October 6, 2008
Right about wright
Bill Kristol quoting Sarah Palin:
I pointed out that Obama surely had a closer connection to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright than to Ayers -- and so, I asked, if Ayers is a legitimate issue, what about Reverend Wright?She didn't hesitate: "To tell you the truth, Bill, I don't know why that association isn't discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country, and to have sat in the pews for 20 years and listened to that -- with, I don't know, a sense of condoning it, I guess, because he didn't get up and leave -- to me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up."
As I just pointed out, Sen. Obama found Rev. Wright's views politically attractive. There's no reason it shouldn't be fair game.
Sen. Obama's going to bring up McCain's role in the Keating 5.
Great. Back when they were allowed to write positive things about John McCain in the NYT, this is how the incident was recalled:
Of course, money in politics is rarely a direct bribe. Often, people give not because they expect anything in return but because they find it easier than not giving. When your biggest client calls you and asks you to contribute $1,000 to the Clinton campaign, you don't think much about it; you write the check. But Charlie Keating, it turned out, expected something in return. He expected McCain and others to pressure Federal regulators to look the other way while he played fast and loose with taxpayers' money.All of this quickly came out when the story broke in early 1989 that McCain, together with four other Senators similarly favored by Keating -- Glenn, Donald Riegle of Michigan, Dennis DeConcini of Arizona and Alan Cranston of California -- had gathered twice in 1987 to discuss Keating's complaint that he was being treated too harshly by Federal bank regulators. McCain was branded one of ''the Keating Five'' and dragged into a Senate investigation to determine exactly what he had done in exchange for Keating's money. When you go back over the Senate Ethics Committee hearings, which lasted 14 months, you see pretty clearly that he did surprisingly little. Both the committee and the transcripts are conclusive on this point. One incident in particular leaps out. When he saw that McCain would not interfere with the law on his behalf, Keating took to insulting McCain behind his back. Word got back to McCain that Keating had been all over the Senate calling him ''a wimp.'' A McCain staff member who was present at a subsequent meeting between McCain and Keating recalled for the Senate Ethics Committee how it played out:
In all the time . . . I've been around John he, himself, although he will answer questions in response to his experience in Vietnam, I have never, except for this one occasion, heard him raise his prisoner-of-war experience. And very early on in that meeting, I remember him vividly telling Mr. Keating that he hadn't spent five and a half years of his life in a prisoner-of-war camp to have his courage or integrity questioned. And he gave Mr. Keating a dressing down, the likes of which I, in my experience on the Hill, have never experienced a Senator giving a major employer of his state. It was startling to me.
And McCain took from that experience a dedication to fight corruption. (Even sometimes going too far.) When he realized what Keating was about he refused to cooperate.
What exactly did Sen. Obama take from his experience with Rev. Wright? That you maintain your loyalty to questionable characters until they become political liabilities?
The comparison between the two is not flattering to Obama.
Posted by SoccerDad at October 6, 2008 5:56 AM | TrackBack
Biden On The Pakistani Threat To Israel
Ayers ready to rumble?
One more crisis not of israel's making
Abbas at the abyss
Down on j-street
Right about wright
No runs, no hits, plenty of errors
Juggling carnivals 10/06/08
25 months
This is your brain on Obamatol 2
Speaking only for myself, I see no fundamental problem with the idea of "G-d damn America" if the reason for the "damn" is injustice.
While I take a rationalist/secular approach to things, it is entirely consistent with mainstream theological positions of many Christian churches and Jewish teachings that G-d has, on occasion, damned and destroyed cities and nations for a multitude of reasons. At worst, Wright should be characterized not as calling down for a literal damnation of the United States, but of fiery rhetorical excess.
Since Obama did not write the speech and probably was not even in attendance, I disrespect this entire thread. Fiery rhetoric is not common in Catholic churches (attributed to the strict requirement to attend) but in African-American churches it is the norm. One would likely find similar rhetoric at Bethel A.M.E. Church in West Baltimore on many a Sunday. Black congregations are not kind to preachers who come off sounding like Dana Carvey's church lady; rhetorical acumen and style are judged pretty severely and congregants will walk elsewhere with extreme prejudice if a preacher cannot deliver.
As I recall, it was when Wright insisted on bringing the spotlight on himself and openly antagonized Obama publicly that Obama decided he had had enough of him. I'd have done the same gladly if a "friend" tried to wreck my project through reckless abandon.
More "damning" of America is Sarah Palin's official choice to give a "delighted" (her word) greeting to a party dedicated to the secession of a U.S. State from the United States. Had Joe Biden done something similar, or if Mrs. Biden maintained a long membership in such a party, I would respectfully submit that this fine blog would be troubled. In my mind, the textbook definition of "un-American" is the effort to disassociate people, places or things (or states) from the United States of America with prejudice against the USA.
Posted by: Bruce at October 7, 2008 12:58 AMI should clarify my own "fiery rhetoric" to note that my disrespect of the objective merit of the Wright "scandal" contrasts extremely sharply with my maximum respect for the author of this fine blog, to whom and whose family I wish a happy, healthy and sweet New Year.
Posted by: Bruce at October 7, 2008 1:03 AMRev. Wright's sense of injustice also included a number of items that just didn't happen. Didn't/Doesn't he rail about the U.S. government infecting Blacks with the AIDS virus?
Furthermore, in his speech to the Detroit NAACP, he explicitly derided Brown vs. Board of Education (I blogged about this, there was no other way to read his words) by spouting some phony educational theory. (Blacks can't understand White education because Blacks have rhythm. That's only a slight misrepresentation of what he said.) For one thing, if a White person made the comments he made, the White would (rightly) be declared a racist. For another, he rejects the social progress made in the past 50 years. Is this something that Sen. Obama also rejects? (The crowd in Detroit gave him a loud ovation. Now things are so topsy turvy that the NAACP rejects Brown!)
This is a lot more than simply criticizing the United States. He rejects the changes that make this country great. But this wasn't what drove Sen. Obama away. It was only when people started paying attention to Wright's speeches that Sen. Obama realized that there was a problem.
I haven't gotten to Wright's support (or apologia) for the likes of Farrakhan or Hamas.
Sarah Palin was never a member of the Independence Party, though, perhaps her husband was. I'm not sure how that's comparable.
Posted by: soccer dad at October 7, 2008 4:25 AM"Since Obama did not write the speech and probably was not even in attendance, I disrespect this entire thread. Fiery rhetoric is not common in Catholic churches (attributed to the strict requirement to attend) but in African-American churches it is the norm. One would likely find similar rhetoric at Bethel A.M.E. Church in West Baltimore on many a Sunday. Black congregations are not kind to preachers who come off sounding like Dana Carvey's church lady; rhetorical acumen and style are judged pretty severely and congregants will walk elsewhere with extreme prejudice if a preacher cannot deliver"
===========================================
Fiery rhetoric is one thing, hate speech damning America, hating whites and Jews is quite another. You are a jackass Bruce and I'm sick of those of you who apologize for everything Obama does. This guy has spent his life associating with marxis, radicals, racists, anti-Semites and islamists and people like you continue to whitewash that, claiming that's not his own views. Well you are judged by the company you keep. Obama is an anti-American, anti-white and anti-Semite.
Laura,
I don't agree with Bruce, but he is not a jack***. He's a friend who disagrees with me very strongly but always shows me respect. To overuse an appropriate phrase, he disagrees without being disagreeable.
David
Posted by: soccer dad at October 7, 2008 12:58 PM