Just like I ripped Mitt Romney's "I Have A Faith" speech, so too will I rip Barack Obama's "We Are All Racists Now" speech on Wednesday.
Obama's reluctance to push away from his goofy pastor Jeremiah Wright is no different than his reluctance in an earlier debate to push away from Louis Farrakhan. Heck, Obama's church gave its Trumpeter Award last year, named after Wright, to Farrakhan, a man the church said "epitomized greatness."
Clearly, Obama wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants the support of racist black leaders like this but wants to simultaneously keep them at a distance.
Now, I don't blame Obama for befriending the kooky racist pastor down the street. As Dick Morris pointed out, Obama likely needed his relationship with Wright for credibility. A half-black guy who grew up in Hawaii and abroad and went to a bunch of uber-elite private schools isn't exactly going to walk into the south side of Chicago with a whole boatload of credibility. Kissing up to Wright was probably smart for a young man looking to launch a political career.
At first, Obama was trying to sell us on the message that these statements by Wright were needles in a pastoral haystack. Problem is, much of the footage of Wright that has been broadcast has come from DVD's that the church sells. If Wright's diatribes were occasional and not representative of the body of his work, why would the church he runs elect to include them on DVD's?
So like Romney, Obama walks to the podium in front of a bunch of American flags, takes his right hand, and waves it wildly in an attempt to distract the media and America at large from the growing problem in his left hand. Instead of dealing with Wright head on, instead of explaining why he never felt compelled to confront his pastor about the egregious inaccuracies in his sermons, he tries to excuse Wright by saying, in essence, that we're all racists too. To prove it, he even throws his white grandmother under the bus.
The sole purpose of Romney's speech was to deflect questions about his faith and attempt to frame those who would ask such questions as being divisive and destructive to the process. Is that not exactly what Obama tried to do on Wednesday? He embraced Wright, said he was like family, and then told all of us that we should think about our own racism instead. He implied that we are the problem, not Wright.
Except I don't ever remember accusing America of treating its own citizens like subhumans. Or accusing whites of creating AIDS to wipe out minorities.
Can you imagine the public response if John McCain had a white pastor who made racist remarks, and then McCain referred to that pastor, as Obama did, as a part of him and a part of the country that he loves? The press would be irate.
Finally, at the end of the speech, Obama said plainly and without reservation that the answer to solving racism is, you guessed it, more government. If only we spent more money on schools and community programs, if only we spent more on health and welfare and education, then racism would magically end and we could all prosper.
Except we've been spending more on health and welfare and education for decades and it hasn't fixed the problem that Obama perceives. When it comes to empirical evidence, Obama's got nothing to offer. He does have a handful of feel-good platitudes, though.
There's nothing new about Barack Obama when it comes to content. He's just a prettier face selling the same, tired, government-can-solve-everything agenda that Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis peddled back in the 80's. If Obama's light on policy, it's probably because America has historically rejected his agenda at the national level.
So Obama's favorable numbers continue to plunge and he continues to lose ground to Clinton and McCain in national polls. His campaign continues to angle behind the scenes to prevent revotes in Michigan and Florida, two states he would likely lose. He's on pace to rack up a double-digit loss in Pennsylvania, a state that, along with Florida and Ohio, he's polling well behind McCain in. All this after just a few weeks of scrutiny.
Looks like the honeymoon is over and, save for guys like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, Obama's marriage with the press isn't going too well. It'll be interesting to see where Democrats are at in June, especially if Clinton is polling better against McCain - something that, given Obama's current track, is a distinct possibility.
Obama's reluctance to push away from his goofy pastor Jeremiah Wright is no different than his reluctance in an earlier debate to push away from Louis Farrakhan. Heck, Obama's church gave its Trumpeter Award last year, named after Wright, to Farrakhan, a man the church said "epitomized greatness."
Clearly, Obama wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants the support of racist black leaders like this but wants to simultaneously keep them at a distance.
Now, I don't blame Obama for befriending the kooky racist pastor down the street. As Dick Morris pointed out, Obama likely needed his relationship with Wright for credibility. A half-black guy who grew up in Hawaii and abroad and went to a bunch of uber-elite private schools isn't exactly going to walk into the south side of Chicago with a whole boatload of credibility. Kissing up to Wright was probably smart for a young man looking to launch a political career.
At first, Obama was trying to sell us on the message that these statements by Wright were needles in a pastoral haystack. Problem is, much of the footage of Wright that has been broadcast has come from DVD's that the church sells. If Wright's diatribes were occasional and not representative of the body of his work, why would the church he runs elect to include them on DVD's?
So like Romney, Obama walks to the podium in front of a bunch of American flags, takes his right hand, and waves it wildly in an attempt to distract the media and America at large from the growing problem in his left hand. Instead of dealing with Wright head on, instead of explaining why he never felt compelled to confront his pastor about the egregious inaccuracies in his sermons, he tries to excuse Wright by saying, in essence, that we're all racists too. To prove it, he even throws his white grandmother under the bus.
The sole purpose of Romney's speech was to deflect questions about his faith and attempt to frame those who would ask such questions as being divisive and destructive to the process. Is that not exactly what Obama tried to do on Wednesday? He embraced Wright, said he was like family, and then told all of us that we should think about our own racism instead. He implied that we are the problem, not Wright.
Except I don't ever remember accusing America of treating its own citizens like subhumans. Or accusing whites of creating AIDS to wipe out minorities.
Can you imagine the public response if John McCain had a white pastor who made racist remarks, and then McCain referred to that pastor, as Obama did, as a part of him and a part of the country that he loves? The press would be irate.
Finally, at the end of the speech, Obama said plainly and without reservation that the answer to solving racism is, you guessed it, more government. If only we spent more money on schools and community programs, if only we spent more on health and welfare and education, then racism would magically end and we could all prosper.
Except we've been spending more on health and welfare and education for decades and it hasn't fixed the problem that Obama perceives. When it comes to empirical evidence, Obama's got nothing to offer. He does have a handful of feel-good platitudes, though.
There's nothing new about Barack Obama when it comes to content. He's just a prettier face selling the same, tired, government-can-solve-everything agenda that Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis peddled back in the 80's. If Obama's light on policy, it's probably because America has historically rejected his agenda at the national level.
So Obama's favorable numbers continue to plunge and he continues to lose ground to Clinton and McCain in national polls. His campaign continues to angle behind the scenes to prevent revotes in Michigan and Florida, two states he would likely lose. He's on pace to rack up a double-digit loss in Pennsylvania, a state that, along with Florida and Ohio, he's polling well behind McCain in. All this after just a few weeks of scrutiny.
Looks like the honeymoon is over and, save for guys like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, Obama's marriage with the press isn't going too well. It'll be interesting to see where Democrats are at in June, especially if Clinton is polling better against McCain - something that, given Obama's current track, is a distinct possibility.
12 comments:
Amen.
I don't think we listened to the same speech.
What difference is there in Wrights speech than Hagee, Robertson or Falwells crazy speeches? Other than he is Obamas minister.
Why do we pay any attention to them at all? Oh yeah, we didn't until the black guy sttop up and did it, but we're not racist are we?
Not much difference, truthfully. But John McCain didn't go to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell's church for twenty years and have them baptize his kids. He didn't sit his kids down in the pews on Sunday and subject them to a bunch of race-baiting hatred. That's what Obama did.
So I guess there is a difference, actually. And for the record, I searched for Pat Robertson's name on my blog. I don't think I've ever had a nice thing to say about him in 2 1/2 years.
You are correct, though. We shouldn't pay attention to any of them but for their relationships with those who are seeking to lead our country. That Obama is practically in bed with Wright is fair game for consideration no different than if McCain stood up and said that Jerry Falwell was part of him and the America that he loved.
Obama spoke up to say that he didn't agree with everything his minister said and his actions support that assertion.
McCain is embracing the fact that Hagee and other fire and brimstone preachers have supported him. He had to bend his beliefs ro go after there support. He may not feel the way they do but he had to pander for their support.
We need to really look at who is being honest and open here! Who is standing up for who they are and who is bending their beliefs for political gain?
Open minds can work both ways, the key is to keep them open and not only look for the argument that fits your belief.
1. Hagee isn't McCain's pastor. Wright is Obama's pastor. Obama spent 20+ years in the pews at Wright's church. How many times has McCain been to Hagee's church? To suggest that's not relevant is to engage in the same kind of deceptive moral equivalence that Obama engaged in when he tried putting Jeremiah Wright and Geraldine Ferraro on the same level.
2. Why wouldn't Obama renounce a racist like Wright? Why did Obama not say that he stood up to Wright and challenged him when he was wrong? Why does Obama, who supposedly cares so much about the future, allow his children to be exposed to Wright's hate-filled, factually inaccurate invective? Is that good judgment? Please answer - that's not rhetorical.
3. Obama's every bit the politician that McCain is. No crime in that, but for the fact that Obama keeps telling everyone he's a different kind of politician. He's not. Again, nothing wrong with that. He just needs to be honest that he's every bit as scheming and calculating as Clinton. If he wasn't, why isn't he out there strongly advocating for new primaries in Michigan and Florida? Oh, because he knows he'd lose, so he'd rather their votes not count. Do you want to tell me that's the ethical/moral position to take? Obama wants to disenfranchise voters when it is politically convenient for him to do so.
4. If McCain sucked face with Robertson every week for 20 years, I'd be just as critical of him, believe me. I think all politicians are fallible - Obama included.
It is the the whole idea that Wrights statements are not any more racist than the statements of Robertson, Hagee or Falwell yet the media and yourself are not condemning them.
The statements are opinion and not as hateful as you want to believe. They are very strong and passionate, but in the complete context of his sermon, he is saying that sin will beget more sin. If we are to act this way then we cannot condemn those that act that way to us.
In other words: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
This is the basis of the sermons delivered by Wright, Hagee, Robertson and Falwell. They all believe that the United States Brought this on itself by being sinful.
Religion and politics should be kept seperate for this reason but it seems that it is necessary to bring religion in to the mix since George Bush was elected. Even though he is a hypocrite as well.
The bottom line is: Obama is correct in his statements that race is still a major issue in the U.S. and the ensuing debate is proving him correct. It isn't a matter of his being a member of Trinity Church, I am sure they do one thousand good deeds for every fiery sermon Pastor Wright delivers.
Another thought, "Let those without sin cast the first stone". WWJCD?
You didn't answer my questions but I am not surprised.
I think if you were to do some Googling, you'll see that folks like Robertson and Hagee and Falwell have been condemned plenty in the course of their careers. If the media is silent for now, it is likely because they haven't said anything stupid lately. Wright is a new flavor of ice cream and the media loves novelty.
I don't care what Wright says, frankly. I care that Obama spent 20+ years in the spiritual tutelage of this guy. That he had Wright baptize his kids. That he had his kids listen to Wright's sermons. If the point is to transcend race, you don't do it by pandering to racists.
If Obama is so concerned about being the Tiger Woods of politics, why is he constantly trying so hard to embrace his blackness but not his whiteness?
I understand that Obama believes his biracial makeup gives him a special platform on which to condescendingly lecture whites on race. Don't confuse yourself, his speech acknowledged that there is racism on both sides, but he basically excused black racism as a product of white policies. Such as how it always goes with the left. When whites are racist, it's their fault. When blacks are racist, it is also the fault of whites.
Race is a much bigger issue among blacks than whites. The average white person on the street could give a flip about someone's skin color. It will be so until blacks are willing to accept that much of what has occurred within their communities in the last 30 years is almost exclusive their own fault. It is the way in which inner-city culture (blacks and whites both) celebrates violence, misogyny, drugs, and crime, the way in which it discourages responsibility, encourages dependence and victimization, that holds people in those communities back.
Black leaders embrace race as an issue because without it, they can't use victimization as an excuse for the many perils that affect poor, mostly black communities.
Finally, your last sentence again screams moral equivalence. Jesus would know enough to stay the hell out of politics. As I recall, that's what He did during His life. And just because God sees all sin the same doesn't mean that here on Earth, some sin isn't worse than others. Otherwise, we would issue equal sentences for shoplifting and murder.
Yes, Wright is bad. Yes, what he's done is worse than what Geraldine Ferraro has said. And yes, this issue is going to continue to punish Obama among the white, blue collar, middle-class voters he desperately needs to win swing states like OH, MI, PA, and FL. Should Obama lose, his unwillingness to just stand up and say four words: "I made a mistake" - will be the downfall of his campaign.
You are assuming that every sermon delivered by Wright for 20 years was filled with hate. I was not there so I don't know. You also assume that Obama never missed a Sunday.
The whole context of the sermon was meant as a lesson and taking a few sound bites out and playing them over and over is not gaining any knowledge of the truth.
I know that you were against Obama even before these issues arose and I would have to wonder why the other candidates get different treatment on this blog.
I am a typical white man who was raised in a military family that moved around. I have to admit that in my past I had reservations about black people but my experience has let me grow beyond that.
All I would like to see is that our society could do the same but we have a long way to go.
At least Obama is not being considered a Muslim anymore as many right wing posters have tried to lie about. Now they are trying to pigeonhole him as a hate filled racist. This too will bounce off in time.
Fair enough. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I will try keep my response brief and if you want the last word, you're welcome to it.
I don't think Obama is a racist. I don't think many of those questioning his relationship with Wright believe that he is a racist.
I think the question that hasn't been answered well (in the eyes of many) is why a guy who constantly talks about a new politics and unity and transcending race took as his spiritual mentor a guy who preaches racism enough that it ends up on the DVDs the church sells. If the church is marketing it, surely the church must consider it representative.
I've been around politics long enough to know that issues like Wright never really go away. Again, the issue isn't Wright. It's what Obama's close association with Wright says about Obama's judgment.
We would all like to get to a race-neutral society. In all honesty, I think whites are much closer to that target than blacks (though there are obvious exceptions on both sides, including the emerging black middle class). To get there also means that black leaders will have to embrace personal responsibility and accountability instead of excusing the history of negative behavior displayed by economically-disadvantaged black communities and encouraging them to use whites and government as an excuse for their lot in life.
To me, that was the great disappointment in Obama's speech. He had plenty to say about what whites can do to make things better. When it came to talking about how the black community needs to change, Obama was totally silent. He said one sentence about not being a victim to the past, but previously went on a multi-paragraph tirade about how the black condition in America is the fault of white America from my grandparents' generation on back.
It's all right there, about three-quarters of the way in. Reread it if you'd like. You'll see that I'm right. No grand Cosby-esque talk of stop blaming others for your problems, go to school, get an education, stop doing drugs and killing your neighbors. Just a lot of blame for government policies from before when many of us were born.
Success in America is simple. Go to school. Don't commit crimes. Don't get knocked up (or knock someone up). Don't do drugs. Do that, you'll be successful. When Obama embraces that solution, I'll be sure to praise him.
Very good discussion we have had. I appreciate the tone of which we have been able to communicate. One truth stated in an interview was that this problem will not be solved in one term of any president. It took decades to get as bad as it did and it has been slowly healing since the mid sixties (still a long way to go).
It will be good when the presidential race can get back to issues of the economy, the war, health care and all the other issues that have been set aside by both parties as the rhetoric soared.
When it is all said and done, I hope the country will move forward as one as it used to do. In the Reagan or Clinton years, the public was still unified to an extent but the politicians still were divided.
We need to be the United States of America again.
Take care.
I'll paraphrase here, but back in the spring of 2000 John McCain went to bible beating Virginia Beach and told a rally that the Republican party is "Not the party of Bob Jones and Pat Robertson"
That is why people don't try to pink Robertson on McCain, we already know that McCain wants nothing to do with him.
Not only is this post unfortunate in the fact that, rather than you usual level-headed if somewhat sardonic tone, you're embarking on a pure lambast of Obama and his relations with the minister.
You know what? Wright is nuts, but, aside from his ridiculous statements about AIDS being invented by the government, a lot of what he said is right. That's certainly not PC, and I'll be "flamed" for it, but the guy is right in that the terrorists didn't all of a sudden spring up one day and decide "hey let's kill America." We've been killing, bombing, and supporting oppressive and authoritarian dictatorships in that region of the world for decades. Why are you surprised when the sons, brothers, fathers, of those we've killed and humiliated show up on our doorstep with a bomb?
Also, there's a blatant factual inaccuracy in your post: Obama's "favorable" numbers, and his stance in the national polls against Clinton and McCain have remained the exact same, according to Rammusen and Gallup and Zogby polls released just this week.
So, there's no real factual substance here--just your opinion. Which is fine. But it's disheartening, since you usually stray away from that.
Post a Comment