro-Wright info is mostly from fellow-pastors who seem to be brown-nosing more than telling the whole truth. It’s like they’re looking for some silver lining in all the jey black, angry clouds surrounding the Reverend.
Wright on gay marriage? “a distraction”.
Wright on the UCC position? AWOL
In fact, the article notes, because of Wright’s traditional view in opposition of the more inclusive UCC policy, “…Wright spoke out against the Synod?s position, which (is) said (to have) prompted ?LGBTQ parishioners to leave? the church.”
Reverend Wright is about as good a “friend” to gays as he is to white America.
The headline should have read: “Democrat interest groups rally ’round bigoted racist Obama spiritual advisor”.
posted by KamatariSeta on
So, when the issue is abortion, or transgender stuff, the party line around HERE is that we aren’t supposed to get involved or have much of a position because those aren’t gay issues.
But when the issue is something like this, we ARE supposed to get all uppity and involved?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Steve, I see nothing wrong with those (including Newsweek in its March 24 issue) who offer information to show that there is more to Rev. Wright than the few incendiary clips that have been endlessly looping on Fox News (and elsewhere, of course).
As to Brian’s comment, while the DNC is officially in charge of the Democratic party, the controversial stewardship of Doctor Dean makes me hesitate to blame Democrats generally for his gratuitous, counterproductive, and silly hardball against gay newspapers for doing their job.
posted by Bobby on
“the few incendiary clips”
—There’s like 20 incendiary clips, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Glad you admit that Doctor Dean is pretty controversial, here’s one of his quotes.
“Republicans are “a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It’s pretty much a white Christian party.”
Which would explain Alan Keyes, Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell, and all the other blondes in the party.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
That’s you all over, Bobby: in response to someone who has made it clear he doesn’t have a favorable opinion of Howard Dean, you refer to his comments as an admission. That’s like saying that a prosecutor has admitted the guilt of the accused. Um, no.
As to the number of incendiary clips: Bobby, if the guy is so uniformly terrible, why the need for a lot of clips? Why not show a single, complete sermon? Maybe because by assembling selected clips it is easier to create a caricature? You, like your friends at Faux News Channel, are not interested in illuminating or enlightening, but only inflaming. In that regard you have something in common with Rev. Wright at his worst moments. Now I’ll await your predictable response.
posted by Brian Miller on
Wright is an idiot. Those apologizing for him in the Obama camp would not hesitate to attack Jerry Falwell for anti-gay comments and would laugh at similar “those are just a few clips” arguments.
After all, “homosexuals caused 9/11” is just one clip. Didn’t stop criticism — and rightly so.
posted by Jorge on
Brown-nosing is right. That article was tasteless, one-sided, completely missed the point, and much too long. Show that there’s more to Rev. Wright, fine, but don’t lose sight of who and what he is and why that is offensive.
posted by Bobby on
Brian raises a good point, both Jerry Falwell and Whright have said controversial stuff, yet the liberal media only attacks Jerry Falwell. No wonder I have to watch “Faux News,” where it’s ok to be fairminded.
“That’s you all over, Bobby: in response to someone who has made it clear he doesn’t have a favorable opinion of Howard Dean, you refer to his comments as an admission.”
—No, I use it to point out that the democratic party hates white people, whites christians, hates conservatives, hates anyone who doesn’t agree with their narrow-minded agenda.
“As to the number of incendiary clips: Bobby, if the guy is so uniformly terrible, why the need for a lot of clips?”
—Because you can’t judge a man from just one clip. You need several to show a pattern of hatred and prejudice. Oh, and apparently Obama doesn’t mind his young daughters being exposed to that kind of filth, he still patronizes that church.
“Why not show a single, complete sermon? Maybe because by assembling selected clips it is easier to create a caricature?”
—Do they show complete sermons of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell? Do you think people tune in to Fox or CNN to watch an hour of Whright’s garbage? Dude, have you ever worked in journalism? And by the way, who needs to hear the entire sermon? When I watch televangelists, there’s a lot I agree with, but if I had to do a story on them and they had said some pretty nasty things, that’s what you focus on.
“You, like your friends at Faux News Channel, are not interested in illuminating or enlightening, but only inflaming.”
—Show me any network that says anything good about Bush, other than Fox? Please, your leftwing buddies play the same game with our president. The difference is that we give the other side a chance, we challenge the left and the right.
If Rev. Wright had been white, and had said that homosexuality is destroying the nation, that blacks are a bunch of racists that hate white people, and that abortion should be outlawed, the lib media would not be giving him a pass.
And I don’t give a shit if black churches are different from white churches, hate is hate, and if some asshole yells “god damn America,” I want him held accountable. True equality means not making excuses for bad behavior based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I have given my own reasons for supporting Obama. His remarks of last Tuesday only increased my admiration for him.
Steve: Just what, one wonders, would be needed to stop your partisan sneering?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
“I want him held accountable.”
Fine. Hold the man accountable who said those hateful things. Obama did not say them. Obama has repudiated them in no uncertain tersm. But in addition to that, Obama has done the truly Christian thing of not throwing Wright under the bus in the usual, expedient politician’s way. He knows Wright from more than a small number of selected clips. Wright helped introduce Obama to his Christian faith, spent decades devoted to lifting up the poor community of South Chicago in a way that Obama admired, and was probably something of a father figure to Obama, who had grown up without a father. It is plain from Obama’s entire career that he does not share the extreme views shown on those incendiary clips. And ironically, it is virtually certain that few of the people denouncing Obama for not throwing Wright under the bus would have been mollified if he HAD thrown Wright under the bus. This is just relentless slash-and-burn politics. What is pathetic about you is that there is no way that Obama is the utterly contemptible creature you paint him as. Your relentless insults are designed not to enlight but to inflame–exactly like what you pretend to be horrifed by in Rev. Wright. Meanwhile, the white conservative evangelical pastors who spout equally extreme things get invitations to the White House.
posted by dalea on
Richard, the correct term for the area is: the south side of Chicago. South Chicago is a suburb in Indiana. The neighborhood is named following the Chicago convention as: Hyde Park Kenmore. Hyde Park is home to the University of Chicago. Kenmore is a neighborhood of large pre WW1 mansions. The 1893 Worlds Fair was held there. This is a very affluent neighborhood, one of the wealthiest in Chicago. The poor areas tend to be west of the Dan Ryan. The main church per its website is about 3 miles south of this neighborhood in a poorer area.
http://www.tucc.org/ministries.htm
The ministry list includes ‘Same Gender Loving’ group under the catagory ‘singles’. This leads to a blank page. This is a very active church.
posted by Roy on
Hmmm. I haven’t visited in a while.
I’m a little confused.
Usually, the mantra around here is that gay groups shouldn’t get involved in things like abortion or the Iraq War, because they’re not really gay issues. Fair enough. But now we have a pastor who is pro-gay (but sort of controversial on other topics). I can understand your annoyance if he had been anti-gay and gay groups were fawning over him because he is part of an oppressed minority.
But here is someone who, despite his flaws, never spoke out against gays and in fact treated gays favorably. This is NOT the same as the useless “coalition building” you’ve been criticizing for a while. This man is FOR the gays. Get it?
posted by Avee on
Roy, I have no idea what your post is trying to say. Steve’s point is that it is wrong-headed for Obama’s gay supporters to defend Rev. Wright given Wright’s grotesque hatefullness. Or to defend Obama’s standing by Rev. Wright as his spiritual adviser for 20 years. But I don’t see you addressing _that_ issue.
posted by Seamus on
How would a person lead when confronted with the fact that someone they loved believed some things that if aired in public would be ridiculed by a large majority of people? A leader with integrity would surely reject the absurd beliefs but not reject the person holding them. That’s the essence of Obama’s message in my mind when he asks us to come together despite our differences and recognize that only by working together can we affect change in this country.
How many reading this have a family member or good friend or even teacher who, despite holding some disagreeable political view or some bizarre religious view, has positively affected you growing up? I have a hunch many of you do. Would you be willing to publicly abandon them (disown or throw under the bus) for social or political gain? I have a hunch about that one too.
In my mind those who would stand by a friend, mentor or family member in the way Obama has stood by his church and his pastor speaks to an integrity that I fear too many people, Stephen Miller and Charles Krauthammer included, no longer are capable of appreciating. Rejecting some of the beliefs of a loved one or beloved church community is far different than rejecting the whole person or community.
Obama, presenting himself as a person of integrity and one who believes in our better angels, did exactly the right thing. Would you?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, the defenders of Sen Obama will never, ever acknowledge that their candidate mishandled the bigoted, unpatriotic and hate-filled speech of his 20+ year pastor.
The real question remains unanswered in all of Obama’s slick, measured apologetics… he’s admitted that Rev Wright often made bigoted remarks in church and Obama forgives him because those kind of remarks are just part of the social gospel of black churches… but why didn’t Obama leave the church or confront the Rev when the unpatriotic things were uttered?
I guess Obama was listening to his wife and taking his cue from her on what’s really patriotism… the wife who has never been proud of America until her hubbie ran for Prez. Never? Not once in her adult life until hubbie hits the campaign trail for Prez? Not til then?
If these two represent what’s “right” about liberal Democrats… gheez, America doesn’t need what they’re selling. Maybe Obama should have tossed his wife under the bus when he gladly tossed his white grannie under the bus for political gain?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
How would a person lead when confronted with the fact that someone they loved believed some things that if aired in public would be ridiculed by a large majority of people?
Well, let’s see.
If they were Obama, they would first claim they never heard anything of the sort.
Then they would admit that they had heard it, but that it was OK “in context” — that is, because some other people four decades ago were mean.
Then they would call white people racists, including their own grandmother, and insist that everything was “corporate America’s” fault.
One wonders if the same liberals scrambling to obscure Wright and Obama’s hateful words and actions with the “social justice” activities of their church also excuse Hamas’s rampant anti-Jewish and anti-Christian hatefests because they provide social services to poor Palestinians. Heck, the KKK styles themselves as protectors of the poor; why shouldn’t their racist rants damning America and blaming blacks for all the ills of society be excused as well?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The Karl Rove mentality has been given more than enough time to prove that it offers anything more than bitterness, division, slander and vilification.
But the Jeremiah Wright mentality, which damns America, which blames white people for all of black peoples’ problems, which calls all white people racists, which claims the government uses HIV as genocide against black people, that the government gives drugs to black people to get them addicted, and that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened and lied…..this, this is the “transcending race” and “faith” that acts as the spiritual belief, mentor, and guiding force of the Obama campaign.
Thus, were Obama to be elected, the country can expect the same as the past twenty years at Trinity UCC — people like Wright ranting with Obama’s complete support and assistance.
posted by Seamus on
North Dallas Thirty makes statements which demonstrate exactly the kind of pettiness this country needs to transcend.
The Karl Rove mentality has been given more than enough time to prove that it offers anything more than bitterness, division, slander and vilification. Enough people agree that it’s time to move past that unhelpful school yard perspective and have adult conversations about matters that are truly important to this country and our citizens.
Who will lead and inspire this country with intelligence, competence and guts? Who has the power to lead a movement to get big things done?
Barack Obama.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Seamus, actually, I think ND30 makes some solid, enlightened points.
You say that “enough people agree that it’s time to move past” the Karl Rove methods of political persuasion and embrace the new, low calorie message of Obama… so why is it that in match ups with McCain, Obama loses amongst American opinion holders to McCain 41-51%… Hillary loses to McCain 43-50%? (source: Rasmussen, Daily Tracking Poll for 3/26)
Surely, Seamus, all those people can’t be mistaken? They’ve had enough time to see Obama… Hillary… and McCain. And they don’t like what you’re selling, guy.
Yet McCain’s favorable to unfavorable ratings smash Obama’s ratings… kill Hillary’s ratings. Go figure.
Or is it, in your view, that your definition of “most people” means people like you?
Sorry, but even in Missouri (which Democrats contended in ’00, ’02, ’04 and ’06 was moving solidly toward the Democrat column), Rasmussen is now reporting that McCain has gained a double digit lead over either Democrat. Missouri WAS to be a huge battleground state that Screamin’HowieDean once said was a make-or-break state for ’08.
“Most people”? Surely, you meant a minority but vocal band of die-hard Democrats… not most people.
posted by Seamus on
North Dallas Thirty again demonstrates the cynicism and irrationality this country needs desperately to transcend. Michigan-Matt parrots along.
Daily tracking polls do show that Obama is currently hurt by Wright’s nonsense. It very well could hold up. The same people that elected Bush twice (not me) are still out there voting. I have no illusions about how powerful swift boating is with ‘enough’ Americans. Just ask John McCain or Anne Richards.
But my point remains, ‘enough’ people (MichMatt said ‘most’ not me) have seen enough of the incompetence of Bush and his ilk so that even the Wright public relations mess couldn’t hurt Obama as much as the Karl Rove types would have liked. Additionally, Obama’s speech in Philadelphia powerfully reconfirmed for many that his waters do in fact run deep. Since the embarrassing fiascoes of Bush and his celebratory cult of ignorance, Obama is a welcome revelation.
Voter turn out will be key. Iraq will be key. The economy will be key. The Republican brand will be key. Obama’s talents will be key.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Seamus, your newly restated point now is that Obama’s continued embrace of a bigoted, racist, unpatriotic radical black minister isn’t going to hurt Obama. Moreover, that W has been so incompetent in your eyes, that even the Rev Wright race-baiting rants won’t stop the Obama train? Obama’s speech in Philley confirmed his messiah-status? Oh please! Focus groups prove that Obama lost credibility when he specifically spoke about Rev Wright… he had neutral sentiments on the broader issues of race contained in the speech.
So, why is it that Americans are supporting McCain over your messiah Obama -as I noted above? Why is it that McCain has better favorable-unfavorable ratings than Obama -as I noted above? Why is it that Obama can’t quite seem to answer even the simplest questions about his continued embrace of a hate-filled bigoted racist minister who spews un-American line after line in excess of even a Susan Saradon-Tim Robbins family reunion? I think it’s because Obama is untested fluff living in a nice suit.
Your messiah could take a lesson from the more seasoned, more experienced, more effective John McCain… when the NYTimes ran its infamously inaccurate story about McCain and his lobbyist “friends”, McCain stopped his campaigning, took the morning off and fielded question after question from the national and DC press corps reporters until there were no other questions left in the room. He faced the press without seeking cover from a bevy of speechwriters and spinmasters. Obama took the latter approach and is still being confronted with simple, direct, honest questions about his continued embrace of Rev Wright.
Doesn’t sound like Obama is quite the perfect messiah you’ve made him out to be. He’s still getting a D- on his grade for “judgment”. Even his fellow-Democrats are now saying he should have left the church and distanced himself from RevWright’s bigoted, racist, unpatriotic ranting.
And as far as your creative and inventice application of “swift-boating” to apply to John McCain or that sleazebag mega-corrupt former TX-gov Ann Richards, I’d remind you Seamus that the term was first applied by Democrats to the ill-fated and unsuccessful presidential campaign of JFKerry in 2004.
Swift boating doesn’t apply to John McCain or Ann Richards –unless you’ve taken a page out of Hillary’s playbook and now you’re just making up stories as the day unfolds? Which might serve you better than spitting out Obama talking points.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And now Obama is starting to whine about how racist the media is for daring to even cover Wright in the first place.
If Obama truly wants to transcend race, perhaps he should start with himself and ask why he believes so wholeheartedly that his grandmother is a racist because of her skin color, or that the media is racist because it is not glossing over or ignoring the hate speech of a black preacher.
Finally, Seamus, your analysis has one fatal flaw; you apparently believe that all white people are willing to sit and take abuse from Wright and Obama in the same fashion that you are.
Go ahead and tell the rest of the country that Wright and Obama are correct; agree and promote that mentality, which damns America, which blames white people for all of black peoples’ problems, which calls all white people racists, which claims the government uses HIV as genocide against black people, that the government gives drugs to black people to get them addicted, and that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened and lied…..all these things that Obama clapped and cheered for, that he sat in church for twenty years for, that he praised Reverend Wright for, that he exposed his daughters to on a regular basis, and that he gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to support and promote.
posted by Seamus on
ND30, MichMatt: No need for hysterics. It’s really gonna be okay. Take a deep breath and read on when you’re ready…
New Wall Street Journal-NBC poll (http://snipr.com/22rom) released Wednesday is a myth-buster: shows the controversy over Sen. Barack Obama’s former pastor hasn’t hurt his prospects.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/debate_over_pastor_doesnt_hurt.html
posted by Seamus on
See, wasn’t so bad, right? But feel free to continue with the specious paranoid claptrap if you’d like… go on.. get it all out… I’ll listen to you even if others tune out. 🙂
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Sham-u, hang on a second. You’re not exactly sounding like your messianic, inspirational leader now… more like the usual, tired harsh and divisive ol’ line hateful Democrat of the FarLeft.
If you’d read the NPR piece with a grain of salt, you’d know how deceptive former Democrat pollster Peter Hart is really being with the spin-Obama-to-the-max line of thought. Peter Hart’s contention is that independents aren’t affected by the flap.
See, Sham-u, independents shouldn’t be affected by the Obama lackluster speechifying in Philley this week… and the reason for that is, as Peter Hart well knows, independents are NOT tuned into the presidential race yet.
Conventionally, they are the LAST to tune in. They usually don’t until after Labor Day… some 5-6 months away. If Obama’s flubbish handling and misdirection of the Rev Wright fiasco WAS hurting Obama with independents, the race for the Democrat nomination would be over and Party leaders would be begging the superdelegates to declare Hillary the presumptive nominee and end the bloodletting.
The key point, Sham-u is that independents should NOT evidence any change in their polling or else it would be over for Obama.
The better polling, like Rasmussen, shows that Obama’s handling of the Wright fiasco has harmed him amongst a broad cross section of Democrats… the group he needs to be winning.
Whether Obama’s continued embrace of the bigoted, racist, unpatriotic Rev Wright has any affect on 1) GOP supporters or 2) independents or 3) those unlikely vote in November or 4) convicted felons serving time or –as CNN is fond of polling these days… even on 5) Iraqi paramilitary units- doesn’t matter. It’s not material. No one would expect independents to move on ANY issue right now. But the spinmyster Peter Hart knows that and he spun you into his web of deceit. And NPR -turning up its liberal bias to the max- played along.
Obama is suffering under the stress created by his continued embrace of Rev Wright and that can be better demostrated in two ways.
First, AOL polling question on Obama and Wright rec’d 270,000+ responses and -not exactly a right wing conspiracy group over at the uberliberal AOL- 64% of respondents said that Obama’s handling of the issue and his Philley speech in particular did NOT resolve the Wright fiasco in their collective mindset.
Second, if Obama did so well in dispatching the Wright matter, why is the Obama camp keeping Rev Wright under wraps and out of the public eye? Wright has bugged out on at least 7 major speaking appearances since the flap began. Why?
And why does Obama keep ducking the more informed, knowledgable campaign press corps and opting for soft questioning in other pro-Democrat “news” shows? Could it be he’s a dodging and a-weaving just like you?
Right, Obama is a true inspiration! He’s not a politican-as-usual kind of guy.
Right. What’s next? Snake oil in individual serving packets?
Maybe even Rev Wright is afraid of adding on to the problems in the Obama camp?
posted by Seamus on
Calm down a bit Mich-Matt. It’s gonna be OK. Now take another breathe. Let’s go over it again. Remember to breathe…
Wall Street Journal
Okay, good. Now. Go on and rant some more. If you need to continue calling me names that’s fine as well. I’m okay with that. I really do understand how upsetting this must be for you. But remember, it’s all gonna be OK. 😉
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Hey, Sham-u… it’s not namecalling.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861727481/sham.html
The emphasis here is on the word sham… as in your trying to present something as genuine (Obama) but he’s nothing more than snake oil salesman at this point. No record. No background. No answers. No new ideas. Just flowerly, fluffy rhetoric aimed at making all feel good; fleeced, but good.
There’s nothing to be upset about from my end.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
McCain is outpolling Obama… and this was supposed to be a slam-dunk election year for the Democrats. McCain’s outpolling Clinton… and this was supposedly her year to take all the planning, all the networking, all the endless hours of standing by Bill in his tireless attempts to smear the Clinton name, the Democrat party and women in general and turn that tiresome past into paydirt.
No rants. I just pointed out to you that, despite what you think NPR and Democrat Peter Hart opine, you’ve been misled again. Just like you try to do with others here about the merits, talents and audacity of Obama.
You gotta go beyond the headlines of a partisan, pro-Obama skreed like NPR.
It’s really simple to comprehend, Sham-u. You don’t get it because you can’t handle reality.
But I gotta tell ya, I’d worry if I was you. Nearly 22% of Democrats polled today think that Obama should withdraw from the race. An equal amount of YOUR voters think Clinton should withdraw, also.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/22_of_democrats_want_clinton_to_drop_out_22_say_obama_should_withdraw
But you go on and instruct folks on breathing exercises, Seamus. It sounds to me like you’re the one short of breath.
posted by Seamus on
OK MichMatt. Get ready. In addition to the Wall Street Journal poll (you keep forgetting to mention that it was a Wall Street Journal poll) I cited previously, there’s this:
New Pew Research Center Poll
“..the Wright controversy does not appear to have undermined support for Obama’s candidacy.”
“Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton hold roughly comparable leads in head-to-head matchups with John McCain. Obama edges McCain by a 49% to 43% margin among registered voters nationwide; Clinton holds an almost identical 49% to 44% edge. Obama and Clinton held similar leads over McCain in late February.”
“Bush approval at 28%.”
Breathe MichMatt. Don’t hold it in. Breathe. OK now let it out… I’m listening…
posted by Michigan-Matt on
I thought you’d have stopped the breathing exercises, Sham-u. They’re as insincere as your support of Obama.
BTW, no one within the political pundit subculture takes Pew seriously. They’re hired guns… ScreaminHoweiDean paid ’em $1.7m in 2007 to get his collective Democrat arses realigned to the prevailing trends.
Right, Pew. Real credible there, Seamus.
What’s next, a quote from Pelosi telling us that everything is “fine”? LOL!
posted by Richard on
M&M seems to be good at talking points memo, and supporting the notion that McCain can do no wrong. I hope he is not too upset when Lawrence v. Texas is repealed, or more gay Iraqis are murdered.
Yeah, Rev. Wright made some offensive comments and so have a great number of notable televangelists. Racism and bigotry are still problems in America and changing people’s hearts is a lot harder, then changing laws.
An AOL online poll may or may not be scientifically valid. It would depend on a number of non-partisan factors.
I have not endorsed any particular candidate, and I have no clue whom I will be voting for; Democrat, Republican or Independent. But I have little patience for partisan bs of any kind.
posted by Brian Miller on
Who will lead and inspire this country with intelligence, competence and guts? Who has the power to lead a movement to get big things done?
Barack Obama.
Too bad he doesn’t have the guts to sponsor Senate legislation to end the military’s anti-gay ban, support the UAFA as written, or call for equal treatment in marriage, adoption and taxation for LGBT families.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, when did being partisan suddenly equate with being wrong? I don’t know where you get your talking points from… but my observations are my own; they aren’t culled from the DailyKos or BlogActive like your talking points seem to be… really, Richard, one of the refreshing gambits of McCain’s candidacy and election as President is that it means both GOPers and hardline Democrats like you can be civil, debate and -at the end of the day- agree to disagree. McCain has proven that point over and over… when he urged his followers to be civil in their tone, when he distanced himself from harsh FarRight flamers (which Obama has yet to do) and when he argued early in the Wright fiasco that he didn’t think Obama believed Wright’s racist, bigoted, unpatriotic rants.
I don’t know where you got that big-assed chip on your shoulder… but it isn’t becoming. I think you should stop trying to appear all-independent and unaligned and spend some time reflecting on the civic duties inherent on participants who enter the public marketplace of ideas.
posted by Richard on
Brian; Too bad your Libertarians cannot even get elected to the House or Senate, and have not even tried to run a full Congressional campaign. You could try to change that, but its more fun to whine, right?
MM; I did not mean to imply that ‘partisan’ must equal wrong or right. However, you seem to come to the table with a clear pro-McCain agenda, which means that you will not be entirely objective or honest about certain things.
McCain has certainly not fully distanced himself from the far-right, but continues to embrace them. He also has his own celebrity preachers who say equally prejudicial things. He simply does not have the courage to abandon the GOP’s addiction to the far right.
The fact that I am an Independent, and not seeking to kiss the you-know-what of any candidate or party, means that I can actually look at things honesty, objectively and fairly.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Richard, I don’t have a pro-McCain agenda except that, now he is the Party’s likely nominee, I’m voting for him. My dog in the race was MittRomney.
I think when I rely upon the facts and polling data to support my claims, I am being objective and honest. I think you fail that same test when you trot out pathetically old “vast right wing conspiracy theories” nonsense to explain away the changes underway in the GOP.
I get it you’d rather have a right wing GOP to beat up with your GayLeft pals and pols… I appreciate that guys like you have a vested interest and stake in portraying the GOP as evil to gay rights… I get it.
What I don’t get is the lie you continue to present of being an “independent”. I’ve read your comments; you are a solid, mainstream Democrat liberal deep in the GayLeft. Independent is hardly a term you can use to describe the political philosophy that screams through your comments.
McCain has clearly, repeatedly disavowed the hatefilled speech of FarRight preachers who have endorsed him… he HASN’T endorsed them. They aren’t his pastor. They aren’t his spiritual advisors. They didn’t baptize his kids, marry his wife, pray over his family.
The “GOP addiction to the far right” you mention doesn’t exist anymore. The Rasmussen polling of last week proves that evangenicals are equally pre-disposed to vote either Democrat or GOP in the natl 08 election.
I’ve written it here before that McCain has distanced himself from the FarRight extremism that brought us TeriSchiavo, flag burning amendment, prayer in school and FMA.
Your agenda and the Democrats’ agenda is to try to tie him to the FarRight (which voters ain’t buying) or to Bush 43 (which is immaterial except for fundraising).
Well, you can continue to try to do that like a good GayLefter. It won’t work; but then, trying to convince you that your strategy is flawed is like trying to put a muzzle on radical black preacher… it won’t work.