Forum: pol
Page 3069
Subject: If you are not for McCain you are not a Moderate


  Posted by: Jag - [171592622] Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 04:39

More and more, I am hearing that Obama has one of the most Liberal records in Congress and McCain is the only candidate to reach out to the other side, so if we truly want both parties to work together, there can only be one man up for the job.

This Presidental election will show 'beyond dispute' who the true Moderates are.
 
1nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 05:33


so if we truly want both parties to work together

We don't need both parties to work together, we are better off with grid lock. The more laws they pass the worse off our lives are. I'm hoping for a split congress and 4 years of grid lock.

 
2Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 08:14
I think Jag is on to something. McCain is more of a proven moderate than The Great Leader. If folks want to be taken seriously as moderate voters, they really should be voting for McCain.

You are right Nerve, the more laws the gov't passes the worse things always get, but God forbid a true conservative runs and makes gov't smaller.
 
3sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 08:49
lmao at Box and Jag...

If you are a moderate, you'll vote Republican.

And here I thought it was, If you are a neo-con, you'll vote for war mongering and nation building while saying to hell with the deficit.
 
4Tree
      ID: 1925617
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 08:58
More and more, I am hearing that Obama has one of the most Liberal records in Congress ...

i'm sure your sources where you are "hearing" this, are impeccable.

perhaps do your own research, or are you an infant that needs to be spoon fed everything?
 
5Perm Dude
      ID: 5023819
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 10:39
The Daily Jag Spam.
 
6Jag
      ID: 171592622
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 10:45
I am sure PD is an Obama fan, they both have this completely insane plan of invading Pakistan.
 
7Perm Dude
      ID: 5023819
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 10:48
Heh heh. Yeah, we're both crazy to have capturing Bin Laden as a goal.
 
8Jag
      ID: 171592622
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 11:39
Bin Laden is not nearly as big of threat as a nuclear Pakistan being controlled by radical Muslims.

Almost as insane as PD's and Hussein's national security plan is the Dem's new idea of wanting to jack the tax on gasoline way up. Not since Jimmy Carter have I heard of something so incredibly stupid. They are blaming a sluggish economy on gas prices, then want to increase the prices more.
 
9sarge33rd
      ID: 99331714
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 11:42
Bin Laden...openly recruits people to attack us.
Bin Laden...has planned at LEAST two successful attacks upon us.
Bin Laden...directly responsible for over 7,000 dead Americans.

Pakistan...?

Yep, Jags completely lost it claiming Pak to be a bigger threat.
 
10Perm Dude
      ID: 5023819
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 11:42
Ah, yes, the radical Muslims. Do you know of any other kind?

You're a troll, Jag. No longer worth my time.
 
11Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 12:37
Sarge your ignorance is amazing. McCain IS a moderate. I think most if not all people realize that, except for perhaps a full blown socialist like yourself where a moderate to you is a left wing extremist to others. But please, keep displaying your ignorance for all to see.
 
12Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 13:16
Not since Jimmy Carter have I heard of something so incredibly stupid.

I think you mean Ronald Reagan.

...or maybe heralded right wing conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer.
 
13walk
      ID: 381351512
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 14:57
#12: Slam! Once again. What a thread stopper. Nice one.

I think Box, McCain has demonstrated a moderate stance in the Senate many times...and I like this about him. However, I see him now more than ever as demonstrating a much more conservative stance, one that is very similar to Bush's. I am assuming this is an effort to secure the support of the republican base, who find McCain to be "too moderate." Which way will we have it if he is elected? I don't know, and I am not really interested in gambling to find out.

Also, on a personal level, I don't think McCain's senatorial style will be as effective as our President. I don't think he has the leadership qualities to effectively negotiate across the aisle as President. I think he'll be a more my way or the highway type in that role (unlike as Senator where he has demonstrated some give and take). I think Obama will be better equipped to negotiate and work with both sides...but I don't claim this to be based on anything more than my assessment of the candidates as I see it.

I don't think McCain's now inconsistent policy stances, some moderate, some staunchly conservative, can be construed as anything resembling him as an obvious choice as the only moderate able to govern in a bipartisan way.
 
14Jag
      ID: 171592622
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 15:03
I see you had to go back 1983 and 2004 to pull out those gems. Krauthammer said we missed our chance to tax oil when it was 40 dollars a barrel and advocated we drill in the artic. I believe these thoughts are brillant. Artifically inflating gas prices would have encouraged people buy more energy efficient cars, helped lower the deficit and would allow the government cut taxes on gas durning economic down times. But to impose a heavy tax at this current time is economic suicide. I am not sure if stupidity is driving this or an attempt to sabotage the economy in order to ensure a Democrat President.
 
15Jag
      ID: 171592622
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 15:16
PD, Pakistan has a large population of moderate muslims and another section, so radical, that their army fears them. I can't not express the insanity of alienating Pakistan to a degree the radicals take hold of the government.

Walk, what are you talking about? That was about as weak a reply as any ever given on this forum. It goes back to the Liberal 'one size fits all' policy, instead of adapting to changing circumstances.

Your opinion, that suddenly McCain will change how he negoiates with congress, is based on the fact he has a R by his name.
 
16Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 15:42
I see you had to go back 1983 and 2004

My only point was that you are terribly uninformed if you think you have to go back to 1980 to find a case being made for a gas tax hike.

But I guess that point has been very well covered here.

If for some bizarre reason this point is any less noteworthy because my more recent is 4 years ond (compared to the 28 years that you thought it had been since the last you heard such "stupidity") then you can read Krauthammer again espouse a significant gas tax hike in this June 2007 column.

Krauthammer said we missed our chance to tax oil when it was 40 dollars a barrel and advocated we drill in the artic.

Apparently you missed his whole point (shocker)
We have a unique but fleeting opportunity to permanently depress demand by locking in higher gasoline prices.
 
17Jag
      ID: 171592622
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 16:33
Apparently you have missed my point (shocker)

You don't raise the gas tax during a down turn in the economy. Only Jimmy Carter and certain Liberals in Congress today would purpose such a ludicrous idea.
 
18Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 16:51
LOL

I'm just pointing to what Krauthammer said and noting that it conflicts with you, despite your efforts to invent some common ground with him.

Since you seem to think otherwise, I'll also note that I have not weighed in on the issue in this thread.
 
19Perm Dude
      ID: 5023819
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 17:42
Probably a good idea, MITH. After all, Jag hasn't a clue what he's talking about with the gas tax hike (a proposal made not by the Dems, but by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission, headed by George Bush's Transportation Secretary and formed in 2005 under the leadership of the then-Republican House).

He may be right on whether there should be a tax hike on gas or not, but it would be by accident. Like Ann Coulter, Jag is not so interested in being right as blaming Democrats. And on this score, he hasn't a clue. Democrats aren't supporting a gas tax hike. Unlike Jag, however, they are trying to find ways to fund infrastructure improvements, the costs of which are not currently covered by users through gas taxes or direct fees/tolls.
 
20Jag
      ID: 171592622
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 20:29
The NST was created by Congress less than 2 months ago.
 
21Perm Dude
      ID: 5023819
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 20:34
Congress created The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission in 2005 under Section 1909 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The Commission was created because, as Congress declared, “it is in the national interest to preserve and enhance the surface transportation system to meet the needs of the United States for the 21st century.”

Link

Idiot.
 
22Perm Dude
      ID: 5023819
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 20:40
Apparently, it is only the "moderate" who are anti-Catholic bigots.

McCain: "I'm proud to have Pastor Hagee's support."

This is a guy who rightly called down Pat Robertson and took a ton of heat for it. Now he's just a suckup who will take support from anywhere. Apparently being a "moderate" means taking support from extremists from your own side of the aisle.
 
23Jag
      ID: 171592622
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 21:09
I miss-remembered your article when it said the report came out 2 months ago. If McCain turned down support from the religious right of his party, he would be too stupid to become president. It is not like he was getting backing from a looney like Louis Farrakhan who supports Obama.
 
24Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 21:28
Why is Farakhan any "loonier" Hagee?
 
25Jag
      ID: 171592622
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 21:47
Mith, are you so far out of touch with reality, that you seriously don't know the difference?
 
26Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 21:58
You already think I'm an anti-american liberal pussy moron who chooses to be wrong on every issue because I hate myself. So you shouldn't be surprised that I need you to explain it.

Why is Farakhan worse?
 
27Jag
      ID: 171592622
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 22:04
I never said you hated yourself.
 
28Building 7
      ID: 48033121
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 23:25
Name some great moderates in American history.

 
29Perm Dude
      ID: 5023819
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 23:34
Well, Rush, how about:

Dwight Eisenhower. Colin Powell. George Washington. Ronald Reagan (yes, he was conservative as well in some areas. But he succeeded because he wasn't pedantic--a key his later worshipers like to forget). John Glenn. Many, many others.
 
30Building 7
      ID: 48033121
      Sat, Mar 01, 2008, 23:54
Reagan was a conservative ikon.
Glenn was a big liberal.
Washington was before political parties became big.
Colin Powell never ran for anything.





 
31Perm Dude
      ID: 5023819
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 00:02
ROFL! Way to change the question. Busted.

Next time you are looking for a certain answer, try to frame your question better.

The fact that Reagan is a conservative icon doesn't change his moderate tendencies which got him into office in the first place, and kept him there. I realize that your own version of "conservativism" has been formed though this very black-is-white version of what conservatives are, but Reagan had no problem doing many things you would find extremely distasteful. Such are reaching across the aisle. Sad how far "conservativism" has fallen, really. And it all started when you got everything you asked for. It doesn't really give one a real optimistic feeling about the movement when you get everything you want and it all falls apart so completely and quickly as a result.
 
32Building 7
      ID: 48033121
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 00:32
You're rolling on the floor laughing over that? That's rediculous.
 
33Perm Dude
      ID: 5023819
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 00:42
Yeah, how quick you are to answer your own question--the one you didn't ask.

I laugh over a lot of self-inflicted errors on the Right these days. Maybe that makes me a little too self-satisfied, but the Right has pumped itself up so much for the last 6 years or so I simply can't help myself. They are like a bloated wrestler growling at the crowd at how big and strong they are, but they can't manage to get through the ropes into the ring without hanging themselves.

Seriously, as a moderate, there is nothing sweeter than extremists on either side hoisting themselves by their own petards. Democrats did it during the 70s. Republicans returned the favor the last 6 years. There is no better argument for moderation in politics than to see the cycle of political implosions slap down partisans time after time after time.
 
34Building 7
      ID: 48033121
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 00:59
But really, you were rolling on the floor laughing over something as innocuous as that?
 
35Doug
      ID: 53937413
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 01:40
You really think when someone writes "ROFL" that they're literally rolling on the floor laughing?

Do you have a similarly misguided interpretation whenever someone types "LMAO"?
 
36sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 08:43
rotflmao


:)
 
37Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 08:56
OMGTWSFIJSMP
 
38Building 7
      ID: 48033121
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 09:36
MPDBWDSTASZDKWTTAARRFFAD

This can go on awhile. You clones can go at it. I'm done.

You really think when someone writes "ROFL" that they're literally rolling on the floor laughing?

That's what he said. The other one is not possible. I'll proceed as follows when reading Permdude's posts..........Sometimes you can believe what he's saying and sometimes you can't.

 
39sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 11:31
Apparently, if I apply my math skills I develop the following theoretical equation:

B7 + Jag + Box = half-wit

Anyone care an attempt to disprove the theory?
 
40Madman
      ID: 14139157
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 11:38
Back to post 0 ... A good analysis ... this generally reinforces a post I made on these boards about a week ago. For people genuinely interested in pursuing bipartisan politics, you can choose between someone who has a long track record of doing so (McCain) but who doesn't have the "we'll all sit down at a table and be friends" schtick ... versus someone with the rhetoric (Obama), but a very limited bipartisan track record.

This is not to say that Obama won't stand up to his party's partisan proclivities. It's very difficult to draw inferences from a record that's paper-thin. But it is to say that we have scant evidence for such.
..............

I'm a rightie, and I support an increase in the federal gas tax. It would have to be structured very carefully, perhaps passed with a permanent AMT reform package, or to help pay for an extension of the income tax cuts. I'm not a big fan of tying gas revenue to infrastructure. Current fed mechanisms tend to overbuild new projects at the expense of maintenance. Further, funding infrastructure with the tax undermines one of its main points -- which is to deter utilization. You can't achieve lower utilization levels while simultaneously making driving more expensive via the gas tax *and* less expensive because it is more convenient.

But a well-structured increase in the gas tax, coupled with an elimination of subsidies for environmentally harmful ethanol and other alternative fuel systems could simultaneously be a part of our overall federal budget solution AND improve the efficiency of our energy utilization.

I wouldn't call Reagan a moderate. He was a true Conservative who was reviled by the Left. Just because you compromise doesn't mean your "credentials" are any less valid. In my ideal world, we wouldn't have a gas tax; we'd have unlimited oil supplies available to the US from US oilfields. These supplies could be used without any harm to the environment. My ideal world doesn't exist. Therefore, you do what you think is best, given your principles. Given our budget and energy situations, a planned and measured increase in the gas tax helps to assuage multiple problems.
 
41sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 12:22
Frankly I'd favor an increased gas tax IF, it was earmarked, sacred and untouchable for all else, for expenditure in alternative energy/technology research and development. Done in such a way as to preclude any given company from having exclusive rights to it, since funding would have in no small part, come from the American people.
 
42Boxman
      ID: 211139621
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 17:57
Yes Sarge. Let's give more power to the gov't. Lord knows they've used it responsibly so far.
 
43sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 18:43
As opposed to Enron?, VIACOM? TYCO? Blackwater?
 
44Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Mar 02, 2008, 20:36
There you go. Cherry pick amongst 1000s of companies. The money is not the government's. Never has been and never should be. The money belongs to those who pay taxes. Corporations and individuals pay taxes. Let the market solve the problem.
 
45Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 08:12
Re posts 22 through 26, there was more on Pastor Hagee in post #159 in the McCain/Soros/Trojan Horse thread.

More:
National Public Radio's Fresh Air, host Terry Gross said to Hagee, "You said after Hurricane Katrina that it was an act of God, and you said 'when you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn.' " She then asked, "Do you still think that Katrina is punishment from God for a society that's becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah?" Hagee responded:
HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.
Earlier in the program, Gross asked if Hagee believed that "all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews," to which Hagee replied, "Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly."

A March 7, 1996, article (accessed via the Nexis database) in the San Antonio Express-News reported that Hagee was going to "meet with black religious leaders privately at an unspecified future date to discuss comments he made in his newsletter about a 'slave sale,' an East Side minister said Wednesday." The Express-News reported:
Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a "slave sale" to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin, "The Cluster."

The item was introduced with the sentence "Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone" and ended with "Make plans to come and go home with a slave."
A July 27, 2006, Wall Street Journal article about Hagee noted the incident:
To help students seeking odd jobs, his church newsletter, The Cluster, advertised a "slave" sale. "Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone," it said. "Make plans to come and go home with a slave." Mr. Hagee apologized but, in a radio interview, protested about pressure to be "politically correct" and joked that perhaps his pet dog should be called a "canine American."
A December 23, 2007, Reuters news article on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's (R) visit to Hagee's church reported that "some Catholics were angry about the visit." The article noted:
In his recent book "Jerusalem Countdown," Hagee wrote: "Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews."

Posner also noted that in another Hagee text, "Bible Positions on Political Issues," (John Hagee Ministries, 1992) Hagee wrote, "[T]he feminist movement today is throwing off authority in rebellion against God's pattern for the family."

[more] From the September 18, 2006, edition of NPR's Fresh Air:
HAGEE: Well, Islam in general, those who live by the Quran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews. Now, I had an Islamic on my television show last week. His name was Walid Shoebat. He was raised as a Palestinian terrorist and at one time was -- placed a bomb and was supposed to walk into a bank. And I said, "Walid, I'm trying to understand the definition of what is a radical Islamic person, because I've read many books, many magazines and I can't come up with a good definition of what constitutes a radical Islamic." And he says these words, and I'll quote them, he said, "Anyone who truly believes the Quran is willing to kill Christians or Jews. That's waging jihad." He said, "Now, those people who are willing to go into another country and start a war will only be about 15 to 20 percent of Islam."

There are 1.3 billion people who follow the Islamic faith, so if you're saying there's only 15 percent that want to come to America or invade Israel to crush it, you're only talking about 200 million people. That's far more than Hitler and Japan and Italy and all of the axis powers in World War II had under arms. That is a massive number of people. So while we may define radical Islam as a minority, because there are so many, it is still an overpowering military potential.

GROSS: But what you said is that all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews. Do you believe that?

HAGEE: Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly.
Hilzoy on the "Slave Auction" incident:
I looked up the article on Lexis/Nexis. There's more. From an editorial in the same paper, March 5 1996:
"We have nothing to be ashamed of," the church's pastor, the Rev. John Hagee, said in defending the upcoming fund-raiser."
Odd: even though I grew up in a godless household in the Kremlin on the Charles, I was always taught that when I was wrong, I had to apologize and take my medicine; and that to try to wriggle out of it would only add to my shame. Apparently, Hagee thinks differently.

From an article in the same paper on the same day:
"The controversy began when Hagee wrote a brief item for Sunday in Cornerstone Church's weekly bulletin, "The Cluster," promoting a March 31 fund-raiser in which the services of seniors from Cornerstone High School are to be auctioned off to the highest bidders.

"This was never intended as a racial slur. We deeply regret that anyone was offended, and we apologize to anyone who was offended by it," Hagee told the Express-News on Monday, adding:

"There's not a racial bone in my body or in this church. I was trying to help our high school seniors raise money for their senior trip, and that's the whole story."

He said a friend advised him Monday to "update your vocabulary. You don't say 'black coffee.' You don't say you have a 'black eye' but 'a bruised eye'; you don't have a 'blacklist' but a 'bad list'; and you don't issue a 'white paper' but a 'position paper.'

"I don't think I'm even going to call my dog a dog. I'm going to call him a canine-American," Hagee quipped.

He said churches, schools and cities have raised money through similar events for many years and called them "slave auctions" without drawing any criticism.

No blacks have expressed displeasure to him directly, he said, adding that he believes the controversy was started by the media or by "liberal activists who know how to use the media.""
I can't think of any reason why African Americans would criticize anyone for holding a "slave auction" if liberal activists didn't put them up to it. Can you? I mean: people are just so touchy these days! Maybe I'm going to have to rethink my plans to raise money for my school by holding a "concentration camp" ("Make plans to come home with a brand new lampshade!") And that cute little lynching fundraiser: do you think I should put that on hold until the liberal activists go away?

Seriously: I await John McCain's response to this. I remember back in 2000, when I was painting my room with CSPAN on, and happened to hear the speech in which McCain described parts of the religious right as "agents of intolerance". I thought it was a great speech, not that my opinions did him any good. He should have stuck to his guns on that one. He was right. If I had to guess, I'd say he still believes the things he said in his speech, but decided he had to snuggle up to the Christian right for political purposes.

Oops.
So the mainstream media outlets harass Obama over his own church Pastor, some positions of whom Obama has repeatedly had to seperate himself from and Louis Farakhan, whom Obama does not identify with in the least and whom Obama has been called on to not only reject but also denounce (?) on national television. Meanwhile, McCain gets a full mainstream pass for accepting the endorsement and fully identifying himself with Pastor Hagee?

No only should McCain receive equal treatment for refusing to seperate himself from this religious hatemonger who lobbies congress to commit and unprovoked and unilateral attack on Iran for the purpose of summoning Jesus and bringing the end of days, but he should be called to the carpet for his Hillaryesque political flipflop from his former stance that Christian fundamentalists are "agents of intolerance" who "shame our faith, our party and our country."

Whichever side you fall on regarding McCain's position of Christian fundamentalists, if you give him a pass here the you forego the right to call out his opponents on similar issues. If you're a McCain supporter today, think about how you would have delighted in skewering John Kerry over this 4 years ago.
 
46Myboyjack
      ID: 56039812
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 08:42
In general, I couldn't care less.

But, a few nitpicks with your post, MITH.

1. When you say that McCain has been given a pass by the media, you mean except for every major news source I've seen carrying some variation of this story, I take it. Yahoo! had it on their front page yesterday, for instance.

2. Regarding Obama's own pastor, who loves Farakhan and gave him some kind of laudatory award recently as a guest of his church: Obama is on the record as saying what an influential man he (the pastor) has been in Obama's life and how he is a trusted source of cousel,etc.....that's a whole lot different than a simple endorsement, wouldn't you say.

3. I try to take what religious people say regarding matters of their own belief without offense. Taking this nut to task for his religious dogma is beyond my concern; Farakhan, on the other hand, is beyond a mere religious leader. He has positioned himself as a social and political force.

4. Seriously, you are surprised that the media makes a bigger deal out of a Farakhan endorsement than than the Rev, Anti-Catholic. Had you ever heard of this guy before this tempest in a teapot? Me neither.

 
47Perm Dude
      ID: 522138
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 09:01
I think people are, by and large, big enough to realize that you don't take on all the attributes of your friends when they support you. Nevertheless, the biggest difference between Obama/Farakhan and McCain/Hagee is that McCain sought out Hagee's endorsement and, when he got it, they appeared together to display it publically.

 
48Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 09:05
MBJ
you mean except for every major news source I've seen carrying some variation of this story
If that's the case then obviously I'll drop that issue. Admittedly I spent the weekend immersed in fantasy baseball and not paying close attention to news.


Regarding Obama's own pastor... Obama is on the record as saying what an influential man he (the pastor) has been in Obama's life and how he is a trusted source of cousel,etc
Obama has been called upon to openluy seperate himself from his pastor's more controversial positions, musings, whatever. And Obama has been quick to do so in response. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen McCain's feet held to that fire.


Taking this nut to task for his religious dogma is beyond my concern; Farakhan, on the other hand, is beyond a mere religious leader. He has positioned himself as a social and political force.
The pastor of a 16,000 strong congregation who actively lobbies Congress to conduct military strikes for religious purposes is a bit more than just a religious leader. The local Catholic priest in my neighborhood is a mere religious leader. Hagee is a man of some influence and power (from Wikipedia):
Hagee is the President and CEO of John Hagee Ministries which telecasts his national radio and television ministry carried in America on 160 TV stations, fifty radio stations and eight networks including The Inspiration Network (INSP) and Trinity Broadcasting Network.[citation needed] The ministries can be seen and heard weekly in 99 million homes. John Hagee Ministries is in Canada on the Miracle Channel and CTS and can be seen in Africa, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and is in most third world nations.[citation needed]

He is also the president and CEO of Global Evangelism Television, which telecasts his radio and television ministry.

Seriously, you are surprised that the media makes a bigger deal out of a Farakhan endorsement than than the Rev, Anti-Catholic. Had you ever heard of this guy before this tempest in a teapot? Me neither.
No argument. However, this issue does challenge the charge of liberal media bias in the campaigns, points out the flip-flop on McCain's part regarding Christian fundamentalists responds to and Jag's notion that Obama's supposed connection to Farrakhan is any more noteworthy than McCain's to John Hagee. Why I bother at all with tha last one, I don't know.
 
49Pancho Villa
      ID: 495272016
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 09:22
MITH #24 - Why is Farakhan any "loonier"[than] Hagee?

Jag #25 - Mith, are you so far out of touch with reality, that you seriously don't know the difference?

I believe MITH has shown Hagee to be equally as loony as Farakhan. I've yet to see Jag deliver a post supporting his reality or explaining the difference.
 
50Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 09:35
Last paragraph of pos 48 shoudl read:

...points out the flip-flop on McCain's part regarding Christian fundamentalists and responds to Jag's notion that Obama's supposed connection...
 
51Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 13:39
from the AP...

Hagee endorsement of McCain has risks

The televangelist, San Antonio megachurch leader John Hagee, has referred to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore" and called it a "false cult system" and "the apostate church"; the word "apostate" means someone who has forsaken his religion.

He also has linked Adolf Hitler to the Catholic church, suggesting it helped shape his anti-Semitism.
 
52Myboyjack
      ID: 56039812
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 13:57
Yet another AP article on the Hagee/McCain stuff

McCain states he does not share Hagee's beliefs: duh. At this point, rejecting the endorsement would be a statement that Hagee religious doctrine is not acceptable. I disagree. I think it's unfortunate that Donahue and the Catholc League have become involved in this; unless they believe that McCain is a closet raving anti-Catholic bigot, why give this knuclehead any attention and feed into the media and Perm Dude, et al, talking points?

And the article underlines difference I see in Hagee and Farakhan. Hagee claims and statement, however idiotic, are religious, in nature. When he call me and other Catholics followers of "the great whore" and worshippers of the anti-Christ, he's making a religious, not social or secular statement. He wants me to convert or whatever. Fine. I haven't seen anything where he wants all Catholics to die or where he wants to blame Catholics for any secular ills and hold them legally accountable as a group.

Not so for Farakhan. Farakhan's explicit anti-Semitism is not, at this point, religious. It's just racist.

For me those are qualitatively different kinds of statements.
 
53Myboyjack
      ID: 56039812
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 13:58
woops - tree's link and mine are prolly the same; cross-post
 
54Jag
      ID: 171592622
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 13:58
The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man.

"These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood. It's the wicked Jews, the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality, [and] Zionists have manipulated Bush and the American government [on the war in Iraq]

"White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet."
Philadelphia Inquirer, March 2000

"The Jews have been so bad at politics they lost half their population in the Holocaust. They thought they could trust in Hitler, and they helped him get the Third Reich on the road."
Saviours' Day speech, Chicago, February 1998

"It seems like being gay or whatever sin you wish to be a part of is okay ... but I have the duty to lift that gay person up to the standard to ask if they want to live the life that God wants them to or live the lifestyle that they want to live."
Boston speech, August 1997

"I believe that for the small numbers of Jewish people in the United States, they exercise a tremendous amount of influence on the affairs of government ...Yes, they exercise extraordinary control, and black people will never be free in this country until they are free of that kind of control ... "
Meet The Press interview, April 1997

I don't own Hollywood. Who depicted black people? Who writes the books? Who writes the plays, the songs that make us look less than human? Do you mean to tell me that Jews have never done any evil to black people? ...

"Were they not involved in the slave trade? Yes, they were ... and to the extent that they were involved, somebody has to bring them to account. And I believe that has fallen on me."
Interview with New York Amsterdam News, January 1994

No comparison

We know who McCain is and his record. Obama is a mystery man with a penchant to decline to vote on controversial subjects. Whether Obama could be swayed by his radical pastor, nobody knows.

Mith, you and PD could write for the NYT, the way you and he grasp for straws to hang something on McCain. I respect Walk for his admittance for being a Liberal. You 2 need to come out of the closet and admit, you would never support a candidate with a R for party affliation. And please don't mention Paul, he is not a R, he is loopy.






 
55Myboyjack
      ID: 56039812
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 14:09
Obama has been called upon to openluy seperate himself from his pastor's more controversial positions, musings, whatever. And Obama has been quick to do so in response. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen McCain's feet held to that fire.

So, now that McCain has stated he doesn't share Hagee beliefs, it's OK for him to seek him out as a trusted advisor - just like Obama does his Farakhan adoring pastor - right?

These are not similar situations, and the attmept to shoehorn them, is cheap politics. That's not directed at you MITH - I know your an honest quesiton asker. But can you honestly say that Obmam's relationship with his Pastor is comparable to McCain and Hagee? I thnik Obmama as handled the Farakhan/personal pastor thing just fine. I think it's sad that others have tried to score points with Catholics with this Hagee thing.
 
56Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Mon, Mar 03, 2008, 14:48
MBJ
But can you honestly say that Obmam's relationship with his Pastor is comparable to McCain and Hagee?

As far as the issue of whether the media should question those relationships, yes, they are comparable. Though you and Tree have pointed out that the media has done a better job than I thought. So be it.

But that doesn't absolve McCain from all criticism regarding the Pastor. 8 years ago he was slamming Robertson and Falwell. That being one of the things that cost him that nomination and also one of the things that has fed his reputation as a RINO, it's not surprising he'd have to do a little more than some discreet backtracking on that issue. The potential gains are worth a flipflop charge (and perhaps that label doesn't impact a Republican the way it does a Democrat, anyway).

But it doesn't come off as rather shameless that he went and hooked up with such a batshit crazy as Hagee? I mean much more shameless than necessary, like to the point where it defeats the purpose of trying to assure conservatives of your principles?
 
57Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 21:28
The man who coined the phrase "The Audacity of Hope" exorts his congregates to sing God Damn America anf that America got what it had coming on 09/11

This isn't some kook who offered an endoresement from afar - this is the kook that baptized Obama's children and titled his book - who Obama says "isn't very controversial".

"I wouldn't call it radical. I call it being black in America," said one congregation member outside the church last Sunday.

"He has impacted the life of Barack Obama so much so that he wants to portray that feeling he got from Rev. Wright onto the country because we all need something positive," said another member of the congregation......

Like a member of his family, there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees. But now that he is retired, that doesn't detract from Sen. Obama's affection for Rev. Wright or his appreciation for the good works he has done."




 
58Tree
      ID: 442541318
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 21:39
you also disagree with this statement?

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.
 
59bibA
      Leader
      ID: 261028117
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 21:40
The question you now need to ask yourself, if you are actually interested in what Obama thinks, is just that - what are Obama's views on these subjects? Are the candidates responsible for every one of their supporters? If you or anyone else has any information that Obama believes the same things attributed to Mr. Wright, it would certainly be of great interest. Are you willing to give Obama credit for the good things Mr. Wright may believe in? Or are you only interested in the negative?
 
60Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 21:40
yes.
 
61Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 21:48
I know there's a point to post 57, aside from a simple report that Obama's pastor is out of his mind. Care to share it, MBJ?
 
62Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 21:51
Chicago Tribune last year on Wright's influence on Obama


Obama says that rather than advising him on strategy, Wright helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.

"What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice," Obama said. "He's much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I'm not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that's involved in national politics."

***

[T]hough Wright now wears three-piece suits on occasion, but he still dons a dashiki most times he preaches. Obama has said he is particularly inspired by Wright's ability to draw followers from all walks of life—celebrities and welfare recipients, PhDs and GEDs. It is a gift the senator aspires to emulate.

Wright again bucked convention by announcing plans to retire in May 2008 and tapping Rev. Otis Moss III as his successor. Many black pastors do not surrender their pulpit even when they become too feeble to serve, said Rev. Dwight Hopkins, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School who met Wright in the 1980s.

Wright's willingness to "surrender leadership" demonstrates a humility that sets him apart, Hopkins said.

"The black church is probably the only space in America where black men can have unquestioned authority," he said. "It's hard to give that up for a lot of black male pastors."

Wright said the decision was not hard difficult. "The church is built around the personality of Jesus, not Jeremiah Wright," he said.

***

Wright sought to build on the black theology of liberation introduced in 1968 by Rev. James Cone of New York, by emphasizing Africa's contribution to Christianity rather than that of mainstream white theologians.

"To show there is an independent form of thinking there about religion that stands on its own, that's really more life-giving than what you get from Europe," Cone said. "Black people who come from that approach have a very healthy understanding of who they are."

***

In his 1993 memoir "Dreams from My Father," Obama recounts in vivid detail his first meeting with Wright in 1985. The pastor warned the community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church's radical reputation.

When Obama sought his own church community, he felt increasingly at home at Trinity. Before leaving for Harvard Law School in 1988, he responded to one of Wright's altar calls and declared a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Later he would base his 2004 keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention on a Wright sermon called "Audacity to Hope," —also the inspiration for Obama's second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope."

Though Wright and Obama do not often talk one-on-one often, the senator does check with his pastor before making any bold political moves.

Last fall, Obama approached Wright to broach the possibility of running for president. Wright cautioned Obama not to let politics change him, but he also encouraged Obama, win or lose.


Wright love Farakhan. Obama loves Wright and considrers him a "moral compass" I'm getting disgusted.


 
63Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 21:54
I know there's a point to post 57, aside from a simple report that Obama's pastor is out of his mind. Care to share it, MBJ?

You're kidding me, right? You don't think that the insane views of the man Obama says is a "moral compass" are relevant to who I should vote for in the Democratic primary? You're the one who started this whole line in the first place with the Hagge nutcase aren't you?
 
64Perm Dude
      ID: 6253135
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 21:56
The passage in his book where he speaks of the sermon in question.

Disgusting, indeed.

I love a lot of people who love people I don't like at all--hate, even. I think most people are grown up enough to know that you don't take on all the attributes of your supporters. Even your pastor. The question is: Is Barrack Obama's stances on the issues in question the exact same as his pastor's? If the answer is "no" then you have to believe Obama has the ability to discern, from different viewpoints, a middle path toward reasonableness.

One of my best friends (until he passed away) was a far right kook when it came to politics. But we would constantly use each other as a sounding board. He made me think, frankly, and I didn't always agree with him but I respected his approach. Does this make me a kook?

 
65Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 22:04
The question for me is: How did Obama get so closely affiliated with a man who hates whitey and gives awards to anti-Semites for "speaking truth".

A lot of people do and say things which I like and support. Some of those people are racist and nutjobs. Those, I keep at arms length.
 
66Perm Dude
      ID: 6253135
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 22:10
Where do you get "hates whitey?" There is nothing wrong with a black church approaching their religion from their own perspective. This doesn't mean that they hate whites. In fact, this white guy found himself to be "enthusiastically welcomed."
 
67Perm Dude
      ID: 6253135
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 22:13
BTW, I agree with a lot of people that this is an issue that needs clarifying. His pastor is obviously espousing ideas which won't resonate very well with non-blacks, and Obama needs to clarify things.
 
68Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 22:21
PD - I'm assuming that when he calls upon God to damn America for "gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law", that he is talking about white America doing the "giving" and that "them" is blacks. I'm assuming that he means what he says in his support for Farakhan's truth that white people are of Satan. Nice thing about the old bat is he honest, all someone would have to do is ask him; the Tribne story I linked to from last year didn't bother while slathering him with praise.


McCain seems to be afraid that Obama is taking a big lead in the nutty "spiritual advisor" angle; however, he'll he'll never catch Obama. McCain's guy just stood on stage with him once; Wright married Barack and Michelle.
 
69Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 22:23
His pastor is obviously espousing ideas which won't resonate very well with non-blacks, and Obama needs to clarify things.

Please. The "chickens came home to roost on 09/11" and God Damn [White] America" crap doesn't resonate well with any of the people I know, regardless of race.
 
71Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 22:29
You don't think that the insane views of the man Obama says is a "moral compass" are relevant to who I should vote for in the Democratic primary? You're the one who started this whole line in the first place with the Hagge nutcase aren't you?

I've never so much as passively implied that McCain's association with Hagee might suggest that he harbors similar opinions and objectives as the preacher. I wanted to know why McCain hadn't been put on the spot over Hagee (it was pointed out that he had) and point out the stark flipflop from McCain's previous statements against people who were not nearly so extreme as Hagee.

-----

I've had people whom I've looked up to as "moral compases" over the years. One good example is my grandmother. She got through to me in ways that other adults couldn't and I learned plenty of great life lessons from her.

Grandma also felt very strongly that minorities are just a lower class of people than whites.

Does this throw my moral character into question for you? Well rest assured, from an early age in my childhood I realized that as wonderful a person as Grandma was and as much as I valued and trusted in her wisdom on most things, there were some things she didn't quite grasp.

Can anyone honestly say that the people they depend on most for moral advice are consistant authorities on all issues?

From the provided excerpts and from what I've read and gather about Obama, I'd guess he depends on Wright for support on certain things. I think it likely that Wright helps him stay grounded in certain values. And while a good deal of Wright's message (be it his public messag eor his personal message to Obama) may be different from or even contradictory to those values, I also believe Obama is likely grown up enough to seperate out the part of the message that he finds moralor virtuous or whatever.

Honestly, MBJ, would you be "getting disgusted" if Obama were instead a follower of someone like the late Jerry Falwell?
 
72Perm Dude
      ID: 6253135
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 22:30
I dunno, MBJ. I'm not saying it is particularly attractive speech. But are you saying Obama espouses this himself? In any way? In the many, many, many speeches Obama's given, are you of the belief that he is of the "Damn America" crowd?

Wright uses inflamatory rhetoric. But he's not running for President. I think Wright's influence on Obama is a good question. But if Wright is such a kook, and we see none of that kookiness in the many opportunities to examine Obama, what is the point then?
 
73Tree
      ID: 442541318
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 22:32
I think the right wing of this country is having a hard time finding something negative to stick on Obama, so they'll go after people he has associated with, and work that angle.

desperate times call for desperate measures...
 
74Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 22:33
"Closet kook". Probably has a better chance to stick than "closet terrorist", at least with the HS education and above crowd.
 
75Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 22:41
Honestly, MBJ, would you be "getting disgusted" if Obama were instead a follower of someone like the late Jerry Falwell? ?

Absolutely. Why would you think otherwise.

Your Grandma, MITH? How 'bout someone you chose to associate with.

I dunno, MBJ. I'm not saying it is particularly attractive speech. But are you saying Obama espouses this himself? In any way? In the many, many, many speeches Obama's given, are you of the belief that he is of the "Damn America" crowd?

His wife's mouth and pen certainly haven't given any concerns one might have about these things any easy rest.

Obviously, one can associate with all sorts of people, love them and not be of one mind with them; those associations do often raise concerns though. You guys are commited to dismissing them with a wave; I still have to decide whom to vote for.

I'll never get a president who I'm even close to idealogically; I accept that. I would like to think that my president, at a minimum, is smart, wise and loves his country and its people the way I do. Obama's long-term association with Wright calls all 3 of those criteria into question for me.
 
76Perm Dude
      ID: 6253135
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 22:45
Well, at least your call allow that, as a Protestant, he's probably much freer to disagree with his pastor and still remain at his church.

:)

I've never seen any indications, in the many words of Obama'a I've read and heard, that he doesn't have each of those three qualities.
 
77Seattle Zen
      ID: 529121611
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 22:49
I think the right wing of this country is having a hard time finding something negative to stick on Obama, so they'll go after people he has associated with, and work that angle.

desperate times call for desperate measures...


I don't agree with that. I think MBJ is onto something and I think Sen. Obama will distance himself from this reverend. I don't foresee him becoming a speech writer for the campaign, but I also imagine that the Senator will still occasionally talk to him, quietly...
 
78Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 22:49
I think the right wing of this country is having a hard time finding something negative to stick on Obama, so they'll go after people he has associated with, and work that angle.

That's pretty weak considering that we're having this conversation in this thread because of questions about people who merely endorsed McCain.
 
79Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Mar 13, 2008, 23:47
Really I'm much more concerned with the man than I am his supposed influences, much less trying to determine exactly what advice he seeks from different people in his personal life. As long as he publlicly distinguishes himself from Wright's controversal statement, I think you're blowing up a nonissue.

And obviously Obama is quite aware that much of what Write opines is extreme and he hasn't been afraid to seperate himself from it. Interesting that you prefer to rely on statements (some of dubious contex) cherrypicked from fluff pieces about Obama's church.

I think different people take different kinds of things from their faith. For some, the religious community is an extension of one's family that they might even be born into. I don't recall how Obama came to join that church. Wouldn't be surpprised if it was for political connections but is there any chance it's his wife's church? Anyway, for others, the uplifting experience of the service might be more important than the specific message.

You insist this relationship is a sign that Obama might not be very wise or very smart or might not really love America. If you were already hoping to find something to dislike, I guess it might be easy for you to see it that way.

And you say you'd also be disgusted if Obama were similarly close with Falwell, instead. So maybe you'd also question the wisdom, intelligence and love of country of a politician who was close with Falwell but also publicly seperated himself from his more controversal opinions. I wouldn't.
 
80Perm Dude
      ID: 6253135
      Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 00:37
#78: Hagee's endorsement was more than merely an endorsement. McCain sought it out, then appeared with the guy.

Here's a decent piece on the Rev Wright and Sen Obama which is far too nuanced for the FOX News crowd but there you go. The generational thing I think is something worth considering, just as Obama is "post-racial" when it comes to his politics.
 
81Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 09:26
From PD's link in #80:
I find myself empathizing with Obama, and admiring his instincts. He doesn't want to denounce a man who played a crucial role in his own life, who was a friend and a mentor when he needed one, just because it's now expedient to do so. He understands that Rev. Wright hails from a different generation (what, in another context, he labeled the Moses Generation) and Obama's entire candidacy is premised on the notion that that generation's day has passed, that it is now time for the next generation to take the reins of leadership, to transcend the divisiveness of earlier battles, to move us forward to a better future without neglecting the sacrifices of the past. I'm even sympathetic to the problem of a controversial spiritual leader. Who among us attends religious services with regularity, and hasn't squirmed in the pew from time to time, as the pastor or preacher or reverend or rabbi gives voice to a thought with which we adamantly disagree? Perhaps even a thought that is politicized or prejudiced? Or hasn't had an elderly relative do the same?

That's why I've always moved the scurrilous, conspiratorial e-mails to the trash bin on my computer. I was content to know that Obama was attracted to Reverend Wright and his church for the "cultural community" that they embodied; for their recognition that not just material interests, but also "hopes and dreams and...ideals and...values" motivate actions; and yes, for their Christian faith. If there's a single theme to Obama's intellectual achievements, it's been his ability to sieze upon powerful words and themes, lifting them out of their original context and reframing them to be inclusive and uplifting. Thus, Rev. Wright's fiery sermon on "The Audacity to Hope" in a racialized world becomes the title of Obama's serene meditation on the possibilities of transcending political and racial polarization. That seems to hold true more broadly. It's how Obama is able to credit the honorable motives of his opponents even as he disagrees with them. It's how Obama took the best of what Reverend Wright had to offer - community, inspiration, rebukes for his congregation's shortcomings - and set aside the anger and divisiveness that seemed to him relics of an earlier time.
 
82Jag
      ID: 171592622
      Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 17:07
I would love to attend Obama's church, I may not agree with the preacher, but that is one funny dude.
 
83Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 17:17
Interesting that you prefer to rely on statements (some of dubious contex) cherrypicked from fluff pieces about Obama's church.

I've got to remember this whole "cherry picking" defense. It's a fun mulligan.

"God damn America"

"Farakhan speaks the truth about the racial ills of America"

"Aids was created by America to kill black people"

"America and Israel imprisoned Mandela"

Cherry picked or not, my children wouldn't have been sitting in pews listening to that crap week after week and I wouldn't have donated thousands of dollars to the "kindly Uncle" who spewed it; not if I wanted to be President of all the people of this country.

But I do like how quoting someone can be dismissed as "cherry picking" Trent Locke should have tried that one.

 
84Boldwin
      ID: 3013265
      Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 19:35
Are the candidates responsible for every one of their supporters? If you or anyone else has any information that Obama believes the same things attributed to Mr. Wright, it would certainly be of great interest. - bibA

Forget Wright's support of Obama, what about Obama's $22,500 contribution to Wright? Obama's wife's comment about 'being proud of America for the first time' make a lot more sense when put in context with her spiritual inspiration.

Twenty years of that kinda talk and I can imagine a person thinking we gotta rise above all this hate.

He didn't get the 'trancending' message from Wright. Unless you want to say that he was struck by the negative space in Wright's artwork.

He tapped into a loooong unexpressed message America was dying to hear. Namely 'America has trancended it's racial problem'. The trancending was already there in the audience for decades waiting to be expressed. MLK won. There really is no racial barrier to Obama becoming president and Ferraro is right. It's even a huge plus that he's everyman, not just another white candidate.

To top it off he's capitolizing on the unspoken illogic that if he can so easily trancend race he must therefore be able to trancend all problems. A tenuous stretch I have to say, but if you hope hard enuff...

Then there is the intriguing trick of accusing anyone who asks him a logical question for such a critical job, of being divisive anytime they dare kick the tires on the hope train. Not many people could pull that trick off or from another angle, the media wouldn't let anyone else pull that one and it remains to be seen how long that romance lasts.
 
85astade
      ID: 241071315
      Fri, Mar 14, 2008, 21:11
Boldwin,

Do you think Obama would be successful president (relative to former presidents)?
How about relative to the current candidates running for the next term?
 
86Wilmer McLean
      ID: 272451414
      Sat, Mar 15, 2008, 02:03
And now, a word from our unsponsors.
-------------------------------------------------

Obama needs the Hispanic vote.

-------------------------------------------------
Back to your regularly scheduled distraction.
 
87Boldwin
      ID: 3013265
      Sat, Mar 15, 2008, 05:35
Astade

Thinking in relative terms...

One of the few tools a president has is the 'fireside chat'. The inspirational quality he's got. If he had principles that succeeded in the real world he could be Reagan. Since he's more of a 'Great Society' LBJ utopian they won't work. Worse he will prolly get the congress that will go along with accelerating the decent into socialism.

In foreign policy he strikes me as having all the realism of Jimmy Carter. We should all remember how well hope worked for Neville Chamberlain. Our enemies will 'love' him and us as they pick our pockets and leave us prostrate in the alley.
 
88Boldwin
      ID: 3013265
      Sat, Mar 15, 2008, 06:05
Party conventions should be stomach turning affairs.

All the conservatives looking up at the stage sayin to themslves 'no one pointed out in time that he intended to freeze us out of the party'.

All the blue collar union people lookin up and telling themselves 'no one pointed out those Wright recordings until it was too late'.

If you don't like hypocracy turn away from those carnivals.
 
89Tree
      ID: 511251614
      Sat, Mar 15, 2008, 10:02
And now, a word from our unsponsors.
-------------------------------------------------

Obama whoever wins the presidency needs the Hispanic vote.

-------------------------------------------------
Back to your regularly scheduled distraction.


WM = fixed that for ya...

in more relevant info, and perhaps i missed this above, but Rev. Wright has been removed from Obama's campaign trail.

he has definitely distanced himself from some of the more controversial things the minister said, and now, he's gone from the campaign all together.

and regarding Baldwin's post #88 -

interesting that the Republican Party person on the stage in question is their true candidate, John McCain, while the Democrat person you're referring to is not only not the candidate, but not even part of Obama's campaign anymore.
 
90Madman
      ID: 14139157
      Sat, Mar 15, 2008, 12:48
Forget Wright's support of Obama, what about Obama's $22,500 contribution to Wright?

Exactly. This question is about why Obama was so attracted to this man, and why he supported him all these years.

I think we all understand the need to build a large political tent, soliciting and accepting support from people of a wide range of ideologies. That's how we will all become one big happy political family. But the standard for accepting support from someone is much lower than the standard for who you choose to support and associate with.

It's also interesting to see Obama defenders simply assert that Obama has set aside the hate and bigotry. This is something that we just don't have good evidence on, unfortunately. The most direct evidence we can gather is from the sort of people that have inspired him and the sort of people who advise him -- people like Wright. You can't just throw out evidence because it doesn't fit the picture of the man you wish him to be.
 
91Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Mar 15, 2008, 12:52
Just so that I know I'm getting straight the problem with Obama's association with Wright --- it's that Obama might be a hateful bigot?
 
92Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Mar 15, 2008, 13:00
Myboyjack
I've got to remember this whole "cherry picking" defense. It's a fun mulligan.

"God damn America"

"Farakhan speaks the truth about the racial ills of America"

"Aids was created by America to kill black people"

"America and Israel imprisoned Mandela"


MBJ I'll give you the benefit of doubt here and assume you're just being really lazy and not deliberately distorting the context of what I wrote. I'm aware that the tendency when you are certain you're right and the other guy is very wrong that you might just kneejerk dismiss whatever the other guys writes without bothering to consider what he's actually saying but please try to refrain from that. In the end it amounts to an insult.
 
93Madman
      ID: 14139157
      Sat, Mar 15, 2008, 23:39
MITH -- There are many problems. First, there is the problem of judgment ... why continue to support such a person for all these years, put them on your advisor list, etc.?

Second, there is now the problem of credibility ... hard to believe that he wasn't aware of Wright's political and personal views prior to now ... Either's he misleading us now, or we now have to wonder what his relationship really with his pastor and chosen spiritual mentor.

Third, what does Obama truly believe? He doesn't have a record to analyze his actions ... instead, we must infer as best we can. Wright and Obama's chosen church reflect a particularly unattractive (to blokes like me) view of race relations, foreign policy, government theories. For example, it is interesting that Obama, in his distancing from Wright cited Wright's work on HIV ... Wright has apparently argued that HIV was started by the US government to keep the black man down. What about Wright's position on HIV does Obama support? He's bringing up more questions than he's answering ... which leads to the fourth and final question: can Obama defend himself and, by extension, will he be able to rhetorically defend us as President (something we all agree we need at the moment)?
 
94Madman
      ID: 14139157
      Sun, Mar 16, 2008, 00:05
WRT to my question 2 ... link "Mr. Obama then told him [Dr. Wright], “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”" -- March 6, 2007. So Obama was aware of something, whether it was the specific statements that have been made public or not, we don't know. Obama's clarification / denunciation is apparently a Clintonian 'parsification'.

It strains credulity. Obama's responses are getting him in deeper and deeper. It's somewhat ironic ... the transcendental politician who was to transcend race can't even deal with the most basic racial overtones of his chosen church. Makes you wonder how he'll transcend everyone else's race issues. For the record, that's question 5.
 
95Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Sun, Mar 16, 2008, 15:24
David Bernstein says what Madman did, sorta:

but when you're left with the choice of either acknowledging that you had sincere close, personal, and political ties with a minister whose views most Americans find beyond the pale, or defending yourself by using the "hey, I'm just a cynical politician who uses religion to get votes just like anything else, and I don't believe in it any more than I really believe that NAFTA is bad" excuse, I think you may be in for some trouble.
 
96Boldwin
      ID: 3013265
      Sun, Mar 16, 2008, 16:23
We can hope he comes up with a more credible answer. We can do it! Yes we can!
 
97Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Mar 16, 2008, 16:30
I love it when The Great Leader works the mentally bendable crowd into a chanting froth of "Yes we can!" almost as if they are calling for Bob The Builder to emerge from backstage.
 
98Madman
      ID: 14139157
      Mon, Mar 17, 2008, 18:26
Obama plans a race speech ... link

I think this is the right move. Until now, he has relied on his biography to transcend race relations. With this speech, he'll have a chance to begin a national discussion on how he can facilitate true reconciliation. How will an Obama administration deal with reverse discrimination civil rights cases? Reparations? Busing? Etc.

With his black credentials fully satisfied, he has wiggle room to blunt the Wright fiasco with white, Asian, and Hispanic America. It will be interesting to see how he'll do it. Furthermore, this may be one of the first glimpses we'll get of how Obama will actually try to follow through on his promises for unity and reconciliation. If we all agree to his policy initiatives and executive approaches and then sing Kumbaya, he'll deserve to be President.
 
99Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 09:09
Re: post 17:
Only Jimmy Carter and certain Liberals in Congress today would purpose such a ludicrous idea.
"Certain liberal" Charles Krauthammer continues to push a gas tax hike:
Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.

Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S. auto fleet, change driving habits and thus hugely reduce U.S. demand - and bring down world crude oil prices - the American consumer and the American economy reap all of the benefit.

Herewith concludes my annual exercise in futility. By the time I advocate the tax floor again next year, you'll be paying for gas in bullion.
 
100Razor
      ID: 4532926
      Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 09:39
Using the government to change the market? Hmmm...

Anyway, that proposal sort of ignores the 800-lbs. gorilla in the room, which is that high gas prices is ruinous for more than just a soccer mom looking for an SUV or a yuppie deciding on whether to move out to the suburbs. There are few sectors of our economy that are not seriously impacted by rising gas costs. We've built our economy and our country on the ability to transport goods and ourselves on gas relatively cheaply, and the price has tripled in the past 5 years. Everything costs more when gas prices are high.
 
101Tree
      ID: 3955367
      Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 10:46
just as an aside, i love seeing Jag's "black & white" subject headers crop up now and then...you must this, without certainty that, and so on.

i wish my world was so simple as to be able to not actually think about things, and instead, just follow the bleat.
 
102Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 10:56
As someone who was recently called "one of the, if not THE, most lopsided poster here" (for pointing out blatent - and still undenied - factual errors in a Coulter column) I admit being a little compelled to butt them whenever I come across an applicable excuse to do so.
 
103Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 13:43
Krauthammer is being an idiot. McCain's not wanting us to drill in AMWAR is shear stupidity also. I agree with much these too guys say, but on some issues they can be as nonsensical as Liberals.

This is not brain surgery guys, drill our asses off, seriously explore alternative energy and mandate MPG for automobliles.
 
104Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 16:00
Jag: Anything other than outright surrender to their socialist viewpoints is not accepted. Notice how people are willing to accept alternative sources and gov't funding for them, but they are vocally against new drilling and exploration.
 
105Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 16:04
Anything other than outright surrender to their socialist viewpoints is not accepted

You're calling Charles Krauthammer a socialist?
 
106Boxman
      ID: 337352111
      Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 16:43
No, are you?
 
107Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 18:23
Of course not. But I see no other logical explanation for who you could be referring to as "they" in your post 104.
 
108Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 18:44
Krauthammer believes this is the only way America will wean itself off oil and on that point he may be right. It would be much better, economically, if America could use self-discipline, but we are a country that quickly forgets.
 
109Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 19:00
I just heard today that the USA could produce 20x the power it consumes today just with hydrothermal power. I'd say bring on the tax credits and lets get promoting that but we already are afaik.
 
110Mattinglyinthehall
      Dude
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 19:11
#108: he may be right.

Ah - so maybe Krauthammer isn't "being an idiot?"
 
111Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Fri, Jun 06, 2008, 23:56
Krauthammer is one of my favorite commentators and I hope he is wrong. I can't believe we have to do something so damaging to our economy because we can't trust our lawmakers to do the right thing.
 
112Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 13:25
OK, so just to be clear, Krauthammer might not be an idiot for saying the same thing that you called liberals stupid for saying back in March. Of course you hope that none of this is necessary, that Americans are capable of doing what liberals have been saying we should to do for decades, even as the right was calling them stupid.

I think I got it.
 
113Jag
      ID: 28457122
      Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 15:47
I reread his article and I will stand by my original comment that it is stupid, but no where near the insanity of the carbon tax bill congress proposed and the fact McCain would support this POS bill literally makes me ill.
 
114Boldwin
      ID: 58452178
      Sat, Jun 07, 2008, 17:42
Krauthammer is like the king of the neocons and he would loooove to kill off the Reagan legacy and steer the R party to Trotskyite version of socialism. Smart as a whip but just headed in the wrong direction.