When Jesus Drove a Porsche
I am not a very good Christian. I can't confidently flip to the right book, chapter and verse Sunday mornings without looking at the index as some others in my congregation can.
Still, I'm fairly confident that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not a religious martyr. He has never been publicly crucified. Hoisted on his own petard, perhaps, as he's been caught damning our nation and accusing our government of genocide and racism, even as he has profited handsomely from a theology based upon a devious blend of Marxism and racial politics, but not crucified. I'm pretty sure he isn't Jesus, even as he would like to make himself a messianic martyr. Last I checked, Jesus didn't drive a Porsche, and wasn't building a mansion in the exclusive neighborhood of Tinley Park while lecturing his inner-city flock about the evils of aspiring to "middleclassness" in the US of KKK-A. Though certainly grist for the media mill, I can't hold Wright's more recent outbursts directly against Obama. Wright's most recent vitriol has come after Obama has made at least minimal attempts to distance himself publicly from Wright's worst comments, even as he clings to the pastor and his warped theology. What I can question, however, is Obama's judgment in associating with such a man and other radicals throughout his adult life. As a nation, we've only known Jeremiah Wright for a few months now, but Barack Obama has known him for two decades. He knows the man's theology, his ministry, and after two decades, at least something of the man as an individual. Whether or not Obama heard any of Wright's specific rants is frankly irrelevant. In the larger picture, he should know who and what Wright is as a man. If the self-righteous, vitriolic narcissist we continue to see in the news is the real Jeremiah Wright, then we have every reason to question Barack Obama's devotion to a racial and radical theology well outside of the mainstream of the American religious experience. It is a matter of his personal judgment and his character. Barack Obama promises "change we can believe in" and a new spirit of bi-partisanship in politics. Were he a more mature candidate, we would have his record and his experience as a national legislator to judge him on as someone capable of making such a change, but his record is almost non-existent. He has taken few stands (if any) on issues he now claims to be important. The meager voting record he has compiled shows him to be anything but bi-partisan. Instead, he boasts the most liberal voting record in the Senate, to the left of even self-described democratic socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. With no record of bi-partisan accomplishments, all Barack Obama has to stand on is rhetoric—"just words." With mere words being insufficient, few actions to his credit and what little record he has compiled showing him to be a radical leftist instead of the inclusive moderate he claims to be, we're left to judge Barack based upon what we can divine of his character by the company he keeps. Radical violence-promoting priest Father Michael Pfleger, whom Obama has known even longer than Wright, and Wright is a man made rich by exploiting Chicago's urban poor via religion. Terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who formally declared war on the United States, and still despise this nation. Michelle Obama, who has an Ivy League education and a job that pays her hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, but still finds this to be a "mean" country. Barack Obama's minister may have made a mint off of preaching hate and may also be his greatest continuing public relations embarrassment, but his relationship with the man who would liken himself to being martyred like Jesus is just one example of Obama's poor character judgment, or perhaps just poor character. A man of few accomplishments to support his rhetorical promises, no proven leadership skills, and a past, present, and future filled with radicals more interested in fighting America than fighting for it, Barack Obama is not a candidate America can trust.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:02 AM
Comments
1
reverend wright, the gift that keeps on giving!
Posted by: Conservative CBU at April 28, 2008 11:33 AM (M+Vfm)
2
Jesus was a carpenter, he drove an old F-150. :-)
Posted by: DirtCrashr at April 28, 2008 11:44 AM (VNM5w)
3
What we are seeing is an extension of the MSM's continual blind eye in respect to black churches campaigning for Democrats. Just let a Republican set foot in a church and civilization as we know it is in danger of its very existence; however, Democrats of every race and color get a free pass.
The conservative preacher who voices disapproval of homosexuality, abortion, etc. is denounced as a "hater," while the racist black preacher is repackaged by the media as the victim.
The conservative preacher who voices disapproval of homosexuality, abortion, etc. is denounced as a "hater," while the racist black preacher is repackaged by the media as the victim.
Posted by: Paul at April 28, 2008 12:24 PM (WOi7W)
4
These several appearances by Wright are so tactically baffling I think we can assume Barry would rather he had gone off on an Antarctic cruise. But Rev Jeremiah is simply not the dissappearing type. Even Moyers couldn't give Wright enough slack to actually recover from a bit of this claptrap. It is obvious Wright is a wackjob but worse for Obammy, he is a narcissist and as deeply self-righteous as a fool can be. Maybe he thinks he is helping Team Obama but more likely he is just pissed at the world for being so bougie about the whole shtick. Wake up, suckers, just don't wake up MY suckers, he seems to say.
Posted by: megapotamus at April 28, 2008 12:49 PM (LF+qW)
5
With no record of bi-partisan accomplishments, all Barack Obama has to stand on is rhetoric—"'just words.'"
Ha! A blogger complaining about someone being all words. The irony is fantastic.
Ha! A blogger complaining about someone being all words. The irony is fantastic.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at April 28, 2008 01:28 PM (e2+FE)
6
Juan, you're an idiot. The blogger in question is not running for President. Obama is.
Posted by: Harry at April 28, 2008 01:41 PM (0suEp)
7
Harry, you expect logic and facts from an America hating far left wing fanatical nut job?
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 28, 2008 02:09 PM (kNqJV)
8
Faced with Mr. Wright's latest antics, one must ask: Why? What is his motivation?
The answer should be obvious: money.
Jeremiah Wright is seeking to replace Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton as the new black spokesperson. And the media is giving him tons of free publicity to achieve that goal.
Ahead: the book deals, the interviews, the fame, the fortune.
Wright is a man who has seized the moment, and who cares nothing for Barack Obama.
The answer should be obvious: money.
Jeremiah Wright is seeking to replace Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton as the new black spokesperson. And the media is giving him tons of free publicity to achieve that goal.
Ahead: the book deals, the interviews, the fame, the fortune.
Wright is a man who has seized the moment, and who cares nothing for Barack Obama.
Posted by: Just Askin' at April 28, 2008 02:17 PM (xyyVG)
9
Wright is a man who has seized the moment, and who cares nothing for Barack Obama.
Bingo! I'd be surprised if it weren't mutual. Barry's "christianity" is obviously a simple campaign gimmick. Ranks right up there with kissing babies...
Bingo! I'd be surprised if it weren't mutual. Barry's "christianity" is obviously a simple campaign gimmick. Ranks right up there with kissing babies...
Posted by: Diogenes at April 28, 2008 03:55 PM (2MrBP)
10
The Rev. Wright must be more mainstream than you think. This here is the poster boy for "Prosperity Theology," which teaches that God wants Christians to be "abundantly" successful in every way, including financially. If it's OK for white, southern televangelists, why not Rev. Wright? Or is it only obscene when a black minister gets rich peddling religion?
Posted by: Craig at April 28, 2008 04:02 PM (0MZfd)
11
"Harry, you expect logic and facts from an America hating far left wing fanatical nut job?"
When did I express anything that resembled "America hating" in that post? As a patriot, a fiscal conservative, and someone who cares about public policy — ie. not this BS discussion about what someone's pastor said at some point in time — I'm personally insulted.
I just thought it was a little ironic for a blogger to say that Obama was all rhetoric when 99.9% of all blog entries are, in fact, rhetoric.
Oh, and CY, you write really good articles on the issues from time to time. I like these articles because they point out where the candidates (and not the periphery figures in their their lives) stand on the issues. Please write more of these articles. I actually think you've got a good case against Obama, especially considering Obama's "let's pull out of Iraq in 16 months" delcaration. But what do I know? I'm just an America hating, left-wing, libtard, defeatocrat that hates America and eats babies for breakfast.
When did I express anything that resembled "America hating" in that post? As a patriot, a fiscal conservative, and someone who cares about public policy — ie. not this BS discussion about what someone's pastor said at some point in time — I'm personally insulted.
I just thought it was a little ironic for a blogger to say that Obama was all rhetoric when 99.9% of all blog entries are, in fact, rhetoric.
Oh, and CY, you write really good articles on the issues from time to time. I like these articles because they point out where the candidates (and not the periphery figures in their their lives) stand on the issues. Please write more of these articles. I actually think you've got a good case against Obama, especially considering Obama's "let's pull out of Iraq in 16 months" delcaration. But what do I know? I'm just an America hating, left-wing, libtard, defeatocrat that hates America and eats babies for breakfast.
Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at April 28, 2008 04:05 PM (e2+FE)
12
You really shouldn't eat babies at all. Turn yourself in to your local sheriff.
Posted by: brando at April 28, 2008 04:59 PM (qzOby)
13
Actually, Craig, you're not gonna find a lot of approval here for televangelists. I've seldom found one that was worth watching or listening to.
And that was a pathetic attempt at a straw-man. Televangelists, as a group, are only barely more respected than politicians, used car salesmen, and telemarketers.
And that was a pathetic attempt at a straw-man. Televangelists, as a group, are only barely more respected than politicians, used car salesmen, and telemarketers.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 28, 2008 06:35 PM (RP0Mk)
14
Or is it only obscene when a black minister gets rich peddling religion? Heck no. And why does the fact that those charlatans exist and rake in the lucre in any way mitigate the fact that Rev Wright is a repulsive and rich demagogue? Wright is spiritual mentor and pastor to a candidate for President of the United States. I know of no white televangelist who has such a close 20 year relationship to any other candidate.
Posted by: Zhombre at April 28, 2008 09:09 PM (SRZ4E)
15
Well gee, I would think that the way the pastor got rich might have something to do with it. Somehow getting rich by whipping one's flock into an orgy of pathetic racist hatred and resentment against the very people who are paying taxes so the members of the flock can be cut every imaginable break seems pretty bad form.
Posted by: Lancaster at April 28, 2008 09:28 PM (N91Mr)
16
Rev. Jesse Jackson makes a fine living as a race pimp as does Rev. Al Sharpton, who is currently trying to shut down New York City, so maybe Rev. Wright's claim to speak for the entire black church is not off the mark. I would hope to see some black religious leaders challenge him on the claim though as some of his claims and rhetoric seem particularly divisive. The whole left brain/right brain, clapping and tone differences explanations from Wright, if offered up by a white pastor, would have led to widespread and immediate denunciation.
I don't think he's helping the Messiah by supplying the context Obama's supporters ridiculously claim had been missing.
I don't think he's helping the Messiah by supplying the context Obama's supporters ridiculously claim had been missing.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 28, 2008 09:34 PM (0pZel)
17
Zhombre-
I think you're onto something. John McCain, a candidate for POTUS, also has close ties to controversial ministers. John Hagee, for instance, who has said vile things about Catholics and is a blatant anti-Arab racist, was an endorsement McCain sought and got. Also, McCain got close to Jerry Falwell following the 2000 election smackdown, and it was Falwell who said 9-11 was caused by "pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the American Civil Liberties Union and the People For the American Way." (That seems a lot wackier than "chickens coming home to roost," IMO). And of course, those words were said to Pat Robertson (another now-friend of McCain) on the 700 Club, who completely agreed on air.
I think you're onto something. John McCain, a candidate for POTUS, also has close ties to controversial ministers. John Hagee, for instance, who has said vile things about Catholics and is a blatant anti-Arab racist, was an endorsement McCain sought and got. Also, McCain got close to Jerry Falwell following the 2000 election smackdown, and it was Falwell who said 9-11 was caused by "pagans, abortionists, feminists, gays, lesbians, the American Civil Liberties Union and the People For the American Way." (That seems a lot wackier than "chickens coming home to roost," IMO). And of course, those words were said to Pat Robertson (another now-friend of McCain) on the 700 Club, who completely agreed on air.
Posted by: Craig at April 28, 2008 10:05 PM (0MZfd)
18
And for how many decades did McCain attend Haggee's church? Was McCain drawn to become a member of a specific church because Falwell was the pastor, was he married by Falwell, and did he have his children baptized by Falwell, and did he expose his minor children to racist, paranoid ranting delivered by Falwell or Hagee week-in, and week out?
If so, Craig, you've got a legitimate comparison. If not, you're simply a sad apologist.
If so, Craig, you've got a legitimate comparison. If not, you're simply a sad apologist.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 28, 2008 10:12 PM (HcgFD)
Posted by: Magnus at April 28, 2008 10:15 PM (N91Mr)
20
Craig, there ya go with that silly straw man again. You never learn, do you?
Did McCain sit in Hagee's church for 20 years? How about Falwell's?
Did McCain take one of Hagee's or Falwell's sermons as the title of his book?
Did McCain give Hagee or Falwell an official position in any of his campaigns?
Did Hagee or Falwell marry McCain and his wife, or baptize his kids?
Do you comprehend the difference between a 20 year association and a one-time meeting?
Are you ever gonna drop that silly straw man? Perhaps after we demolish it a dozen times?
Did McCain sit in Hagee's church for 20 years? How about Falwell's?
Did McCain take one of Hagee's or Falwell's sermons as the title of his book?
Did McCain give Hagee or Falwell an official position in any of his campaigns?
Did Hagee or Falwell marry McCain and his wife, or baptize his kids?
Do you comprehend the difference between a 20 year association and a one-time meeting?
Are you ever gonna drop that silly straw man? Perhaps after we demolish it a dozen times?
Posted by: C-C-G at April 28, 2008 10:15 PM (RP0Mk)
21
C-C-G - No, Craig is such a newb he wants to reargue the start of the Iraq war and WMD for the 10,000th time. College is a time of discovery!
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 28, 2008 10:26 PM (0pZel)
22
Then he can display his straw man on campus... it's getting annoying having to knock it down every time this subject comes up.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 28, 2008 10:31 PM (RP0Mk)
23
Didn't have time to do more than skim the comments...
The mainstreammedia is going to kick themselves when this is all over if they don't do something quick to bury Obama and rebuild Hillary. The results and tone will be different, but it will be similar to Bob Dole being given the nod by the Rep. party when it seemed obvious to me he had no chance of winning. Obama's associations, coupled with the little amount of time he's been in a big position, is fatal. We should start using that in the past tense: was fatal to his candidacy.
I thought the MSM would understand that right away and destory him, but they went for playing defense for him, and that just shows how out of touch with mainstream American society they are and how out of touch with the reality of alternative sources the people have been turning to for information for some time.
I thought the MSM would be won over by the tactical expediency of burying Obama.
I under estimated their hold on the long-term strategic platform that ----- basically agrees with Rev. Wright --- that the US is the biggest problem in the world --- and with Obama on gun toting, weak willed, desperate Bible thumping rednecks that make up all those red states....
The mainstreammedia is going to kick themselves when this is all over if they don't do something quick to bury Obama and rebuild Hillary. The results and tone will be different, but it will be similar to Bob Dole being given the nod by the Rep. party when it seemed obvious to me he had no chance of winning. Obama's associations, coupled with the little amount of time he's been in a big position, is fatal. We should start using that in the past tense: was fatal to his candidacy.
I thought the MSM would understand that right away and destory him, but they went for playing defense for him, and that just shows how out of touch with mainstream American society they are and how out of touch with the reality of alternative sources the people have been turning to for information for some time.
I thought the MSM would be won over by the tactical expediency of burying Obama.
I under estimated their hold on the long-term strategic platform that ----- basically agrees with Rev. Wright --- that the US is the biggest problem in the world --- and with Obama on gun toting, weak willed, desperate Bible thumping rednecks that make up all those red states....
Posted by: usinkorea at April 28, 2008 10:31 PM (x4a4p)
24
C-C-G-
So it's OK to actively solicit endorsements from nutso pastors so long as you don't attend their churches, write books about them, have kids baptized by them, and/or put them in your campaign? That seems to be the only distinction you've drawn.
By the way, you've been awfully niggardly with the "nice try's" lately. Don't think I haven't noticed.
So it's OK to actively solicit endorsements from nutso pastors so long as you don't attend their churches, write books about them, have kids baptized by them, and/or put them in your campaign? That seems to be the only distinction you've drawn.
By the way, you've been awfully niggardly with the "nice try's" lately. Don't think I haven't noticed.
Posted by: Craig at April 28, 2008 10:38 PM (0MZfd)
25
Craig: Prove that McCain made the first move towards Hagee and Falwell, as opposed to them approaching him first.
If you can, then yes, I will say that McCain was wrong to do that. God knows it's not the first nor the last thing he's been wrong about, and I am not the least bit reticent about saying that he's wrong on many issues.
However, I seriously doubt that you can prove your assertions, which means that you're just another lying lefty trying to smear someone who, unlike Obama or Hillary, actually served his country in a time of war.
If you can, then yes, I will say that McCain was wrong to do that. God knows it's not the first nor the last thing he's been wrong about, and I am not the least bit reticent about saying that he's wrong on many issues.
However, I seriously doubt that you can prove your assertions, which means that you're just another lying lefty trying to smear someone who, unlike Obama or Hillary, actually served his country in a time of war.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 28, 2008 10:41 PM (RP0Mk)
26
(Confidential to C-C-G:
The day you best me in an argument, I'll buy you the DVD box set of Davie and Goliath. BTW, when you learn a brand new term (e.g. "straw man") (a) try to use it correctly and consistently and (b) don't overuse it.)
The day you best me in an argument, I'll buy you the DVD box set of Davie and Goliath. BTW, when you learn a brand new term (e.g. "straw man") (a) try to use it correctly and consistently and (b) don't overuse it.)
Posted by: Craig at April 28, 2008 10:42 PM (0MZfd)
27
Ahh, yes, the old lefty "debating" technique... when asked a question you can't answer, start with the ad hominem attacks.
Now, where's your proof that McCain approached Hagee and/or Falwell, as opposed to the other way around?
Now, where's your proof that McCain approached Hagee and/or Falwell, as opposed to the other way around?
Posted by: C-C-G at April 28, 2008 10:49 PM (RP0Mk)
28
C-C-G:
Go to the external links in the John Hagee Wikipedia page and you will see that John McCain admits to having courted/solicited Hagee's endorsement. Hagee, by the way, said Katrina was God's punishment to New Orleans.
Interesting quote by you:
"[Y]ou're just another lying lefty trying to smear someone who, unlike Obama or Hillary, actually served his country in a time of war."
I'd be interested to hear if you had this same attitude when John Kerry was getting the Swift Boat treatment. Recall that W only defended Texas during Nam, and Cheney had "other priorities."
Go to the external links in the John Hagee Wikipedia page and you will see that John McCain admits to having courted/solicited Hagee's endorsement. Hagee, by the way, said Katrina was God's punishment to New Orleans.
Interesting quote by you:
"[Y]ou're just another lying lefty trying to smear someone who, unlike Obama or Hillary, actually served his country in a time of war."
I'd be interested to hear if you had this same attitude when John Kerry was getting the Swift Boat treatment. Recall that W only defended Texas during Nam, and Cheney had "other priorities."
Posted by: Craig at April 28, 2008 10:59 PM (0MZfd)
29
Sorry, not in the market for red herrings today, Craig.
And Wikipedia is hardly a credible source, since I could easily edit it to show just the opposite of what you claim.
Try again. I am gonna get some sleep while you scour the internet for a reliable source.
And Wikipedia is hardly a credible source, since I could easily edit it to show just the opposite of what you claim.
Try again. I am gonna get some sleep while you scour the internet for a reliable source.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 28, 2008 11:06 PM (RP0Mk)
30
C-C-G - I'm sure you saw that McCain disavowed Hagee's comments regarding Katrina and he has not attended his church for 20 years. Heagee endorsing McCain means that Hagee endorses McCain's views, not that McCain endorses Hagee's. I don't know why the left keeps getting confused on that point. It's unlike Obama's refusal to distance himself from Wright or to be specific about which comments of Wright's he disagrees with.
The left also perverted the meaning of Swift Boat. None of the claims in the original Swift Boat advertisements relating to John Kerry have been debunked in spite of the left's repeated claims to the contrary. I would be interested if someone like Craig has new evidence to the contrary. So Swift Boating originally meant telling inconventient truth about someone, which the left has twisted into telling lies.
John McCain actually complained about the treatment of Kerry by the Swift Boat vets.
Bush did voluteer for overseas service, I believe, but was turned down.
I think this site needs a better crop of trolls again.
The left also perverted the meaning of Swift Boat. None of the claims in the original Swift Boat advertisements relating to John Kerry have been debunked in spite of the left's repeated claims to the contrary. I would be interested if someone like Craig has new evidence to the contrary. So Swift Boating originally meant telling inconventient truth about someone, which the left has twisted into telling lies.
John McCain actually complained about the treatment of Kerry by the Swift Boat vets.
Bush did voluteer for overseas service, I believe, but was turned down.
I think this site needs a better crop of trolls again.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 28, 2008 11:34 PM (0pZel)
31
C-C-G - I'm sure you saw that McCain disavowed Hagee's comments regarding Katrina and he has not attended his church for 20 years. Heagee endorsing McCain means that Hagee endorses McCain's views, not that McCain endorses Hagee's. I don't know why the left keeps getting confused on that point. It's unlike Obama's refusal to distance himself from Wright or to be specific about which comments of Wright's he disagrees with.
The left also perverted the meaning of Swift Boat. None of the claims in the original Swift Boat advertisements relating to John Kerry have been debunked in spite of the left's repeated claims to the contrary. I would be interested if someone like Craig has new evidence to the contrary. So Swift Boating originally meant telling inconventient truth about someone, which the left has twisted into telling lies.
John McCain actually complained about the treatment of Kerry by the Swift Boat vets.
Bush did voluteer for overseas service, I believe, but was turned down.
I think this site needs a better crop of trolls again.
The left also perverted the meaning of Swift Boat. None of the claims in the original Swift Boat advertisements relating to John Kerry have been debunked in spite of the left's repeated claims to the contrary. I would be interested if someone like Craig has new evidence to the contrary. So Swift Boating originally meant telling inconventient truth about someone, which the left has twisted into telling lies.
John McCain actually complained about the treatment of Kerry by the Swift Boat vets.
Bush did voluteer for overseas service, I believe, but was turned down.
I think this site needs a better crop of trolls again.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 28, 2008 11:34 PM (0pZel)
32
I'd like to see video evidence of these so called remarks from Hagee. As far as I can tell the "quotes" have been made up out of whole cloth. But then again Craig will believe what any left wing kook says.
Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at April 28, 2008 11:34 PM (kNqJV)
33
C-C-G - I'm sure you saw that McCain disavowed Hagee's comments regarding Katrina and he has not attended his church for 20 years. Heagee endorsing McCain means that Hagee endorses McCain's views, not that McCain endorses Hagee's. I don't know why the left keeps getting confused on that point. It's unlike Obama's refusal to distance himself from Wright or to be specific about which comments of Wright's he disagrees with.
The left also perverted the meaning of Swift Boat. None of the claims in the original Swift Boat advertisements relating to John Kerry have been debunked in spite of the left's repeated claims to the contrary. I would be interested if someone like Craig has new evidence to the contrary. So Swift Boating originally meant telling inconventient truth about someone, which the left has twisted into telling lies.
John McCain actually complained about the treatment of Kerry by the Swift Boat vets.
Bush did voluteer for overseas service, I believe, but was turned down.
I think this site needs a better crop of trolls again.
The left also perverted the meaning of Swift Boat. None of the claims in the original Swift Boat advertisements relating to John Kerry have been debunked in spite of the left's repeated claims to the contrary. I would be interested if someone like Craig has new evidence to the contrary. So Swift Boating originally meant telling inconventient truth about someone, which the left has twisted into telling lies.
John McCain actually complained about the treatment of Kerry by the Swift Boat vets.
Bush did voluteer for overseas service, I believe, but was turned down.
I think this site needs a better crop of trolls again.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 28, 2008 11:34 PM (0pZel)
34
>Or is it only obscene when a black minister gets rich peddling religion?
I've never heard Pat Robertson say 'G-D America'.
I've never heard Pat Robertson say 'G-D America'.
Posted by: Bloody Yank at April 29, 2008 05:10 AM (KOkrW)
35
Pretty sad all around actually. Instead of posts and debates about economy, deficit, war, etc, its BS about who is associated with the nuttiest religious leader and how. Ah, the great experiment...
Posted by: matta at April 29, 2008 08:33 AM (F+fRS)
36
Pretty sad all around actually. Instead of posts and debates about economy, deficit, war, etc, its BS about who is associated with the nuttiest religious leader and how.
And the funniest bit about that, matta, is that keeping the electorate focused on Obama's associates is probably far better for him than us focusing on him and his rhetoric.
Obama is a trainwreck on policy issues, has taken little or no initiative as a leader while in the Senate (or even in state elective office, I think), and has no noteworthy experience that suggests he is in any way ready to be President.
If people focus on him, they find a far left liberal well out of the mainstream, without anything in his record indicating that he is capable of the bipartisanship required in "change we can believe in."
And as much as he irritates me at times, guess which Presidential candidate has a very substantial record of crossing the aisle, and who really is the best candidate to deliver "change?"
Yup. I find it ironic that McCain could easily highjack "change we can believe in" and beat Obama into the ground with it if he so desired.
Barack Obama better hope we stay interested in his associations and his associates. Once we get around to substance, McCain (and for that matter, Clinton, and probably whoever McCain chooses as Veep) will wipe the floor with the inexperienced freshman.
Pretty sad all around actually. Instead of posts and debates about economy, deficit, war, etc, its BS about who is associated with the nuttiest religious leader and how.
And the funniest bit about that, matta, is that keeping the electorate focused on Obama's associates is probably far better for him than us focusing on him and his rhetoric.
Obama is a trainwreck on policy issues, has taken little or no initiative as a leader while in the Senate (or even in state elective office, I think), and has no noteworthy experience that suggests he is in any way ready to be President.
If people focus on him, they find a far left liberal well out of the mainstream, without anything in his record indicating that he is capable of the bipartisanship required in "change we can believe in."
And as much as he irritates me at times, guess which Presidential candidate has a very substantial record of crossing the aisle, and who really is the best candidate to deliver "change?"
Yup. I find it ironic that McCain could easily highjack "change we can believe in" and beat Obama into the ground with it if he so desired.
Barack Obama better hope we stay interested in his associations and his associates. Once we get around to substance, McCain (and for that matter, Clinton, and probably whoever McCain chooses as Veep) will wipe the floor with the inexperienced freshman.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 29, 2008 08:44 AM (HcgFD)
37
CY - Because Obama is still protected by the national media, there is some very good work related to his time in state politics that has not received national attention at this point. It shows him as a typical corrupt Chicago machine politician trading favors. Most people from Illinois are familiar with the system, but those from the outside would certainly be shocked at the sleaze.
Not all the shoes have dropped on Comrade Obama's campaign yet.
Not all the shoes have dropped on Comrade Obama's campaign yet.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 29, 2008 08:57 AM (0pZel)
38
And the funniest bit about that, matta, is that keeping the electorate focused on Obama's associates is probably far better for him than us focusing on him and his rhetoric.
Obama is a trainwreck on policy issues, has taken little or no initiative as a leader while in the Senate (or even in state elective office, I think), and has no noteworthy experience that suggests he is in any way ready to be President.
GREAT! Lets see some posts about that. This Bill Ayers and Wright silliness is all about the freakshow distractions...
And as much as he irritates me at times, guess which Presidential candidate has a very substantial record of crossing the aisle, and who really is the best candidate to deliver "change?"
McCain won't run that way because for a Republican to promote himself as the "change" agent is to imply that the last 8 years was a mistake in some way and we all know that since GWB himself can't remember any mistakes, no one else in the party can. He'll be asked what needs to be changed and why now and not back then and why did he vote for it then but not now. This approach would demoralize his base and make him look like a panderer. He can try and nuance himself by saying we need to change somethings but minute corrections will be lost on the electorate at large when someone else is saying it all needs to be changed...
So even though I agree that McCain is more of a "change" agent the Obama is, if he runs that way, he's toast.
And the funniest bit about that, matta, is that keeping the electorate focused on Obama's associates is probably far better for him than us focusing on him and his rhetoric.
Obama is a trainwreck on policy issues, has taken little or no initiative as a leader while in the Senate (or even in state elective office, I think), and has no noteworthy experience that suggests he is in any way ready to be President.
GREAT! Lets see some posts about that. This Bill Ayers and Wright silliness is all about the freakshow distractions...
And as much as he irritates me at times, guess which Presidential candidate has a very substantial record of crossing the aisle, and who really is the best candidate to deliver "change?"
McCain won't run that way because for a Republican to promote himself as the "change" agent is to imply that the last 8 years was a mistake in some way and we all know that since GWB himself can't remember any mistakes, no one else in the party can. He'll be asked what needs to be changed and why now and not back then and why did he vote for it then but not now. This approach would demoralize his base and make him look like a panderer. He can try and nuance himself by saying we need to change somethings but minute corrections will be lost on the electorate at large when someone else is saying it all needs to be changed...
So even though I agree that McCain is more of a "change" agent the Obama is, if he runs that way, he's toast.
Posted by: matta at April 29, 2008 09:15 AM (F+fRS)
39
C-C-G:
I wrote EXTERNAL links. External. Links. The content of the sites linked to by the external links are not subject to editing, to the extent they link to non-editable sites. But since you asked, here's a piece in Editor and Publisher, which cannot be edited by you and me, demonstrating that McCain sought Hagee's endorsement. And another is a video of McCain explaining how Hagee's endorsement proves he's reaching out to the "far right."
Daleyrocks: Evidence that severely undercuts the veracity and credibility of the prime swift boater.
I won't hold my breath waiting for yous to cede ground, but now you know.
I wrote EXTERNAL links. External. Links. The content of the sites linked to by the external links are not subject to editing, to the extent they link to non-editable sites. But since you asked, here's a piece in Editor and Publisher, which cannot be edited by you and me, demonstrating that McCain sought Hagee's endorsement. And another is a video of McCain explaining how Hagee's endorsement proves he's reaching out to the "far right."
Daleyrocks: Evidence that severely undercuts the veracity and credibility of the prime swift boater.
I won't hold my breath waiting for yous to cede ground, but now you know.
Posted by: Craig at April 29, 2008 10:31 AM (0MZfd)
40
Fine, Craig, as I said, I hereby say that McCain was wrong to solicit Hagee's endorsement.
I also say that McCain-Feingold is wrong, McCain-Kennedy was a travesty and I am glad we defeated it, and McCain is wrong in upbraiding the NC GOP for their recent ad featuring Rev. Wright.
See, as I've mentioned before--I think it was to you, in fact--we on the right are willing to admit our candidates can be wrong on occasion. It's called "honesty." You should try it sometime.
I also say that McCain-Feingold is wrong, McCain-Kennedy was a travesty and I am glad we defeated it, and McCain is wrong in upbraiding the NC GOP for their recent ad featuring Rev. Wright.
See, as I've mentioned before--I think it was to you, in fact--we on the right are willing to admit our candidates can be wrong on occasion. It's called "honesty." You should try it sometime.
Posted by: C-C-G at April 29, 2008 07:18 PM (RP0Mk)
41
Craig - Thanks for the link. Read the whole story. Next time try to provide one that supports your argument rather than mine.
Posted by: daleyrocks at April 29, 2008 09:12 PM (0pZel)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0164 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0095 seconds, 49 records returned.
Page size 35 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.