Does Obama feel the same way?
Friday, March 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Montana Dextra Blogs
Get Dextra E-Newsletter!
Favorite Sites
- A Brief History
- American Scene
- Amy Alkon
- Bend Bubble Blog
- Big Sky Cairn
- Burkean Reflections
- Calculated Risk
- Corner at NRO
- Coyote Blog
- Daily Reckoning
- Dave Budge
- Drudge Report
- Electric City
- Festering Swamp
- Hammond Report
- Hardliner
- Housing Bubble
- Jihad Watch
- Mark Steyn
- Melanie Phillips
- Michael Yon
- Mickey Kaus
- Missoula GOP
- Montana GOP
- Montana Headlines
- Montana Misanthrope
- MT Politics
- MT Righty Blogs
- No Left Turns
- PowerLine
- Rabid Sanity
- Red State
- Right on the Left Coast
- Right Wing News
- Rob Long
- Shakespeare & Co.
- South Texian
- The Last Best Place
- Viceroy's Fuguestate
- Vodka Pundit
Blog Archive
Blog Owner
76 comments:
Is that his church, or whut?
Carol - we don't have to wonder if Obama shares these totally crazy anti-American feelings. He has shown us that he will not stand at attention for the American flag, and that he refuses to wear one on his lapel since it is a false symbol of patriotism.
Since his formative years, Obama has aligned himself with radical fringe thinkers. The majority of the mainstream press, who also smoked pot with these dunder heads in college, won't cover the story about these far-left associations.
I'm glad you posted one of the many videos from Obama's spiritual leader that are all over the web. People can watch and make their own assessments.
Considering that many of the politicians who wear an flag lapel pin hide behind it when they engage in activities that are the polar opposite of America's ideals, it's no wonder Obama doesn't wear one. Anymore, it's one of the signs of a scoundrel of the highest order.
I find Snopes useful when people insist on repeating urban myths that--surprise!--are useful for their personal mythology. Not "standing at attention for the American flag"? Sounds like someone's confused his e-mail forwards.
No confusion here Obecca. The Obama campaign confirms my claim.
We can even quote from the Snopes article you mention, which rebuffs the false statement that he refuses to say the pledge, but confirms my claim that he does not salute the flag during the present of colors or the national anthem.
As for whether this incident was an “accident”, whether Senator Obama habitually declines the hand-over-heart gesture, or whether there’s any particular meaning to the (non-) action, an Obama campaign spokesperson responded:
“Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn’t. In no way was he making any sort of a statement, and any suggestion to the contrary is ridiculous.” The senator himself said that “My grandfather taught me when I was 2 (that) during the Pledge of Allegiance, you put your hand over your heart. During the national anthem, you sing."
You only have to watch the video in the Snopes article or attend any sports game on any given night in any town in America to figure out that he is alone on this one...except for Obecca and her ilk.
Whether this particular incident sent a personal statement ended the second Obama opened his mouth to insult the flag and those that wear it. The comments of his spiritual advisor only bring further into focus the string of anti-American statements he has been making for years.
BTW - I'm proud that my personal mythology does not include hating America and symbols of her freedom that hundreds of thousands have died to protect so that I may write on this blog.
God Bless them and America.
Obecca? Ilk? Hating America? Sounds like someone's an overly emotional person, using half-formed witticisms and assumptions in an effort to provide himself with the false feeling of having actually stood for something.
Obecca - I forgot how much I love it when I exasperate you and you start quoting me!
You better stop or people might start talking.
Wrong again, Poopie Scoopie. I love to quote your own faux-psychological analysis of complete strangers back at you so everyone can see how utterly pompous it is.
But still, let them talk! I say. At least Carol will have more people subscribing to her feed.
It’s just the loser mentality you’re hearing in Rev. Wright’s speeches. B. Hussein Obama has it. Farrakhan has it. Even some white people have it, like Rebecca, Mark T., etc. I don’t see why anybody is surprised.
What I find exceedingly funny is how Obama spent months trying to convince Americans that he wasn’t actually a Muslim who secretly hated America, but rather he was really a gentle, loving Christian, albeit a late convert. Then America goes and checks out Obama’s “church,” and what does it find? It finds the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. spewing anti-American, anti-white hatred like a rabid dog!
Ha ha ha. Too funny!
Shame on you, Carole.
Shame of me for what, posting the video? Obama could very well be our next president, and this is his pastor of 20 years. It's reasonable question to ask, does Obama hate us? And no it's not enough to say BushChimpyMcHalliburton sucks, so anyone is better than him.
Is it fair to criticize someone's religion? Or, are we concerned that Christian discipline might actually mean something?
Gosh, I thought it was all about God. Maybe Christianity isn't the monotheistic religion we all thought it was.
1) The video is no more relevant than Hagee's endorsement of McCain. Obama put up a very well-reasoned response that you should have linked to as well. But the point here is to plant that video as a virus and hope it spreads. That's all taht is going on.
But mostly I read the comment section that followed above and was very much reminded of Coobs' blog. That's mostly why I said shame on you. But now I realize that I'm doing the same thing you did - blaming you for your followers.
You are now free to criticize me for some of the idiotic posts I get on my blog.
2)
Carol,
Thanks for stiring up the America haters. they abound on 4 & 20 crows, netrots, and left in the dust. It is amazing how they cluster together. Becci hasn't had enough life experience and touts her ...what?
Ayn Rand
I tout my own horn, Ayn?
Mark Trotsky—
Trying to blame the messenger and pulling a hissy fit won’t get you any traction here.
Besides, we know the real reason for your fake indignation: You’ve been stealing all of your hate-America material from Jeremiah Wright!
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York, and we never batted an eye.” (Mark Trotsky or Jeremiah Wright?)
Mark, here I thought you were going all Catholic on me for the blasphemy. I pulled the video embed but left the link.
The difference here is that Obama has been part of Wright's congregation for 20 years. I don't think McCain has any serious religious affiliation. He's not a religious guy, though the cross-in-the-dirt story is on ongoing schtick in his campaign. He'll take support wherever he finds it of course.
Obama had to furiously start distancing himself yesterday but it was rather late. Seriously, does he hate us, or does this just reflect some earlier posturing to compensate for his white heritage, as Mona Charen as suggested?
And I still don't understand why Democrats are so free to speak at churches when Republicans would catch bloody hell for that.
SPARTANBURG, S.C. (AP) - Republican Mike Huckabee spoke from the pulpit Sunday, not as a politician but as the preacher he used to be, delivering a sermon on how merely being good isn't enough to get into heaven....
On Sunday in South Carolina, Huckabee avoided politics entirely, instead preaching about humility and trusting in Jesus to open the gates of heaven.
"The criteria to get into heaven is you have to be not good, but perfect. That's the real challenge in it," he said at First Baptist North Spartanburg, a megachurch with 2,500 members.
He avoided politics, except with a primary in South Carolina days away, it's all political, especially when you're addressing 2,500 would-be voters. His topic and his religious point of view clearly dovetails that of the pastor of First Baptist North Spartanburg, Donald Wilton, who has written a book on the afterlife and getting into to heaven.
Wilton also believes that Jesus subsumes the Constitution of the United States. Here's what he said at the Sourthen Baptist Convention just a year and a half ago:
Wilton delivered the annual convention sermon soon after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke to the assembly. He told the Southern Baptist gathering he greatly admired Rice, but he also reminded them they owed ultimate allegiance to God alone.
"I'm going to submit to you that as believers in Christ Jesus, we are not even of America," Wilton said. "We march according to a different drumbeat. Ours is not the Constitution of America; ours is the constitution of the Almighty God."
There’s still time before the convention for Obama to switch religions one more time. I’m thinking he should try Judaism next. Maybe get Lieberman onboard for the VP slot.
Ha ha ha. Too funny!
Gahhh! How quickly I forgot about him. At least Huck is a pastor in real life. He doesn't quite have Wright's anger, don't you think?
We haven't seen or read much of Huck's sermons. Who knows what's lurking in them. But more importantly, it's none of our business!
Should Romney have to defend his Mormon faith? No.
Carol: You missed the unsubstantiated opinion of the AP writer embedded in this segue: “His [Huckabee’s] topic and his religious point of view clearly dovetails that of the pastor of First Baptist North Spartanburg, Donald Wilton…”
Don’t let the liberal media blow stuff by you.
Carol: In law school, somebody must have told you never to use the word “clearly” in any brief, right?
??? I'm not sure I ever used "clearly" in any brief, but as a throat-clearer in a blog post, quite often!
Obama condemns the words of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.
Carol: I was talking about the AP article above, not about you. When the writer said Huckabee’s thinking “clearly dovetails” with that of Wilson’s, you know it probably doesn’t dovetail.
I thought I was clear on that. Sorry for the clearly confusing comment.
Marc: You need to stop listening to what Obama says and start looking at what he does.
“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York, and we never batted an eye.”
From Howard Zinn's pen to Jeremiah Wright's ear. America-hating jackholes both.
History is history. How talking about hisotry equates with hating one's own country eludes me. We did bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and did it to keep the Russians from entering the Pacific contest.
Carole - as I said, this linking to Obama's pastor is meant to be a virus, a Swiftboating. I've been wondering where your slime boys were going to hit him. He is no more responsible for the words of his pastor than you are for the nutballs who post here.
Crazy thing is, this crap works. We're such a shallow country - Obama should just go on American Idol. He's win in a landslide.
How talking about hisotry equates with hating one's own country eludes me.
Merely talking about history does not equate to that. It is morally neutral. But repeating this factually incorrect nonsense...
We did bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and did it to keep the Russians from entering the Pacific contest.
...most certainly does.
Nice (if predictable) misdirection tactic.
Mark Trotsky wrote: “Linking to Obama's pastor is meant to be a virus.”
Oh, well, Trotsky, “history is history,” you know!
Mark Trotsky wrote: “We did bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and did it to keep the Russians from entering the Pacific contest.”
Oh really? I thought America dropped those bombs to put the Japs out of the war. (By the way, the Russians entered the Pacific war anyway. History is history, you know!)
While you’re on the subject of atomic weapons in WWII, would you care to comment on the fact that all the principal scientists working on the bomb were Jews? I’ve heard people like you believe the A-bomb was a “Jewish conspiracy.” Go ahead, Trotsky, let ‘er rip. We’re up for some entertainment.
@Annon --
sign in, yo.
I listen to what Obama says and pay attention to what he does. There are things I like and dislike about both.
Americans do politics the same way they do food - fast. No contemplation, no dialogue - just hit them with a Swiftboat picture, let it ripple. This is calculated propaganda - there are people who specialize in this sort of thing. The remarkable thing to me is that there is not one college course offered in this country called "Propaganda - the art of changing minds and behavior". It's all done on-the-job. That remarkable body of knowledge is like a cult secret - only certain insiders are let in on how the game is played.
Anyway, I'm going to hit McCain with a Swiftboat article over at my tiny little web site to do my part. The man's a fraud.
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the bombs - it's nice to talk about how we did that to save American lives and end the war - the problem is that 63 years after the fact, there is nothing in the official record to support that. There are no official American death estimates - our military wasn't thinking along those lines. What you had was a promise by the Russians that they would enter the Pacific War on a certain time line - right around early August of 1945. The bombs stopped them.
That's history - it doesn't feel good to say it, it doesn't make our flags go erect. It just is.
Oops: "Hassie" = Mark T - she's my wife. Whoever is logged in to gmail gets their name up in lights.
Mark Trotsky:
I don’t think anybody here is too surprised that you’re one of the “certain insiders” who have been let in on the “cult secret.”
But besides spinning scary blog stories for the uninitiated, what will you do with this arcane knowledge you’ve acquired? Will you be able to decipher television and radio signals and extract their true meaning? Channel Dr. Goebbels? What?
PS: When you take a break from your occult studies, I recommend you read a history of World War II, paying particular attention to the US preparations for the invasion of Japan.
Go read what I wrote. You’re kind of clueless.
Actually, propaganda is not that big a secret. It’s just the principles of advertising applied to politics. Advertising is about undermining the individual to change behavior. So is political propaganda.
On the bomb, there’s one scholarly study on the subject, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam: The Use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation with Soviet Power, by Gar Alperovitz. Unlike you’re vague “go read about”, which you likely haven’t, Alperovitz bases his book on official documents of the US Government. Years after the fact, our government does, for historical purposes, release documents and communications surrounding important events.
And as I said, there’s nothing in the official record supporting what you say, or popular myths.
Sorry, Mark Trotsky, you’re just a lunatic accountant scrounging up book reviews to save yourself from extreme embarrassment. And I’m the gal with the advanced degree in history (summa cum laude, 1995) who actually reads history books.
You're known by the company you keep. Twenty years of sunday sermons more than qualifies as "company".
Huckabee's anti science statements are a good parallel, although, not the stuff cited here. He's not going to be the candidate in part because of those views.
It's not the religion that's the point here, but the secular views expressed within a religious context.
Combining religion with "god damn america" is no different than claiming that we deserved what we got on 9/11 because of abortion and "hommasekshuls".
If you can hammer Republicans with the views of Falwell and Robertson, then certainly Obama's spiritual advisor, the man who presided over his wedding, has a close enough connection to give anyone pause.
I guess a degree in history doesn't mean much anymore, if "Checker 5" is any example.
You're a shrill little person, C5. Even Dave Budge has asked you to stop commenting on his site and, I quote, "keep your racist sh*t to yourself". So tell the rest of us, sweetie, what motivates you? Why are you so angry? I've got five bucks in the blog pool on not enough hugs from Daddy.
I think of C5 as someone who would benefit from a liberal education, and now he tells me he had one. Apparently it went to waste.
Excuse me - "She".
Rebecca of Funnybrook:
As I told Mark Trotsky just recently, my job is to take out the garbage. Whenever mental cases like you show up in a blog and try spreading cultural, economic, moral, political, or social pollution, I’m there to clean it up.
Basically, I’m on a mission from Gaia.
Go back to Berkley, where you should find plenty of neurotics willing to put up with you.
“Obama… has exposed an ugly racial divide in what was supposed to be a colorblind Democratic Party. The tensions revealed in private conversations are far more alarming than public declarations and could cost Democrats the election of the next president.” [Robert D. Novak, March 17, 2008]
Ha ha ha. Too funny!
To Mark T and Checker 5: " Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"
If the continuity, integrity, and momentum of civilization are to be preserved, historical revision must be limited to evidentiary matters only. Whatever interpretation the historical past might have given to different evidence, had it been available, is pure speculation, first.
Second, past interpretations of historical events are not only unchangeable and permanently incorporated into present history, they are always of value in that they allow a direct view into the thinking of a previous age. Any attempt to revise those interpretations, or to substitute other and perhaps newer interpretations, threatens to unravel civilization.
Third, the validity of any interpretation the present chooses to give to new evidence is to be judged solely by the future. Under this analysis, all valid historical interpretations must be based in present time, and only two kinds of histories are permissible: that which corrects past events without interpretation; and that which records present events with interpretation.
In this fashion history can build upon itself, make internal adjustments whenever changed conditions warrant them and avoid the self-perpetuating pitfalls of interpretive revision by deferring to the judgment of future generations.
Being solely a construct of the human mind designed to impose order and continuity on events, so that a collective memory may be maintained and a civilization created, history naturally tends to reject all retro-interpretations of events as inimical to its goals. The farther events recede, the stronger the rejection of interpretive revision.
Besides explaining for the mad scramble of historians to get in the last, definitive word, the closing time window for interpretive revision emphatically proclaims civilization's demand that events must be permanently fixed before they are admitted to the collective memory. While this self-stabilizing process is not reducible to quantitative analysis, it may be observed, generally, that the civilization with the shortest time allowance for interpretive revision is the younger, stronger civilization; and the civilization with the longest time allowance for interpretive revision is the older, weaker. A civilization fails when the time allowance for interpretive revision becomes indefinite.
Because it is a human construct, history is susceptible to every intellectual and spiritual malady known to man. When man no longer seeks to justify his ways to history but instead forces history to justify its ways to him, civilization begins to chatter and cluck like the Tower of Babel, as every present history undertakes to reinterpret every past history. Driven perhaps by the human conceit that the future may be whatever one pleases, time flies forward and backward as each successive generation revises its interpretation of the past to suit its interpretation of the present in the hope of influencing the future. Civilization becomes ensnared in an unending, degenerative historical cycle, and for all practical purposes it has no future per se but only a present chasing its tail. This self-absorption, so to speak, this process of history being sucked back into its own vortex, represents the spiraling death of a civilization that has lost its memory.
Well done, C5. You just honestly kicked the ass off of Jonah Goldberg's book; Something few others have been able to do. Seriously, well done.
That was merely the conclusion to a professional paper I wrote some time ago. (Title: History as Civilization.) The evidence and most of the arguments preceding the conclusion were omitted for brevity.
Jonah Goldberg, last I knew, is a journalist, not a historian. Mark Trotsky is an accountant and crypto-communist, last I knew. And Rebecca is a just a mental case in search of a bridge to jump off. Last I knew, she is standing on the rail waiting for a crowd to gather.
Then you really don't know much.
Jonah Pantload is not a journalist, and never has been. He has called himself a "rational historian". The rest of your bullshit ... well, I'll just take your track record as given and chalk it up to "LOSE".
Or would you prefer "FAIL!"? Just askin' ...
Awww, Chuckles. C'mon, admit it: you're an adolescent. No grown up requires your dramatics to communicate. Just be yourself, and someday you'll find some friends and people will like you for you, sweetie.
By the way, you can't get a summa cum laude from a home school. Someone needs to inform your mom.
Evidently, "real" journalists, historians, and adults rely on immature name-calling to get their points across. Or so Rebecca and the puppy believe.
Which reminds me, I should begin reading Pulitzer Prize-nominee Jonah Golberg's book soon. Should be fun reading what has the libs so riled up.
I haven't read it yet either. I pretty much stick with what I can find at the library.
Preschool must be out; here's Mike. How was the fingerpainting today?
The last book that served as such a centerfold for right wing circle jerks was The Black Book of Communism. Goldberg's book is every bit as illuminating.
Mike LaRoche:
Bear in mind this post was about the leftwing idiocy and hatred of Obama and his friends. Therefore, given the supplemental writings of Wulfgar, Rebecca and Mark T., directly above, I think this post has rather admirably demonstrated the point.
I did a quick scan of some Montana liberal blogs tonight just to see what Obama twaddle the deeply deluded were feeding to one another. Most of their excuses for Obama’s life-long support of a rabidly racist and hate-filled “church” were built around the monkey metaphor that Obama himself created, the Hear No Evil Monkey. Example: Yes, yes, that’s his church and that’s his pastor, but he didn’t hear that sermon!
Another hastily formed rearguard action was to claim that Obama’s hateful associations were all ancient history, like at least two weeks ago. Example: Yes, yes, that’s his church and that’s his pastor, but that’s his *former* church and *former* pastor! (Actually, nobody said former church, but since that is coming next, I thought I would get it in now.) Judging by the number of instances of the word “former” in the comments, one would think the word had acquired talismanic powers.
And speaking of powers beyond human ken, I found one very odd and terribly garbled piece about Obama as an object of religious veneration. The writer seemed terribly resentful that his heartfelt belief in Obama was being ridiculed as a messianic belief, and from this he deduced that rightists secretly hated religious people. Of course, the poor fellow was being ridiculed for having “faith” in a man who misses church at the most opportune times, but he seemed to have missed that point.
I'm thinking is Obama is a postmodern sophisticate who attended that chuch to be Down with the People. I think he's regretting the lack of seriousness in that decision, now, or at least I hope he is.
Carole - I await your comments on the strange Hagee-McCain affair, and the prevalence of right wing smear campaigns and double standards in general. Should be interesting.
Mark I thought I did comment...somewhere. I wasn't aware that McCain was as close to Hagee, if in fact close at all, as Obama has been with Wright. For 20 years Obama's considered himself part of Wright's church. He said Wright was his spiritual advisor. Wright married him and Michelle. And Wright sells DVDs of his Greatest Hit Sermons. His schtick was well known.
I don't know that McCain had that kind of relationship with Hagee, but I will look into it further. Probably McCain does think he needs to be down with evangelicals just as the Chicago pol Obama felt he had to be down with the Black church. I don't think he does since he's been pretty reliable on social issues.
I wish pols didn't feel they had to have public spiritual advisors. But then we had Billy Graham making very public visits with presidents over the years so I guess it goes back to the revival of faith after WWII.
Ha - Billy Graham was down with a Kissinger plan to blow up the dikes in North Vietnam, which would have killed at least a million people. Civilians all. That's an aside, of course. I don't look to the religious right for guidance - just for dark humor. Graham is an icon of integrity, of course, here in the land of the free.
As I said before, McCain said he was "very proud" to have Hagee's endorsement. Hagee has called the Catholic Church a "great whore" and believes that we should attack Iran so as to trigger Armageddon, where he delights that billions of people would die horrible deaths.
On the other hand, Obama's pastor gave an impassioned speech, most of which was true, some of which was over the top. He did, I admit, commit thought crimes.
Now compare the feeding frenzy surrounding the pastor versus the silence versus McCain being "very proud" to accept Hagee's endorsement, and you will get some sense of the stifling hypocrisy surrounding this issue. That you participated? Shame.
Anyway, apply the same standards to McCain as you do Obama. If you don't, you will have joined the pedestrian right wing. You'll be part of the great noise machine.
I await your post.
Oh, so it looks like I lose no matter what.
I checked out the HuffPo piece on Hagee, including a video with his, uh, critique of the Catholic Church. Much of that goes back to before Luther's time. There was and is much to criticize as you know, about the RCC. I can't say I'm shocked. I know most evangelicals hate Catholics and Mormons, and don't even consider us Christian.
But did Hagee say "God damn America"? Maybe he did. I don't know.
Again, all I did was post a video and ask if Obama agrees with his pastor. It's a legitimate question. It could make the difference between whole hearted defense off this country or craven appeasement. I can't see the future, but I look for clues to Obama's character wherever I find them.
I would ask of McCain, do you feel the same way about Catholics, and agree with whatever else Hagee preaches?
If the Wright video is a "virus" then it was toxic to begin with. I don't think I have to "protect" the Montana blogosphere from it.
Mark T.
You believed.
You were deceived.
And now you’re peeved.
Cry us a river dude. And take YOUR problems with YOUR candidate someplace else.
Mountain of Lies
Sitting in my room looking at the vidi
The way I feel is a doggone pity
Teardrops falling like a mountain slide
Many times I've watched it
And many times I've cried
I used to be so happy
When I used to lie
I was high on a mountain of lies
Night after night I've been sitting here alone
Trying to raise some money on the telephone
Praying that you didn’t see the vidi too
Hoping just by chance
You’ll send a buck or two
Trying hard to sell you
As I wipe my eyes
I ain’t high on a mountain of lies
A mountain of lies
A mountain of lies
I am really ashamed
I used to be a mountain of lies
But that’s no longer my game
Way down the street
There's a mob of TV people
Standing by a church with a big tall steeple
That’s my church with a pastor who’s a liar
Twenty years ago I joined reverend’s choir
And that's why I'm so lonely
Completely out of cash
I got high on a mountain of lies
A mountain of lies
A mountain of lies
I am really ashamed
I used to be a mountain of lies
But that’s no longer my game
Well if you can't see how the press launches a feeding frenzy and destroys people, I don't know what to tell you. You don't seem to get it - it's a comparable situation, on one hand a manic venting of hyperbole, on the other, silencio.
You don't see this, do you.
What matters is the validity of the data.
Now this is a genuinely interesting take on Obama's speech, from Charles Murray.
Mark you may be right about the feeding frenzy, but the video speaks for itself and that's why it's so damaging.
If Obama is truly a redeeming Christ-like figure, then he should forgive us our sins. If he does not forgive us then that is an important piece of information.
I tend to think he does, but is trying not to lose his base to Hillary, which would be an ironic turn of events that nearly happened anyway and could happen again.
If Obama is a “truly a redeeming Christ-like figure,” then it probably helps him to be scourged and nailed up every once in a while.
Anyway, happy Good Friday. And look for Obama’s resurrection!
***Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!***
Charles Krauthammer has really ripped Obama’s latest attempt at evading his own upbringing and background. See: “The Speech: A Brilliant Fraud” at Washington Post dot Com. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a brilliant fraud. A blinding fraud might be more accurate.
Not to diminish Krauthammer’s work, but every beat cop knows what’s up with this Obama clown. The first thing a cop hears when he collars a black is, “I didn’t do it!”
Carole - you'd make a good politician. I've asked you point-blank now twice to address the silence on McCain (it flies right in the face of "liberal media" theories), and you talk about everything else.
It's an old rule in politics - if you don't like the question asked, answer one you do like.
I heard Fox talking about McCain and Hagee yesterday. I found a complete rundown on Hagee over at Huff Po. Is that media silence?
And I asked you, did he say anything like Wright says in video I linked? How are they comparable? Hagee doesn't say God Damn America. He just lays out all the usual brief against the Whore of Babylon. Nothing new there.
Reach what I wrote about the Obama affair for a full perspective. FOX might make mention of a thing or two to say they are fair and balanced, but no how will they do three or four full days of saturation propaganda as they did with the Obama thing.
Huffington Post? You’ve got to be kidding. It’s a liberal web site.
Here’s what’s going on: The right wing media is looking for a way to deep-six the Obama movement – they are propagandists and specialize in crude smears and character attacks. Guilt by association is ugly, but that’s all this matter was.
Yeah – you bought into it all. Yeah, you’re a willing participant. No, you can’t see that McCain doesn’t begin to get comparable treatment, in fact are scratching for reasons why his joyful seeking and welcoming of an endorsement from an ugly right wing extremists fundamentalist should get anything more than passing mention.
You got your mind right.
Mark, I have no idea of the comparable coverage of Wright and Hagee, Obama and McCain. I didn't see much of it. Even when Fox was on my TV Sunday, I paid scant attention because the Internet is a lot more interesting IMO.
I read about the video on NRO and looked at it myself. I read that Wright was Obama's pastor for many years, married him and Michelle, was a father figure to him.
I took that at face value and asked a legitimate question: Does Obama agree with Wright? No one seems to know for sure.
I'm sorry that the existence of the video was so devastating to you, but I think Obama may land on his feet anyway.
Then you summarize by telling me you just don't know the details. Nice to have an opinion anyway.
I see. I passed on radioactive material to the innocent Montana blogosphere. Such is my power!
I like Hitchens' take:
... I assume you all have your copies of The Audacity of Hope in paperback breviary form. If you turn to the chapter entitled "Faith," beginning on Page 195, and read as far as Page 208, I think that even if you don't concur with my reading, you may suspect that I am onto something. In these pages, Sen. Obama is telling us that he doesn't really have any profound religious belief, but that in his early Chicago days he felt he needed to acquire some spiritual "street cred." The most excruciatingly embarrassing endorsement of this same viewpoint came last week from Abigail Thernstrom at National Review Online. Overcome by "the speech" that the divine one had given in Philadelphia, she urged us to be understanding.
"Obama's description of the parishioners in his church gave white listeners a glimpse of a world of faith (with 'raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor ... dancing, clapping, screaming, and shouting') that has been the primary means of black survival and uplift." A glimpse, huh? What the hell next? A tribute to the African-American sense of rhythm?
Post a Comment