Obama wants me to believe that a candidate who: (1) was utterly supine and silent for 20 years in his own church as racial hate was propagated by the pastor; (2) who refuses to condemn a prominent supporter and fundraiser for whom bombing American sites is still seen as a good thing, and (3) who has said not a single word on the campaign trail as his party heavyweights removed post-Abramoff earmark reforms... is a candidate who will stand up to Washington interests and change the way business is done. While helping get America past its racial issues, and healing its political divides. That a candidate talking up charter schools as part of the solution, who has received positive ratings from teachers unions for blocking them, is to be taken at face value.
50 bucks for that whole bridge, you say?
Clearly, I can't believe Obama's stated positions. Especially when he also lacks a longer record of public policy positions taken and defended, preferably against the odds and/or against his party, as is true for Sen. McCain. Which is why we seem to return so often to the secondary question, and ask what Obama really believes. Not as an incidental issue, but as a key issue. This brings us to Caroline Glick's point. In February 2007, at UCLA, Michele Obama reportedly said, of her husband:
"Because Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that. That before we can work on the problems we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.... Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
The whole cult of personality thing around Obama has always been pretty creepy, and this sort of thing definitely elevates the creep level a notch or three. Partial transcript here. Glick responds:
"At base, Mrs. Obama's statement is nothing less than a renunciation of democracy and an embrace of fascism. The basic idea of liberty is that people have a natural right to live their lives as usual and to be uninvolved and uninformed. And they certainly have a right to expect that their government will butt out of their souls."
All true. It would actually have been possible to deliver a very similar speech, without crossing the lines she crossed. It's one thing to demand much of your followers, to call people to service, or to promote a sense of common cause. You may agree or disagree with the specifics, but the general thrust is healthy. Words like "fix our souls" and "never allow you," on the other hand, bespeak a very different and dangerous mentality.
Theocratic ayatollahs of whatever religion have a terrible record when they try to govern - but it's still miles better than the hundred plus million skulls in the last century alone from governments who promised to save souls. People who promise that from politics are at best dangerous narcissists, at second best simply crazy, and at worst actively evil. Back to Glen Wishard, on politicism:
"The rise and fall of the Marxist ideal is rather neatly contained in the Twentieth Century, and comprises its central political phenomenon. Fascism and democratic defeatism are its sun-dogs. The common theme is politics as a theology of salvation, with a heroic transformation of the human condition (nothing less) promised to those who will agitate for it. Political activity becomes the highest human vocation. The various socialisms are only the most prominent manifestation of this delusion, which our future historian calls "politicism". In all its forms, it defines human beings as exclusively political animals, based on characteristics which are largely or entirely beyond human control: ethnicity, nationality, gender, and social class. It claims universal relevance, and so divides the entire human race into heroes and enemies."
Sure sounds like many of the Obama-bots to me.
Beyond that issue, you have a right to try and persuade people of anything - and they have a right not to give a damn. This is not how the politicist Mussolinis and Marxists of the world approach the question, of course. For them, there is no space for those who refuse to be part of their political schemes, on the way to a united volk/proletariat that redeems its soul through politics.
This is still the core mindset of much of the left, and is shared by many of Obama's supporters who consider axioms like "the personal is political" to be truisms. Instead of fascisms that do not, and will not, allow any private space to exist outside their ideology.
"Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
Excuse f--ing me? The way I live my life is none of his damn business. The fact that this is the sort of idea that gets his wife excited... I think my creep-o-meter just redlined.
Armed Liberal talks about the radical people and mentalities he personally hung out with, and proposes "let's give a speech and get beyond that." It's a wholly inadequate response, given the lack of a meaningful record from the candidate that would establish contrary bona fides, and the continuing pile of associations that contradict everything this candidate claims to stand for as the prima facie basis of his candidacy.
Belief is a verb, not a noun. Actions speak loudly. So do inactions.
When you look at Obama's ongoing associations with the idiotarian hate-America crowd, and his refusal to condemn any of it in public, even when that condemnation would have been the easy thing as well as the moral thing, a logical question arises.
Did Obama ever really leave those beliefs behind... or did he just learn how to change the subject in public, say one thing and do another, and all the rest of the standard political cheats?
The primary question in my head about Obama is beginning to move beyond "Is this guy a lightwight?" to a simpler one: "Is this guy simply a walking lie, in a deep way and on multiple levels?"
I agree Joe Katzman.
I assume you've seen Dana Milbank At the WaPo
who goes over the failure of the Obama camp to disown Wright.
It's all there. Disastrous. Even worse than Michelle Obama. Recall this is a man who Obama in his own words could no more disown than the Black Community or his own racist granny. Wright claims he speaks for Black America. He might be right at that.
It's the perfect descent into tribalism. A speech won't undo it. Blacks stood up and applauded (at the NAACP dinner and the Press Club briefing) the love of Louis Farrakhan, the hatred of Jews (Zionism = Racism), the endorsement of Cone (Black = good, Whites = evil). The demands for endless white apologies and monies to blacks. The belief that the US created AIDS to kill Blacks. That America had 9/11 coming. God Damn America again.
The net of this is as VDH has said, a descent into tribalism. I do not believe that whites will join the KKK or David Duke, but I also think that bloc voting by Blacks after Wright shows how Blacks really think and speak, will result in bloc voting by whites. America probably was ready for a Black President. But after this, it will be several generations. Wright has said he speaks for all blacks. None have come out and said no, shouted him down. Thus the attitudes above are imputed to most/all Blacks.
Marxist politics or politicism is merely another outgrowth of tribalism dealing with the challenges and atomizing effects of modernity. It is profoundly illiberal because it does replace robust, integrationist and assimilationist nationalism with ... well raw tribalism.
Wright and Ayers and Michelle Obama all show signs of classic over-reaching in the face of fetishized weakness and surrender in the West, among Liberals. [I would count Bush as a Liberal in this case. Fear of being thought badly outweighs everything else.]
I caught Wright's NAACP speech last night, in which our hero undertakes to reform American education based on an amateurish theory of "Blacks are left-brained, whites are right-brained."
Near the end, with a big smirk on his face, he cited with approval The Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire, a Marxist text that I read years ago in college. ("Marxist" as in a prescription to re-organize education based on 19th Century Marxist class analysis, and explicitly self-described as such.)
The chutzpah of this guy is just unbelievable. His mantra is that nobody understands what he's talking about because nobody has read the same books he has. It amuses him to stand in front of the world and endorse Obama on the one hand and Marxism on the other (and the Nation of Islam on the other other) because he thinks his critics are too stupid to know what he's saying. Boy, does he have us fooled.
And this is the clown that has Obama fooled. Or does he? Did Obama just use this guy to give himself an early push? For his sake I can only hope so - strangely, the best thing Obama could do at this point to improve my opinion of him is to display some really vicious Machiavellian cunning.
Yes, I think Wright is a perfect example of a politicist - a very eclectic one, who drags in every available element. (A purist like Lenin would have hated him.) He perfectly conflates "Liberation Theology" and "Black Theology", for example. And he doesn't recognize any difference between the Bible, the Koran, Farrakhan's warped interpretation of the Koran, and Das Kapital.
Obama like Wright believe in the Black Liberation movement. Surely Obama would govern from that point of view.
I think that Obama had to go to church with his wife; that was her decision, and the consequences of not going along would be pretty tough on a guy.
Steve Sailer has been predicting Wright's blowup for a couple of months. Today--
Unlucky for Bill Moyers that this should all transpire within days of his taxpayer-funded whitewash blackwash of Wright. But then, being extreme-left means never having to say you're sorry.
"America probably was ready for a Black President. But after this, it will be several generations."
Jim, I disagree. I think that America is big enough to realize that the Obama debacle reflects on Barack Obama, and him alone. We reject him not because he represents a tribe, but because we reject his tribalism.
Yes, there's an ugly, hateful side to the black community. Just as there is to the white, as well I know (being an "average white person" myself). That's humanity. We're not very likeable, many of us, much of the time.
If Colin Powell or Condi Rice were candidates, they'd be considered as the intelligent, accomplished individuals they are, not as members of a tribe. Of course, their minds and judgement are tempered by their experiences - Powell's growing up as the son of immigrants from the Caribbean, Rice as a girl in the Deep South during the civil rights struggles of the 1960s - just as we all bring to our judgement our experience of life and the lessons it has taught us. But they would see their experience as bring a special dimension to the experience and creed and ideals that are common to all Americans. They see our commonality: and it is both broad and deep!
That is why Wright, and Obama, to me sound not just tribal, but parochial and narrow-minded. Obama at first was appealing because he spoke to this commonality, and he still appeals to many people whose hope has not yet been overtaken by reality. But a person of color - a Rice, say, or a Bobby Jindal - who could walk the walk as well as talk the talk: America is ready, more than ready, for him or her!
Terrific....some jiveass affirmative action colored girl who has a no show job making $300k a year as a 'diversity outreach coordinator' solely because she is married to a US Senator is campaigning to become 'First Negress' and deigns to try and tell me how her husband is going to make me live my life once he is elected....telling me in effect 'when the revolution comes you WILL eat your Brussels sprouts and you WILL like them'...I don't know which is the more nauseating...her arrogance or her ignorance...note to self: buy more ammo at WalMart this weekend.
[ The quaint terminology you use really isn't. Which is not the point: it's that final line. Ambiguous enough that maybe you're not meaning the menacing undertone I'm reading. Check our policy, Robbins: no threats, explict or otherwise. Comment constructively or clam up. -- M.F. 4/29 06:46 ]
DaveC, I think you are correct, which he is why he is in even more of a pickle. He might be able to disown Wright, but he can't very well disown his wife. If he went along with his wife all these years but didn't believe in the theology much, what a wimp!
This shouldn't be a surprise. His dodge and weave on the 2nd amendment shows that. As much as the guy talks about ideas, he's awful tough to pin down on any. Thats a red flag.
As far as Wright goes... come on now. Obama's defense has been that he is a preacher, not a poltician. Every time Wright opens his mouth that line becomes harder to swallow. Wright isnt a preacher or a politician, he's a professional provacateur. And Obama has sat in the pews all along.
The only real question is- is he a puppet that will do and say anything for power like Bill, or a true believer that will do and say anything for power like Hillary.
There's a bigger problem here than Obama's personal embarrassment.
Wright stands in front the National Press Corps - with Farrakhan's "Fruit of Islam" goons arrayed behind him - and claims that an attack on him is an attack on "the Black Church in America."
That's a damn lie, but nobody dares contradict him. Nobody elected Wright as the representative of Black churches, but Obama explicitly accepts the equation. "I can no more turn my back on Wright than I can turn my back on the Black Community," etc.
And so far as Obama knows, all churches are like his. In his "brilliant" speech on race relations, he revealed that he's pretty sure everybody's priest and rabbi says objectionable things like Wright does - the most witless and out-of-touch thing I've heard any major politician say in recent memory.
Jesus wept.
Can we do anything about response #7. I'm no fan of Obama...but that looks like a threat.
Uhh. No, it's not.
Brown Line #6:
The problem is that they wouldn't get the black vote. Shelby Steele doesn't think we're ready yet to nominate and elect a black man (or woman) who is just himself. Say even someone with moderately left credentials like Harold Ford. A black man (or woman) running in this time is weighed down more by their need to wear a mask, so as not to give the lie to the identity of victimhood, than they are by any reluctance of whites to vote for a black man. In 1994 over 90% of Americans indicated in the National Election Survey that they'd be willing to vote for a black president, so we passed that threshold long ago. What we haven't put behind us is the kabuki dance of injury.
Rich,
I hope #7 is just going out target shooting this weekend. Otherwise, that was a strange rant. I thought I heard alarm bells, too.
The best move Hillary has made since the campaign began- she and her allies have kept their mouths shut during the last couple of days. I wonder if she is trying to figure out how to get the black vote in the general.
Robbins (#7) - just because your political opponents sound like jerks doesn't give you a pass to join them. There was enough jerk in that little rant to stock a mid-size Jamaican restaurant (which reminds me of one of the things I miss about Canada... mmmmm....).
Michelle Obama is a very capable woman, and I don't doubt that she has earned her own way on the merits. Which doesn't change the fact that the appears to have a strong extreme-left bent, with all that implies.
Jim (#1), I don't buy the bit about setting things back for years. If a guy like Colin Powell ran right now, he'd have good odds to win a general election (primaries, might be tricky...). Condi Rice, not a chance in either. But that has to do with people and circumstances. Becoming President is not easy, to put it mildly.
I agree that Obama may end up making it a bit more difficult for the next guy, but only to the extent that the next guy may have to demonstrate "I am not Obama" before moving cleanly into the political arena.
Demosophist (#13) puts it well when he talks about Shelby Steele's point re: electing a black candidate who is just himself. To paraphrase Bill Cosby's point re: intoxicants however, which "intensify your personality"... "what if you're an a***h***?"
And the answer is, you still might get to be President - many have - but you have to be the right kind of a***h***, at the right time.
#7 is not making a threat against anyone, Rich H. Taken in the context of this commentary and its responses, Robbins is expressing fear of the ugly racism brought to light by Obama, Wright, and their Black Separatist defenders.
As for Obama's candidacy, I expect it will be over soon. The man is an intellectual lightweight with an even lighter resume. You are who you identify and associate with. It is an old truth, and it applies to Barack.
I would vote for a candidate of any race; as long as that candidate was qualified, a good leader, and one whose actions consistently supported the Conservative values I hold dear.
The only racists here are the race-baiting leaders of the Black Community. It is ironic how ugly their thinking and words are, and how no one calls them on it. As if it is acceptable and even expected of Blacks...
Gad, who'd have predicted that America's first serious black presidential candidate would be so extraordinarily unfit by every standard: Without entrepreneurial talent, executive experience, any remotest awareness of economic, geopolitical (or any other) reality?
By lengthy and repeated admission, the Obama is a vile anti-Semite, bigoted Black Supremacist, rancid elitist snob. Ideas mean nothing to this wretched poseur; words (as Deval Patrick trumpets) are tools of Humpty Dumpty; "rights" mean something-for-nothing, take-take-take at all demonized (melanin-challenged) groups' expense.
After fifty years of hate-America attitudinizing, megalomania driving totalitarian agendas via Narcissistic Personality Disorder, we'd better hope that a classic dialectical-materialist reaction will not engender a countervailing mass movement of its own.
Years back, a movie called "War Games" explored the consequences of Left-like automated duckspeak in a Global Thermonuclear context. The rogue computer commented at the end, "A strange game, Professor. The only way to win is not to play."
"Can't anybody here play this game?" [Casey Stengel, 1968]. If you're a black-racist follower of Cone, Farrakhan, Obama's Putrid Pastor-- no, you can't.
M.F:
You have completely misconstrued the meaning of the last line of my above post...it was meant to convey that I will not be dictated to by a couple of jumped up crypto-Marxists who evidently assume that if they win control of the government, they will somehow gain the prerogative to dictate my personal choices....or if they attempt to implement the hidden agenda they don't dare acknowledge....government control of what I may or many not read,or how much gasoline or electricity I may or may not use...and Ms Obama's version of what Marx euphemistically termed 'the divsion of labor...not to mention the likely attempt to limit or totally eliminate private ownership of firearms....I do not permit members of the servant class to make my personal decisions in matters of this nature....and the last part of my posting was meant as a droll warning that there are millions of Americans who feel as I do...and will not brook such interference in their personal lives....it was not meant as a threat....I don't need firearms to destroy the credibility of either of the Obamas...and I certainly have no desire to see either of them as martyrs....only to see them exposed as the misguided buffoonish threats to individual liberty that they clearly are....and I have no intention of being caught unprepared if Obama should be elected and the mask comes off and he attempts to implement his socialist dystopia...and I'm sure that if that should happen,I would be told to 'clam up' or face the consequences...such is the methodology of the left and has been since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary
I know I'm not the only American sick to death of and mortified by bellowing preachers who come across like some klansman's nightmare.
"It's a black thing. You wouldn't understand" just doesn't cut it for me.
Wright is a living, breathing stereotype who doesn't deserve my respect any more than do the depraved hillbillies in the film "Deliverance."
What makes it all the worse is the fact that Wright is a phony, a stinking hypocrite who demands that his flock reject materialism while he lives in a $3 million-dollar mansion and struts around in thousand-dollar suits.
He's no different than Al Gore, Madonna, Sting, Arianna Huffington, and all the other self-indulgent gazillionaires spewing their carbon and eating their endangered fish as they insist that the rest of us live a preindustrial lifestyle.
Obama's a bozo. He's a cheap, embarrassing, crappy, fake-o rookie who ended up believing his own vacuous propaganda.
"I can't do this to me!" he's screaming somewhere right now.
Loser.
I believe America could vote for Walter Williams on his economic creds, Allen West on his war record and staunch conservatism, Michael Steele on his genial conservatism, J. C. Watts on his humility and principles, and so on. But you folks are right-- it wouldn't be BLACK America voting for these black men.
The libs tried it first-- finding the black man that white people could vote for, with all the right superficial qualities. Because they are fixated on race.
But if conservatives ever get a conservative black man to run (Herman Cain, anyone?) they'd get the same 'white guilt' vote that Obama gets, only it would be MUCH easier on the white voter, because they could ALSO vote their PRINCIPLES.
The fears of Robbins Mitchell are not exactly without factual foundation. As recently as Katrina this Nation was treated on national TV to the sight of elements of the Calif. Nat. Guard breaking into an elderly female's home and disarming her forcibly while at the same time true criminals with illegal guns were running rampant throughout much of the city of New Orleans. (I guess their actions fall under the old joke about the drunk looking for his lost-car keys at mid-nite under the corner street-lamp when he lost them in a darkened alley under the theory that "the light is so much better there.") This bureaucratic imperative to take the path of least resistance in order to demonstrate "effective action" in response to "problems" is well known.
Legal gun owners in New Orleans sued in Federal court
over this illegal gun grab and won; now the city is under court order to return their guns. A Supreme court
populated by Obama appointees might feel otherwise, however, so Mitchell's fears are not so far-fetched as they might seem. The Nat. Guard has been used in other times to forcibly desegregate schools; so is it so impossible for it to be used to say, enforce mandatory remote controls on thermostats in private homes (regulated via remote-control by the Stare) as was just recently proposed in California?
I think the moderator here is (a) overly PC sensitive, and (b) seriously under-estimating the power of bureaucrats in control of the levers of power to silence those with whom they disagree--just ask Mark Styen up in Canada. Obama has shown himself to be an unequivocal advocate of hand-gun bans, and his lovely wife publicly demonstrates an eager willingness to use the power of government to whip "the enlisted swine" into shape
in what can only be honestly characterized as the most openly expressed totalitarian-styled mind-set seen in public in a long time.
PS: Isn't the phrase "comment constructively or clam up"
EXACTLY the functional equivalent of the Canadian "Human
Rights" Commission's findings in their attempt to censor
Styen and the publisher's of McLeans magazine? True enough, this is a privately-owned web-site, but it holds itself out to the general public by virtue of its mere existence. And, in the time-honored sense of the "Public Square" (A square which, I assume, the owners of this site fancy themselves to be enlarging)if any "idea" is acceptable to be debated, isn't any idea's "advocate" perforce also acceptable? Besides, this site should welcome "bad" ideas. Isn't it a basic tenant expressed by J.S. Mill in his little tract "On Liberty" that the ideas most in need of a full hearing are the "bad" ones so that the general public may come to know how truly awful they are in their fully fleshed-out greater glory?
@ #4 DaveC
Even if you are correct, that he HAD to go to THIS church with his wife to keep peace in the home, how is that better for us as a nation should he be elected?? He had to title his book after Wright's speech? He has to govern from a certain mind set?
Their wives/husbands have a hugh influence. He is still going to go home to her and she will have a hugh impact on him and his decisions. Some spouses more than others but they all have an impact. She dosen't strike me as a sit on the side lines type. I think she'll be every bit as policy active a first spouse as Hillary was.
Joe,
You will remember that I posted a bit on Socialism is Dead here a few years back. I keep in touch with some Democrats who are ardent capitalists. They are not unusual.
Without Socialism, Democrats have no organizing principle. They are out of ideas. What they are left with is the identity groups who they gathered when Socialism was their organizing principle. Now they are in a bit of a bind because they have two of their major identity groups pitted against each other.
And then there is history. The KKK drove Republicans out of the South. They were the militant arm of the Democrat Party (a function now performed by Unions). When real history gets taught again it ought to have some effect.
Out of all this I expect Blacks to start drifting back to the Republican Party.
My expectation is still that the Democrats will crack up. Wright has made the Democrat Party toxic. All because Socialism is Dead. As per usual I was way too optimistic on the time frame and the reason for the final crack. Still the analysis was correct.
Joe,
Re: ammunition. Check out Recreate '68. Far more militant than the Unions, they appear to be the violent wing of the Obamaton Movement. Stop Obama has been doing some recon on the subject. The data appears to be fragmentary at this point and far from proof. However, it is something to keep your eye on.
Excuse f--ing me? The way I live my life is none of his damn business. The fact that this is the sort of idea that gets his wife excited
Are we back to this again.? I thought this fell by the wayside months ago, in determining that political and inspirational speech by associates(or self) is somewhat different, and should be judged differently.
When you look at Obama's ongoing associations with the idiotarian hate-America crowd
Really? Is this needed in order to aim for a higher dialog of national priorities? Idiotarian? I expect better, it's why I continue to visit.
and his refusal to condemn any of it in public
When I can go without being called a traitor or derivatives based on similar beliefs for, say, a solid year, I'll consider this important. In the past month, this blog has had commenters (partially neutered) who have openly bridged bigoted statement - should I equate them to those who don't directly deny?
In fact, should you choose to reveal them, this very post has them, via Robbins. Should every commenter condemn them?
Now if only we could phrase that as 'people who disagree with current national or political party policies.' Nah, let's go for buzzwords and blog-centric words!
Did Obama ever really leave those beliefs behind... or did he just learn how to change the subject in public, say one thing and do another, and all the rest of the standard political cheats?
1)Please let me know how Compassionate Conservatism has helped American in the past 7 years.
2) Instead of an open question, how about some analysis?
Joe,
Do you know what Michelle's merits were? Keeping poor black folks out of the emergency room of the U Chicago hospital.
A hospital administrator said she was worth her weight in gold.
Can you imagine how it has to eat at her soul to be paid the big bucks to keep the black man in his place?
Take off your rose colored glasses buddy. This is not just corruption for money. It is being paid the big bucks to sell out the downtrodden her philosophy claims to champion.
All so she can send her daughters to summer camp and ballet lessons and buy arugula at Whole Foods.
Next time you visit Chicago visit U Chicago. A bastion of privilege in a sea of poverty. Rent a car. Drive the street next to the Midway on the U Chicago side (59th I believe) then go to 63rd and Cottage Grove (and don't get out of your car unless you have a posse with you). The U Chicago neighborhood is full of mansions and up scale condos. Many of the mansions left over from the days when the very wealthiest of the Chicago elite lived there. You can look it up.
You have no idea.
And how do I know this? I'm a U Chicago alum and my son graduated from there last June. In 40+ years nothing has changed.
#27 Dave,
I live below the poverty level. I have central air, a Cray 1 on my desktop, a high bandwidth internent connection equal to 6 T-1 lines, a telephone with 180 "free" long distance minutes a month, hot and cold running water, electricity, piped in fuel, an auto, 2 TVs, a refrigerator that makes ice when I want it, a stove that doesn't require I chop wood to cook my food, etc, etc, etc,
I live better than kings did 150 years ago.
So tell me how rough I have it.
That class warfare stuff is not going to cut it with me. I have read a couple of books.
Dave, what mental malfunction makes you think that commenters here support now, or ever supported, "compassionate conservatism"?
There sure as hell is a really creepy link between "Barak... will require you to work" and "Work makes you free".
There sure as hell is a really creepy link between "Barak... will require you to work" and "Work makes you free".
My commentary at the time: Arbeit Macht Frei.
#7 didn't seem as a threat to me. It's seemed as though Robbins feels rightfully threatened by someone telling him what he needs to do and is preparing for them to come to his house and make him do it. It seemed like an proclamation of self defense.
A wonderful post, and one with which I agree entirely - frightening people. I comment not on the thrust of the post, but on a bit of filigree - "Excuse f--ing me?" Awkward. Trips thuddingly on the ear.
Actually your unfamiliarity with obscenity and its best use says good things about you: you're obviously not used to mellifluously cussing. I, however, am. My credentials - some 25 years of working in law enforcement, which I'm sure you'll agree, is the cursing equivalent of the military.
So, instead of "Excuse f--ing me?", the correct idiomatic construction would be, "Ex- f---ing -cuse me?" (As with so many of these things, it does not translate readily to the page and must instead be spoken in your mind's ear.) Not to go into too much detail, but we find that inserting "f---ing" into a phrase is far more salubrious when done inter-word than inter-phrase, inasmuch as it is more dramatic and, dare we say, threatening.
Hope this helps. Feel free to contact me for additional help with more effective obscenities.
Maybe the Obama phenomenon was merely a creation of the Clintons, to merely make Hillary look moderate. If so, it is actually working. Even conservatives are joining an 'Anyone but Obama, even Hillary' bandwagon.
Think about it - who else could have plucked him form nowhere and elevated him so quickly.
"Out of all this I expect Blacks to start drifting back to the Republican Party. "
I don't expect this at all.
I do, however, expect the Obama phenomenon to result in Hispanics and Jews drifting towards the GOP (which more closely mirrors their respective values anyway).
A quick aside on comments, and Marshals. I flagged Robbins Mitchell's comment #7 because after tearing into the Obamas, he concluded with, "note to self: buy more ammo at WalMart this weekend."
Sounded to me like that might be a veiled threat, and threats of violence aren't tolerated. But maybe not--so the comment stood.
Robbins seems to understand that it's his job as a writer to be clear about what he means; see his follow-on explanation (#18, upthread: no threat was intended).
As far as "Comment constructively or clam up," I'll clarify. I mean, adhere to Winds' easygoin' comments policy. That shouldn't be hard.
On this site being a bastion of political correctness: well, sample a few of the threads, then decide for yourself.
As to comments, the best will build on the poster's themes--or challenge them. But if you just can't seem to make your point without loading up on ethnic slurs, or BDS, or flavor-of-the-week political rage... well, maybe that says something about the strength of your argument? Maybe a little more polishing before hitting "POST" will persuade more readers?
OK, enough on that. Back to the topic of Joe's post.
#31 Rod, #32 Rand:
Arbeit macht frei was exactly what I said upon reading that passage a couple of weeks ago too.
Reading Powerline a couple days ago, it appears that Mrs. Obama gave largely the same speech in Ft. Wayne, omitting the paragraph in question. I expect someone told her she should probably never speak those words again. But it's too late. That speech, plus Bill Ayers, plus Jeremiah Wright, has caused me to switch from (if I had to) supporting Obama over Hillary to supporting Hillary over Obama. And that makes me f---ing sick.
And, on more substantive policy issues, Obama's foolish answer on capital gains taxes ("to make things more fair, who cares about revenue") was a pretty big nail in the coffin as to who to support between him and Hillary as well.
Joe Katzman:
But there is also no record establishing that your view of him, as reflected by the opinions of Wright et al., is accurate either.
Except for Obama's own words, which have made his positions much clearer than you want to appreciate. And here he has repeatedly stated views that are not in synch with Wright, Ayers or any other past associate.
So I am completely unmoved by the words of these people and his associations with them. As far as I'm concerned, they have no bearing on the man or his future abilities to govern any more so than for the other candidates (or ANY candidates in the past).
These are, in my mind, just not very important issues.
More hyperventilation.
Let's starte with the basics.
Guilt by association isn't a fair standard.
Being part of a church means a lot more than simply listening to the sermon.
I could even point out that the connection with Hagee and McCain, or Falwell, and the horrible things that those preachers have said. Most on this thread seem to suffer from IOKIYAAR.
But then Joe goes and equates attempting to inspire - with fascism?? Come one people, have you completely lost the thread?
"Requiring you to work" - you mean like, getting a job and stuff?
Sheesh.
For what it's worth, this is a paranoid post. And lots of paranoid responses. Not to mention the bigoted ones, like "some jiveass".
It's important to remember, also, that Obama is bi-racial. Raised by a white mother. His sister is half Indonesian, and I believe, married to a Japanese man.
Check out this link
Shoot, he's distantly related to both Dick Cheney and George Bush!!
Not to mention Brad Pitt.
So all this paranoid mouth-breathing...chill out, ok?
McCain is NOT as member of Hagee's, Falwell's or even Robertson's chuches, nor did he have his children Baptized by them.
While it is true that there is no guilt by association in a legal context, we are free to judge folks by the company they keep. As my father always says: "If you freely associate with trash, then you are trash." Or if you prefer, "If you play with skunks, you're gonna stink."
TomJW #33:
The post is still up, but it seems appropriate to express some concern about it since the meaning isn't beyond dispute. Just my two bits (inflation sucks).
"the company you keep".
Shoot, Obama has been closer to Tom Coburn than Jeremiah Wright, over the last 3 years!! He's a good friend.
What does THAT say about the company he keeps?
This is why it's a trap, and a joke. If you want to go by the company he keeps - then REALLY go by the company he keeps, you know? Not who he listens to on Sunday.
And McCain went out and ACTIVELY SOLICITED Hagee's endorsement, and is glad to have it. Obama didn't actively solicit anything from Wright.
His words are much less clear than you care to acknowledge. And even if you take them at face value, they reveal a disingenuity that is at odds with his attempt to project an image of honesty, change, hope, etc.
Good for you. Too bad you're unable to make a convincing case others should ignore them.
They have plenty of bearing on the man himself and on his mindset, and they speak to his values system. As for his ability to govern--well, nothing about Obama's record has any bearing on his supposed ability in this area! That criticism stands separate from anything related to Wright (unless you believe he let his wife manhandle him into sitting in a hate-filled church for 20 years, that would suggest a certain spinelessness... but it's not a necessary component to either argument).
[Substantial duplicate of later post. Deleted. --NM]
Obama is a donating member of Wright's church. He and his wife were married there, by Wirght. His children are being raised in that church and were baptized by Wright. That's huge endorsement of Wright and his church.
Obama has tried to a "tabla rosa" throughout his political career. Because of this, there is scant little of a record to judge him by. This makes his personal relationships much more significant then they would otherwise be. Let him finish out his Senate term and complete a second. A stint as Governor would be great too. Then he can run on a record of real political achievement.
He's getting squashed in a vice of his own creation now, e.g. his efforts to become "authentically black" versus his efforts to be a blank slate.
The only way out for him is for him to fill in the blanks. It's too late for this election.
But you see that's OK here because it's all done with a wink-and-a-nod. McCain doesn't REALLY believe in the things that Hagee says, but knows he needs his America-hating righteous religious bigoted intolerant flock to get elected.
See the difference? People here (and in the MSM of course) know what is in other's hearts and minds better than they do.
McCain is just about the cleanest politician we have had in a long time. No skeletons in the closet, no pork, nothing.
If 2008 wasn't a year so heavily trending against the GOP, Obama would be no match for McCain.
The thing about Wright is, he is merely delivering what his audience wants. I think we can all agree that 50-60% of blacks in America believe the things that Wright says. It is just that most white people were not aware of this until now.
BS. He appointed Wright to a position in his campaign (chose that cite for the interesting intra-mural Democrat flavor). He solicited spiritual advice over the span of 20 years, though I suppose you could debate to what extent. Wright was scheduled to pray at campaign functions.
You'd have a better case trying the "ghost of a connection" defense of Obama with regards to Ayers, but Wright is a millstone the Democratic party should have seen coming.
#24 It should be obvious that "global warming" is the new
religion and the new socialism(a non-religion, religion) all rolled into one. Like water seeking its own level, a drowning man clutching at straws or sailors seeking any port in a storm, the left will not simply go quietly into that good night. So...be not so encourged
about the prospects of a world free of this particular brand of collectivist cancer--remember P.T. Barnum. Or if you will, H.L. Mencken's admonition that: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." After all, even AFTER Pearl Harbor public opinion polls revealed that 70% of the American public thought we should not go to war with Hitler's Germany. Has ever a greater number of people in recorded time EVER been MORE WRONG about one of the greatest threats to human freedom in modern history?....So much for the penetrating powers of analysis of the general public.
There will always be those who would encourage us to drink the kool-aid and unfortunately all too many are all too willing to drink it. Human nature doesn't change over time. How many times since the death of Genghis Kahn have we seen him return in another form, each time armed with, thanks to the progress of science, increasingly destructive powers at his disposal? The passage of time and the increasingly destructive powers given us by improved technology allows us less and less room for error in our choice of leaders. Thus it would seem to behoove us to put under a microscope those who would hold themselves out for the highest office in the land in the Brave New World that is the 21st Century.... And to not be dissuaded by those infested with political correctness
disguised as advocacy for "civil discourse." (Note to John McCain)
McCain has a long history of achievement AND he is NOT a member of Hagee's church, nor has Hagee refereed a marriage for him, nor did he Baptise McCain's children.
hypo:
It's not a fair standard in law. It is a perfectly fair standard in politics. An election is not a courtroom; you don't get to have evidence thrown out. You can instruct the voters like a judge instructing jury if you wish, but they are under no legal or moral obligation to listen.
Besides, anyone who dismisses things like this as "guilt by association" is a complete hypocrite who will not hesitate to point out the other guy's unsavory connections, no matter how remote.
Glen,
Obama has said the same things, and his campaign has stood for the same things, again and again.
Let's turn the page on old divisive politics, to a new style where we come together - his "unity schtick", to those who dismiss him. Let's then use this unity to accomplish things for citizens of this great nation.
But the values out of that, mean that he takes on those who are emblematic of the old divisive style. Whether that is McCain, or, today, Wright.
Here is Obama disowning Wright today
And again, disowning him - based on what Wright is saying NOW, based on that Wright is betraying the values of coming together, of unity. As Obama says:
""My reaction has more to do with what I want this campaign to be about.... in some ways, what Rev. Wright said yesterday directly contradicts everything that I've done during my life. It contradicts how i was raised and the setting in which I was raised; it contradicts my decision to pursue a career of public service. It contradicts the issues that I've worked on politically."
What's funny is, somehow, you guys want to paint him as some sort of Wright clone, while ignoring:
How he was raised.
The vision of his books.
His post-racial extended family.
The policies that he has pursued.
The friends that he has made during his career, from all walks of life, whether that is Edward Kennedy, Oprah, or Tom Coburn.
All of it means nothing to you.
That's a choice, BY you - a political choice, for advantage, and has nothing to do with the truth of Obama's life.
Actually it does mean something to me, and yes, I do regard what he said today as real distancing - unlike his very unsatisfactory previous "denunciations" that impressed you, but not me.
Obviously Obama understands that his association with Wright is a problem - a legitimate problem; he said so himself in the FOX interview. I think he has been slow in coming to that wisdom, but it's coming to him now.
You're the one who doesn't get it, because you don't understand why people were so angered by Wright.
And please spare me "the truth of Obama's life" stuff. Whatever that is, it's his own business. This is our country we're talking about.
Glen,
And please spare me "the truth of Obama's life" stuff.
Spare me, when you do something else other than jump on a Republican talking point.
I'll listen to you when you decide to apply the same rules to Republicans and Democrats alike.
Okay, I don't give a damn about the truth of John McCain's life, either. I'm a proud citizen, not a groupie.
Now you have to listen to everything I say. Nah, I'll let you off - I wouldn't wish that fate on a dead skunk.
Or were you referring to some other rule? Perhaps alluding to some "guilt by association" claim against McCain? Review my remarks in #53, and I wish you the best of luck.
Everyone is entitled to equal opportunity, but not equal results.
Except of course, only in not looking at either, to point out they are both somewhat meaningless, Days Of Our Lives, trivia.
One seems to matter to you, the other doesn't.
Neither really matters to me.
So after 20 years in his church, quoting the man and having him as his spiritual mentor, plus a few weeks of clips floating around the networks and YouTube, it ultimately took yesterday's press conference for Obama to finally disown Wright?
Can we question his judgement now, or is that still beyond the pale for participants in his magical wonderful unity crusade?
#59 from The Unbeliever:
It's still racist to question Barack Obama's judgment.
That's because the reason for his actions is his DNA, as he said. It's in Barack Obama's DNA to unite people across racial lines.
This is an aspect of the different functioning of Black and white brains, which the Rev. Wright has explained. Barack Obama sees the world in the same way. He has good DNA, and thus a good brain, defined in racial terms, so he's thinking good thoughts.
And then there are others who don't have racial reconciliation in their DNA, as Barack Obama has. Those are the ugly agents of intolerance, those who feed on hate, who will try to make malign use of the Rev. Wright's words.
Unfortunately, the Rev. Wright, by speaking without sufficient concern for Barack Obama's political advancement, has laid himself open to such misuse of his words, and to that extent Barack Obama has to distance himself from an abstract set of whichever of the Reverend's statements are controversial - those are the ones, whichever they are at the time, that he must distance himself from.
But the evil ultimately is in them, the ones who do not have the saving DNA that Barack Obama does, with crackers, not with brothers.
At minimum, I'm Irish, German, English, and Native American. I wonder what that says about my brain?
LOL.
Oh, great. Just when I've got too much to do in the non-blog world, you folks have to go and draaaag me back in!
Post to follow.
A.L.
Lurker: it says you are white. Now shut up, racist.
Or something like that.
Can we question his judgement now, or is that still beyond the pale for participants in his magical wonderful unity crusade?
If you are the type of guy who thinks that this is super-important, that's on you.
"Again, I think John Cole has the best take, as filtered through Kevin Drum":
_ And you know what? They may be assholes, or jerks, or whatever term you want to use, but they sure as hell didn't run this economy into the ground. They aren't responsible for turning a huge surplus into a several hundred billion dollar deficit. I have yet to read any memos from Barbra Streisand detailing how we should spy on American citizens._
....Maybe it is because I am totally and unrepentantly in the tank for Obama, but I just can't get worked up over what his pastor said. Maybe it is because I am not religious, and I am used to religious people saying things that sound crazy. Or maybe I just refuse to spend any more time and energy getting worked up over and denouncing, distancing, and rejecting the wrong people — people who really don't matter in the big scheme of things. If you have a memo from Jeremiah Wright to John Yoo showing how we should become a rogue nation, let me know. If you have pictures of Jeremiah Wright voting against the GI Bill, send it to me. If you have evidence of Jeremiah Wright training junior soldiers on the finer aspects of stacking and torturing naked Iraqi captives, pass them on.
Until then, I just can't seem to get all worked up about the crazy scary black preacher that Obama has to "throw under the bus.
Isn't dismissing Wright as an irrelevant Republican talking point exactly what got Obama into the current mess after the Reverend's last traipse across the public stage?
Obama appears to grok that that strategy was a failure last time and isn't likely to work differently this time, and is actually directly confronting the issue now. So at least he's smarter than most of his supporters.
Imagine if he'd disposed of Wright before Wright raised the heat on the rhetoric to a whole new layer.
#65 from Treefrog:
Indeed.
But Barack Obama didn't want to dispose of Wright. Instead, he held up his grandmother for public shaming as a racist.
Why do that to a woman who raised him, his own grandmother? Because she's white. It's all right to betray her.
This is how Barack Obama thinks. And so he makes certain kinds of mistakes. That will not be the last time he treats a "typical white person" in a shameful way, not thinking that there's anything wrong with it or that other people may not like it. If he's going to do that to his own grandmother, no typical white person he's not even related to has a prayer of being treated fairly when a brother's in trouble and Barack Obama needs a substitute victim.
Atypical white people like William Ayers might do better - though probably not much better, because white devils are tainted, even if some don't act as bad as others. But we don't all have the terrorist credentials of William Ayers or the past usefulness of a special friend like Tony Rezko.
Barack Obama's not a particularly bad guy on the topic of race. The way he thinks is normal in his racial community. Rev. Wright gave his whole spiel to the NAACP and got standing applause for it, which shows that this is a mainstream attitude.
But he is what he is. He's not post-racial, or race-transcending.
All that let's get beyond race stuff, all that let's pick the best guy regardless of if he looks like me stuff, is pure white, as Whoopi Goldberg said. That's not Black at all. And it's sure not Barack Obama.
His judgement is super important, yes, I don't think that's at all controversial when talking about Presidential candidates. In fact questions about judgement are a large part of why I won't be voting for McCain this fall.
We can bicker about the enormity of his decisions in each case--Wright, Ayers, bitter Pennsylvannians, most of his votes in the Senate--but those decisions, and his reactions to them as they come up in the campaign, inform voters whether or not his judgement should be trusted. Naturally YMMV, but you can't call "judgement" a non-existant aspect of the job description.
Joe
"..He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
How do you propose to make the country better if you are not engaged informed and involved? There is a reason you do not want to answer this question and why do not want liberty to require you be engaged and informed. You prefer to peddle ignorance and bigotry. You prefer to deal in the amnesia of the masses so you can come down from your mountain and spew idotarian hatred based on ingnorance.
Jim Rockford
You are a classsic piece of race baiting bigotry. You have total amnesia about race relations in this country as far as African-Americans are concerned. Both the government and white people have acted against us constantly. It has been enshrined in the LAW: Plessy vs Ferguson; the Colfax decision; the Bacon-Davis act. Even when overturned you act like these things have no lingering effects. And you wonder why African-Americans are angry w/ your ignorance about race relations; the fact that the idea that the government created AIDS has credibility. Just think about the Tuskegee experiment; 40 years of watching African Americans die from syphillus. You are more than willing to attribute this type of evil to NAZI Germany, Japan, the peoples Republic of China and the defunct USSR but it can't happen here.
Obama’s efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Cheney, of the Halliburton
[snip]
[ Even former A.G.s don't get to come to Winds to cut-and-paste their dissertations. The windup phrase above is enough to find the deleted contents. If anyone cares. -- M.F. ]