I have to say Obama proved me wrong today. I said before that I thought he would never really try to confront the Wright issue seriously, because he is trapped in the logic (imparted by Wright and others) of masculine Black Nationalism, which demands that you never acknowledge criticism as legitimate, but rather dismiss it as racism, ignorance and "disrespect". And you never, ever back down in front of the white people.

Wright gave a perfect demonstration of that attitude, both at the NAACP and the Press Club fiasco. Today Obama, awkwardly and painfully, started to saw the gangrenous limb off.

So I give Obama a thumbs up for the day, not for excellence but for improvement. I would give him one for excellence if he would say, "Wright is not just my problem. The lies and the conspiracy theories that he espouses are poisoning the Black community, and poisoning the Christianity that lies at the heart of the Black community. It wipes away all of his claims to community service and values. You will never be truly free men and women so long as you follow him."

What John Cole says

Lots of more important things to be outraged over. And at the same time, clearly, Wright is being an a-hole.

I too am "disappointed" in the way that I’m disappointed about the spate of EF 3/4 tornadoes that recently hit my residence state of Virginia. Shame on you, mother nature! And please give us a break!

I can no more disown my state's weather than I can disown my own grandmother. (She still refers to "that nice colored boy" who ran errands for her back in the 1940's; does that qualify or disqualify me for making sweeping speeches about race? I lost track.)

Lots of more important things to be outraged over.

Not to people who claim to care about the Black community, and the community of the entire nation. The economy is mere weather compared to that.

Again, I think Obama is coming to that realization, by fits and starts. He garnered a lot of phony kudos for his "racial dialogue" speech, which was dishwater, but he's now getting more serious. He's not playing the brush-off game that his supporters are trying to play.

Maybe this man of vision (according to the advertising, anyway) will come to the realization that he really can make a unique difference at this point in history. He can drive a stake right into the heart of the monster that has taken over black politics since the death of MLK, and set his flag against the Black Panthers, the Farrakhaners, the racist preachers, the supremacists, the elitist hypocrites, and the purveyors of conspiracy sewage.

He could say, "Whether I win or lose, you have to choose between my way and theirs. You have to reach out, too."

He could strike the greatest blow for the Black community and for racial reconciliation of any living black leader, and lose his elitist stigma at the same time. A long shot no doubt, but I think it could be within the realm of possibility.

Maybe he could say something like "Yes, we can." Feel free to use that.

At any rate, whatever the limits of John Cole's attention, the country is capable of thinking about many, many things at once - which is good, because so many interesting things are going on.

Huge swathes of White America who live in areas with essentially non-existant Black populations, who's entire knowledge of racial affairs comes off the TV (Midwest, Mountain, Northwest), just watched Reverend Wright get a standing ovation by thousands at an official NAACP event.

Not good doesn't even begin to cover this.

It'll be easy for people to forget they saw the truth.

"Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened."
- Winston Churchill

Glen (#4) is on to something. If Obama courageously stood up and drew that line, I might place that higher than my preferences WRT to the war and the economy and everything. That truly would be something that could draw me in. The American burden of race is that important. If there was ever a recipe that would put me in Obama's camp, that would be it.

Alas, that is not what we've been getting. He's talked a good game about "transcending race" but he and Mrs. Obama stand foursquare with the usual divisiveness of the past.

I can be proved wrong. All he has to do is draw Glen's line or just show us specific policies that an Obama administration will pursue that breaks with the racial politics of past and TRULY transcends the old politics of race. The current Obama plan of pretty rhetoric with the same old racialist politics is a non starter.

My feeling about this affair at this point has evolved.

What I am seeing now is that Obama will win the primary, the public will in the end decisively reject the Rightwing argument that this is the Most Important Issue of the day, and the Republicans will end up looking like exactly what the public has come to know them as: the party whose sole purpose is to manufacture fear and distraction while they rape and pillage America.

Quite a campaign strategy in this day and age when most people can palpably see that the world does not look to them like what the Republicans say it does. Or should.

#7 from lurker said:

He's talked a good game about "transcending race" but he and Mrs. Obama stand foursquare with the usual divisiveness of the past.

Transcending race was the dream was it not? Bill Cosby and Alvin Poussaint are on the right track. But they are not 'black' enough or something. Maybe, just maybe, the Obamessiah will get a taste of what this kind of rhetoric can do. It can wreck your life and aspirations, as he may be finding out. As we who are not a protected class can find out in a heartbeat should we stray off of the multi-culti reservation made for us.

This kind of crud from the Left is what drove me out of the Democrat party. My ideas and ideals have not changed so much as the narrative has changed over the years to be less and less inclusive. And more exclusive. Stray from the accepted demagoguery and you are ostracized.

#8 from Sepp said:

...the Republicans will end up looking like exactly what the public has come to know them as: the party whose sole purpose is to manufacture fear and distraction while they rape and pillage America.

Oh, okay, you found out the REAL motives of the VRWC. 'cept we REALLY, REALLY want to rape and pillage you for real. REALLY! Be frightened, very frightened!

Bwah-ha-ha!

/snark off

and the Republicans will end up looking like exactly what the public has come to know them as: the party whose sole purpose is to manufacture fear and distraction while they rape and pillage America.

Is the irony intentional? Are you sincerely asserting that roughly 1/2 of your fellow citizens want to rape and pillage the other half in the same sentence that you decry fear-mongering?

No. Sepp is saying it's the party's purpose. The hoi polloi R voters are just clueless zombies. I think Sepp would say it's the insiders in the media - industrial - military - construction complex that are doing all the raping and pillaging.

Or something of the sort.

Sepp is also decrying fear-mongering while using an anonymizer service, which I find amusing. If it ever comes time to play whack-a-mole, Sepp wants to be hard to whack. Which is funny, since presuming that anonymizer exit nodes haven't been compromised is... perhaps just a trifle... naïve?

It's only fear-mongering if the predictions do not conform to reality.

Of course there is much to show for Republican's efforts over the past 8 years along these lines but little if any evidence supporting the claims they are making about terrorism, democrats, Obama the racist, or any other damn fear card they play.

So, from your view, it is ironic. Says a lot about your view I think.

There are, you know, some things that we should rationally and reasonably come to fear. Pointing that out is not fear-mongering.

Well Sepp, I can point to a mass grave in Manhattan (it's disguised as a vacant lot) to support the notion that Islamic terrorists represent a danger to the the US. 3000 people died one pleasant September morning. That seems like evidence to me. I'll also remind you that the previous decade saw another bombing of the World Trade Center, 2 US embassys getting bombed, the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole, and the failed Millennium Bombing plot. I might even go so far as to say that recognizing these facts is rational and reasonable.

Care to point out any Republican raping and pillaging?

Oh wait...were you being figurative? Did you choose to use highly loaded, emotional terms intended to incite fear over what's effectively a policy difference?

It's certainly your right to do so. That sort of emotional rhetoric can certainly help in stirring people up.

But in choosing to do so, you do forfeit the right to decry fear-mongering. Or you choose to be a hypocrite. I guess you've made your choice.

And that says a lot about you I think.

Care to point out any Republican raping and pillaging?

Sure, SG; pretty much everything that has happened since that "pleasant September morning".

Raping:

-The political process by stealing elections
-The media over the public's own airwaves
-FISA/PATRIOT ACT, Domestic spying on US citizens
-The constitution by asserting presidential power over congress (representing the people)
-The environment by allowing the Dept. of Interior to be taken over by industrialists with an interest in commercially developing public land for private profit.
-The destruction of the FDA and protection it provides to consumers
-The cuts in funding for CDC and protection it provides to citizens
-The cuts in funding to the NIH, crippling research towards human health and technological innovation
-(And of course there are probably real cases of rape involving republicans in Congress...(homosexual and underage included). E.G., Mark Foley.)

Pillaging:

-Iraq profiteering & lies about cost to public, no oversight of tax dollars being spent.
-Oil profits and gas prices
-Katrina response (let the poor blacks fend for themselves)
-Wall street bonuses vs.stock market performance
-CEO pay vs. worker pay
-Reduced taxes for the wealthiest americans
-Bankruptcy laws favoring creditors
-Supreme court ruling in favor of corporations rights and against individual rights.
-Budget surplus to huge budget deficit, saddling future generations with debt
-Credit crises from deregulation of banking industry/bailout of banks but not borrowers.
-Rich are getting much richer, poor poorer
-Health care profiteering by HMOs vs. 45 million uninsured Americans.

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things.

Sepp, that's a nonsensical list. That might fly on DU or Kos, but evidence-free charges like that just mark you as rhetorically challenged.

Care to try again with an argument on one or two of those?

A.L.

It's supposed to be nonsensical. It's a standard, distract from internal problems by haranguing the evil enemies of the revolution play.

Also known as the 'look, elephants' ploy.

Maybe before you engage in glorious battle with the enemies of all that is good and pure Sepp, you might want to wander over to say, Talkleft, and deal with the internal traitors to the great leader? The revolution must be pure before it can expect to engage the enemy, right?

On topic, now that Obama has thrown Wright under the bus, the press is now busy 'discovering' all kinds of Black ministers horrified by Wright's theology.

If Obama is half as savvy as claimed, he'll get out in front of these guys and provide a rally point for the sane to group around. With any luck, he can be so busy reconciling, and uniting, and other vague verbings that he'll never have to get around to answering how it took him 20 years to figure out what Wright stood for.

I'm sure I'm forgetting a few things.

Yup, I think your meds are at the top of the list.

Jesus, don't you have any sense of perspective? Wall Street bonuses are pillaging? Differing budget priorities are rape? There's lots of room for reasonable people (which clearly leaves you out) to disagree on tax policy and funding priorities without requiring anyone to be sailing under the Jolly Roger.

Policies you disagree with, even if they are bad policies, are not "rape and pillage". Look to the former Yugoslavia if you want to see rape and pillage.

Face it. You're a fear-mongerer and a hypocrite. You are the reason George Bush won a second term. I resent the fact that I keep getting pushed into voting for Republicans just to cancel your vote. It pisses me off.

Sure Republicans pull some of this crap too, but at least the people they demonize have actually, you know, killed Americans. You demonize your fellow citizens because of their logging policy.

If you want to win more elections, you might want to try not calling half of your fellow citizens evil. It doesn't persuade.

My feeling about this affair at this point has evolved.

By "evolved" you must mean "become more rigidly doctrinaire, and irrational." Although frankly, I can't detect any movement at all on your part. When haven't you believed the stuff that follows that phrase?

It is conceivable that Obama could make a break from Wright alone, but that's not the only evidence of his acceptance of radical doctrine (although it is the most convincing). And he runs the risk that at some point people are just going to stop listening, and extending the benefit of doubt. A recent poll (Rasmussen, I think, but I'm not sure) showed that something like 70% of the public thinks the Wright controversy has hurt him. I can't imagine what the other 30% think, but perhaps they've been sitting in a hot tub for the last few weeks.

not the only evidence of his acceptance of radical doctrine

Ah, but that's why a very public break with Wright will do him so much good, particularly if he can surround himself with a cadre of like-minded Black ministers.

It'll be so big and loud that he can hide any number of annoying radical connections in the shadow behind it.

Anyone can google these issues and find a wealth of support all over the place.

Here's a quick example:

Bush and EPA

Bush and CDC

and

and

Sepp, please stop with the linkspam. We're all busy people here, not just you -- believe it or not.

Prior to this point, you've contributed something approaching substance, however contentious. Four links and no text is not the kind of post we want to foster here.

If I had a real email address for you, I could discuss the matter off line. Absent such, I'm left with public admonishments of this sort, which I regret.

For the record, Sepp's #22 post (which I have retained here) had a small formatting problem, which I endeavored to correct. There followed in quick succession three additional posts all apparently similar or identical to each other, with no additional original content. If I somehow erred in deleting them, I regret the error.

WoC's lack of preview and other interface limitations make it likely that the re-re-reposting was accidental. However, my admonishment regarding Post #22 stands.

Bush FDA

Bush Iraq profiteering

#23 I was asked to provide evidence.

Whatever one thinks of how Obama's choice of pastor should bear on his qualifications for the Presidency, it's hard to feel anything but pity for the junior Senator from Illinois after watching Wright's disgustingly narcissistic display over the last few days. Obama has compared his pastor to a crazy uncle, but I suspect - based on how he's talked about his minister, how he's written about him, and how people tend to think about their spiritual mentors - that if he were being completely honest, he'd describe Wright as closer to a father-figure instead. And now, as if being abandoned by his biological dad wasn't bad enough, he's lugging a quintessential Bad Father through his Presidential campaign - a pure creep straight out of an Augusten Burroughs memoir, who's happy to sabotage a younger, finer man who might just be the first black President of the United States in the hopes of feeding his own ego and becoming ... what? The next Al Sharpton? The next Willie Horton? How vile and pathetic.

Incidentally, my rabbi's political beliefs are way to my left, but I like the services.

Sepp: And I am now asking you to stop producing posts which contain essentially only links, for the time being. Please comply. Thanks.

Sepp, which part of 'argument' aren't you getting?

A.L.

Look, you guys don't want to read the links, fine with me. I was asked in #14 to "point out" examples of Republican raping and pillaging.

I did that in #15.

Armed L. then asks me to "make an argument".

I don't have time for that. Look at the list. Where am I supposed to begin? Do you really want to go down it? Then one get's accused of threadjacking.

You were all around I imagine over the past 8 years, like I was, no?

And that's not what I was responding to. Read #14 again. You can see that this person was posing a question, answering it himself, and then moving right along to his conclusion before considering any evidence.

This is his contribution:

Face it. You're a fear-mongerer and a hypocrite. You are the reason George Bush won a second term. I resent the fact that I keep getting pushed into voting for Republicans just to cancel your vote. It pisses me off.

Is this an argument? Hardly...if anything, it's the most pathetic thing I think I've read here yet.

Sure Republicans pull some of this crap too, but at least the people they demonize have actually, you know, killed Americans. You demonize your fellow citizens because of their logging policy.

Obama has killed Americans? John Kerry killed Americans? Reverend Wright? I did not know that.

If you want to win more elections, you might want to try not calling half of your fellow citizens evil. It doesn't persuade.

Good advice for Republicans.

Funny, I don't recall anyone here calling Obama, Kerry, or Wright "evil". There were some slights on their intelligence, I suppose; at worst I think Wright got called a racist, which I realize is The Big Taboo curse word on the left, but given his statements I think the tag is unavoidable.

Otherwise, Sepp, you need to re-examine your definitions of demonize, rape, pillage, and argument. Or at least realize that SG was referring to terrorists as the people Republicans demonize, and adjust your misinformed responses accordingly.

Look, you guys don't want to read the links, fine with me...

I'm afraid it's not all about you, Sepp.

Armed L. then asks me to "make an argument".

I don't have time for that.

Then consider the strong possibility that you don't have time for here.

Tossing out a bunch of links is not considered substantive in this context. As I wrote upthread, lots of people here are busy, not just you. You don't get some sort of Golden Ticket just because you feel put upon.

If you can't be bothered to post something more nearly resembling original content, then maybe we're just not worth you valuable time. It's a big Internet.

[ Duplicate deleted. -- M.F. ]

Otherwise, Sepp, you need to re-examine your definitions of demonize, rape, pillage, and argument.

Do I really need to explain that some of these terms might be a slight exaggeration?

No arguments against my points here, I'll note. This thread has descended into another great example of your typical idiotic pile-on from people who refuse to confront the havoc they've helped wreak on this country.

Sorry for being so rude to point this out. My bad. I should know better than to think that most people are mature enough to handle bad news.

No arguments against my points here, I'll note.

This is primarily because you haven't made any points.

You've ranted extensively (among other things, accusing Republicans of raping and pillaging -- and fearmongering!), blindly linked some articles (none of which say anything that support your rants), declined to make a real argument when offered the opportunity (by both A.L. and N.M.) because you "don't have time", posted a few more name-calling rants (plenty of time for those, apparently), and then declared victory.

You're a liberal parody, Sepp, whether intentional or not.

Yeah, Sepp, you aren't nearly entitled to the self-righteousness that's on display here. I'll offer you one more chance to step up and make an argument that supports any one of your claims, and suggest that you step away from the keyboard if you can't do that.

A.L.

This is primarily because you haven't made any points.

See #15. You may disagree with what I have to say, but please don't try to make it sound like I haven't tried. Your dismissive attitude only serves to underscore my point that no one wants to confront these issues.

You're a liberal parody, Sepp, whether intentional or not.

And the nature of the response to my posts here illustrates the same point from the Right.

make an argument that supports any one of your claims

One of my claims:

-Iraq profiteering & lies about cost to public, no oversight of tax dollars being spent.

OK, here we go.

Evidence (no link; find it yourself):

One:

“Iraq has oil,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Fortune magazine in 2002, discussing the potential cost of an Iraq invasion and how it would be met. “They have financial resources.”

Paul Wolfowitz, formerly Rumsfeld’s deputy, was bolder: “The oil revenues of that country could bring in between $50 (billion) and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years,” he told Congress as the war began. “We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction.”

Two:

Bush wars to cost 40 times higher than original estimates; $8,000 per man, woman child in US...the Bush administration's initial estimates that the war would cost between $50 billion and $60 billion;

Three:

Audit Finds U.S. Hid Actual Cost of Iraq Projects: The State Department agency in charge of $1.4 billion in reconstruction money in Iraq used an accounting shell game to hide ballooning cost overruns on its projects there and knowingly withheld information on schedule delays from Congress, a federal audit released late Friday has found.

Four:

Today, the US Army Corps of Engineers announced a suspension of Halliburton's no-bid contract for oil services in Iraq. Halliburton has been charging the American people more than double the cost of transporting fuel into Iraq. Not only have energy experts said that Halliburton's prices amount to "highway robbery," but the Director of the Defense Energy Support Center, an office within the Pentagon, said that Halliburton looked as if it was charging "excessively high" prices to the American people. Reports released yesterday suggest that the Defense Energy Support Center can transport fuel into Iraq for less than half the amount that Halliburton has charged the American people.

Five:

House Republicans stripped the Iraqi supplemental bill of a provision that would hold corporations, such as Halliburton, accountable for war profiteering.

Do I really need to explain that some of these terms might be a slight exaggeration?

Do we really need to explain that no intelligent person finds such lunatic hyperbole convincing?

#38

You mean like calling environmentalism Green Fascism?

Speaking from experience I see.

Do I really need to explain that some of these terms might be a slight exaggeration?

Exactly. That was my primary point. Thank you for agreeing with me.

My secondary point was that, having chosen to exaggerate for emotional effect, you have no grounds on which to decry your political opponents on their fear-mongering. You're doing the exact same thing.

My tertiary point was fear-mongering over people who have committed the worst single act of violence on American soil is a whole lot easier to understand than fear-mongering over federal budget priorities and marginal tax rates. The former is scary, the latter is just politics. Those debates are expected to occur. Those debates need to occur. One side will win and another side will lose and we all go to work the next day. When you fear-monger over the latter and dismiss the former, it calls into question all of your ideas. If you're that irrational - you really believe bankruptcy law changes are scarier and worse than 9/11 - you're insane. I don't want to support anyone who you see as "on your side" because you make your side sound bat-shit crazy.

There's plenty of room to stake out rational, well-grounded opposition to what Republican governance has created. There's simply no need for irrational opposition. It's not good for the country, and frankly it's just not good politics. I strongly believe only reason the GWB won re-election in 2004 is because of the nature of the opposition. I think a lot of people held their noses when they voted for him in 2004. I know I did.

Sepp, that article you linked to in #39 is about eugenics wrapped in environmentalist justification. Perhaps you feel eugenics and population control is a legitimate branch of environmental science. Or maybe your objection is that people who decry eugenics are "fear mongering". Either way I think this offers sufficient evidence that you are, in fact, an imbecile, and I'll toss in my vote for summarily banning you from this site. (Not that said vote matters for much as I'm just a cranky commenter here, but I'm done pretending you have anything of substance to offer.)

My secondary point was that, having chosen to exaggerate for emotional effect, you have no grounds on which to decry your political opponents on their fear-mongering. You're doing the exact same thing.

Apples to oranges. One does not negate the other, even if it were a valid comparison.

There's plenty of room to stake out rational, well-grounded opposition to what Republican governance has created. There's simply no need for irrational opposition.

Why do I get the feeling that the notion of "rational opposition" that is held here is quite different than elsewhere? Please be aware of the fact that in most places in America, not just at "Kos or the DU", my comments are not irrational or even exaggerated, apart from the simple descriptive terms I applied to them purposefully to convey a point (not about the specific nature of the charges but rather of my own PERSONAL reaction to them. This is a typical rhetorical device, but honestly it is unsurprising that the discussion has descended into an argument over semantics).

Once again, my overriding impression is of a group of people who simply cannot or will not come to terms with their past actions.

I strongly believe only reason the GWB won re-election in 2004 is because of the nature of the opposition.

A wild and impossible to substantiate charge that serves no other purpose than to support your current argument, weak as it is. I have seen absolutely no evidence that this motivation has played anything but the most minor role among a minority of voters, or that a similar view from the opposition did not negate or even supercede it. For example, I did not like Kerry very much either, but Bush, as well has his angry paranoid self-righteous supporters made damn sure I got out there and not only vote for Kerry but give wads of money to his campaign.

So, dumb point really.

Sepp --

In 2000, about half of your fellow citizens who went to the polls checked the box for the candidate you thought was plainly inferior.

In 2004, about half of voters did it again.

And there's every likelihood that the same thing will recur this November.

This would hold true even if your own preference changed!

Most other commenters on this thread don't seem to have a big problem with this dynamic. They aren't handing out black hats and white hats.

Is there any way to direct the discussion that would lead you to consider a more constructive view of closely-contested elections?