Krauthammer on Obama
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:22 pm by David FarrarConservative commentator Charles Krauthammer pull no punches. First he asks which controversial statements did Obama sit through without a word of protest. Did they include:
- Wright’s assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented the HIV virus “as a means of genocide against people of color”?
- Wright’s claim that America was morally responsible for 9/11 — “chickens coming home to roost” — because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
- the charge that the U.S. government (of Franklin Roosevelt, mind you) knew about Pearl Harbor, but lied about it?
- the government gives drugs to black people, presumably to enslave and imprison them?
He then attacks the comparison of Rev Wright to his white grandmother who said she was scared of black men who passed her on the street:
“I can no more disown (Wright) than I can my white grandmother.” What exactly was grandma’s offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street. And Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus’ time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did grandma.
Yet Obama compares her to Wright. Does he not see the moral difference between the occasional private expression of the prejudices of one’s time and the use of a public stage to spread racial lies and race hatred?
Krauthammer does get to a key point. There is no comparison between the two. And I wonder how many people listened to those sermons and believed that the US Government invented AIDS to use against black people.
Finally he asks:
If Wright is a man of the past, why would you expose your children to his vitriolic divisiveness? This is a man who curses America and who proclaimed moral satisfaction in the deaths of 3,000 innocents at a time when their bodies were still being sought at Ground Zero. It is not just the older congregants who stand and cheer and roar in wild approval of Wright’s rants, but young people as well. Why did you give $22,500 just two years ago to a church run by a man of the past who infects the younger generation with precisely the racial attitudes and animus you say you have come unto us to transcend?
To balance things up, here’s an article on how Hillary Clinton is a active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles which is known as “The Family”. The article alleges The Family has Nazi and fascist links over many decades. I don’t think the allegations are credible somehow.
And to add to woes for the Democrats, 25% of Florida Democrats have said in a poll they are less likely to support their party’s nominee if their state is not seated at the Democratic Convention.
Related posts:
- Obama vs the Internet
- Analysing the Democratic Results
- The Is Obama the anti-Christ poll
- Obama closer but not quite there
March 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
You’d think it would be better for these candidates not to go to church, but then they’d really be attacked, I guess.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Obama also said his grandmother’s comments made him “cringe”. No indication that Wright had anything like the same effect on him.
The more his speech is analysed the more the moral equivalence is exposed. And why, after, but not before, Wright’s bigotry and hatred was exposed, was it suddenly necessary that America needed a conversation about race.
His speech was nothing but a snow job.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
(Long time lurker – these US politics posts have finally drawn me out of hiding…)
Speaking of balancing things up (ie trying to provide a balance against the views of Krauthammer regarding Obama and Wright, as opposed to posting negative things about both Democratic candidates), it is actually interesting to go and read/watch/listen to the actual Rev Wright sermons. Regardless of whether you agree with what he says, arguably they’ve been considerably misrepresented by the US media and its 30-second-sound-bite, talking head mentality.
A good example is the sermon that contains the 9/11 reference, in which Wright “was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News.” Which is not exactly what Krauthammer would have you believe. http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
It might also pay to check out the latest Gallup poll, which suggests that Obama’s speech addressing this issue has largely been a success. http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
look at it this way radvad:
Vote:“The more his speech is analysed the more the moral equivalence is exposed. And why, after, but not before, [a black presidential candidate emerged] /[Wright’s bigotry and hatred was exposed], was it suddenly necessary that America needed a conversation about race.”
America never appeared to engage in much conversation about race in presidential elections prior to this.
March 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Could anyone point me towards any column where Charles Krauthammer expressed any disquiet about senior Republicans — including George Bush — associating with Jerry Falwell who publicly opined that the 9/11 attacks were ‘God’s judgement on America” for its tolerance of feminism, homosexuality and other forms of secular humanism? All I’ve been able to find is ten words in a column dated September 21, 2001 where most of his criticism was directed at (lefty dyke) Susan Sontag.
And sure don’t see much evidence that these vile comments in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks made Falwell persona non grata in the GOP or evangelical circles.
And Radvad, that’s not ‘moral equivalence’ — it’s pointing out hypocrisy. Still, perhaps I should show some Easter spirit and assume there’s been a rebirth on the TheoCon right (and its enablers among the commentariat) where pimping casual bigotry for ratings, donations and votes will no longer be seen.
And ‘Posh’ Beckham might put on some weight.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 1:59 pm
“(Krauthammer) asks which controversial statements did Obama sit through without a word of protest.”
Who’s he asking? This sounds like innuendo, asking a question that will predispose people to draw the most sensationalist conclusions.
Either way, who hasn’t sat through a speech they disagreed with?
DPF, I think you’ve acknowledged that you don’t think Obama agrees with Wright’s rascist statements, in fact I don’t think anyone is claiming he does, so why are people continuing to use their relationship to throw mud at Obama?
It’s to create a perception of Obama being guilty of something when all he is guilty of is association.
Regarding the “Wright was Obama’s mentor” line of reasoning, Who agrees with everything their mentors say? and why, again, when it’s accepted that Obama doesn’t agree with Wright on these points, is the fact that Wright was his mentor considered to be pivotal?
“Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus’ time. He never spread racial hatred.”
So Obama is less rascist that Truman.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I suppose it’s possible that someone could so completely fail to get it as AW’s comment suggests but I find it difficult to believe.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“And sure don’t see much evidence that these vile comments in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks made Falwell persona non grata in the GOP or evangelical circles.”
Falwell apologised immediately of course. ..and considering it was not (contrary to Wright’s position) a view that he had held and expressed over any length of time, what more could then be said? Still makes you think don’t it? Are the soldiers dying in Iraq so that Jerry Springer can provide bored daytime TV viewers with the spectacle of fat loud mouthed African American dykes punching each other out? Or is something more at stake?
“And ‘Posh’ Beckham might put on some weight.”
Wow, celebrities..!!
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Is there a claim out there anywhere that Obama has ever made a racist or sexist or agest or anti religious statement? How about a statement advocating discrimination of any kind?
Vote:If so, how about we look at that, rather than using this gutter politics to blame him for the views of other people.
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Come on, the speech was a serious attempt to speak to the public as if they were adults (ripped from the daily show).
Sure it wasn’t perfect and maybe his grandmother was not as bad as revered white (although if that is the case it might well be more a comment on her position in society than her actual opinions). Also I agree with David Brin that Obama has let down those who believe in standing up to moronic ideas whoever they rise their heads.
But I think the worst of the hypocracy is not in Obama’s actions but in the combination of all the Public figures who avoid adressing serious issues like that and the media who create a racist effect hidden under a cloak of questions about whether the speech will ‘play well’. And for that matter the sort of thing CR mentions above.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
“I suppose it’s possible that someone could so completely fail to get it as AW’s comment suggests but I find it difficult to believe.”
Nuttin’s impossible where the Silvercheck Kid is concerned.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Well, Redbaiter, after denying he’d made the comments at all (which, naturally, when the denial became simple absurd the spin moved to them being taken ‘out of context’ by the liberal media) and days of sustained criticism when even fellow evangelicals were publicly saying he’d gone too far.
But as I said, I’m yet to see evidence that anyone in the GOP — including President Bush — decided these comments were so rank and offensive that he was persona non grata.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Wow francis, can’t wait for your rebuttal.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
And you might have a look at this, Craig:
Vote:http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Andrew, I don’t even know what a “rebuttel” is.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
And if anyone’s interested, a much more thoughtful and interesting critique of Obama’s speech can be found in Peggy Noonan’s most recent Wall Street Journal column.
http://www.peggynoonan.com/main.php
Eww, thanks Francis. I think.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
“Wow francis, can’t wait for your rebuttel. (since edited to rebuttal)”
Well maybe like me Andy, he can’t work out what the fuck you were butteling in the first place..!!
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Yep, that’s not bad, especially for Noonan, but she’s clearly an Obama booster rather than an outsider looking in.
EDIT: there’s a good politico.com piece about conservatives for obama, in which Noonan is discussed: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6991.html
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Oh, Francis… I guess anyone who doesn’t toe the party line with sufficient vigour is a ‘booster’, but I’ve been reading her work for a long time and you do realise she’s a registered Republican but one who isn’t afraid to think for herself.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
That’s certainly one way of looking at her work
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois today urged hundreds of blacks not to vote along racial lines next week in Maryland’s Senate race. Obama, the only black U.S. senator, came to the state to rally support for Democratic Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, who is white. Cardin’s Republican opponent, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, is the first black candidate ever elected statewide and has been courting black Democrats.”–Associated Press, Nov. 3
“The nation’s only black senator, Barack Obama, D-Ill., asked voters at two black churches and at a Nashville rally to elect [Harold] Ford, a Democrat who is trying to become the first black senator from the South in more than 100 years. ‘I know that all of you are going to work the next couple of days to make sure it happens, because I’m feeling lonely in Washington,’ Obama said at the Mt. Zion Baptist Church. ‘I need my dear friend to join me.’ “–Associated Press, Nov. 5
“But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know there’s a reaction that’s been been bred into our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that’s just the nature of race in our society.”
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I’ve always really liked Harold Ford, thought he should have won Tennessee, was surprised that he didn’t. Don’t really know how much that “call me” ad had to do with his loss but there’s a great interview with the model who made it on YouTube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZuObiTrp4kU&feature=related
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
francis:
Money quote in the Rosen piece “Conservatives for Obama”
“Ultimately, this conversation is probably moot. Despite recent hiccups, Clinton is cruising to the nomination in unprecedented fashion.
But Obama remains a credible vice-presidential choice, and 2012 isn’t that far away either”
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
“Regarding the “Wright was Obama’s mentor” line of reasoning, Who agrees with everything their mentors say?”
True, of course. However it is not always that simple. Obama is a politician. Wright is a preacher making extreme, even incendiary political statements. Obama attended that church (although not this weekend) for 20 years, he donated lots to it and involved his children in it. He knew he was a bigot yet he had him on his campaign committee and called him his mentor. Some of Michele Obama’s statements indicate some of Wright’s hatred has rubbed off.
Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani. I did not hold that against Rudy. However, if Rudy had him on his campaign committee, called him his mentor, attended and donated to his church regularly, then I would think differently.
Do you see the difference? Because there is one.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Here’s a Washington Monthly piece by Kevin Drum on perceptions about Obama’s speech. Looks like the American electorate is wising up to the evil manipulative tactics that the Republicans specialise in (though not exclusively). What does he mean by suggesting “hardcore Fox viewers” are unpersuadable? Oh dear, could there be any Faux News fanatics on this thread? Come along now, put up your hands…
OBAMA’S NOTICES….CBS News has an early poll showing that Barack Obama’s speech about race and Jeremiah Wright was generally well received:
Vote:Sixty-nine percent of voters who have heard or read about Obama’s speech say he did a good job addressing the issue of race relations, and 63 percent of voters following the events say they agree with Obama’s views on race relations. Seventy-one percent say he did a good job explaining his relationship with Wright.
When registered voters were asked if Obama would unite the country, however, 52 percent said yes — down from 67 percent last month.
This is probably about as good as it could have been. There was never any chance of persuading the 30% of hardcore Fox viewers, after all, and this poll suggests that he got virtually unanimous support among everyone else.
March 23rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
The problem with the Krauthammer analysis was that Obama’s speech wasn’t one of moral equivalents. He simply didn’t say that his grandmother’s statements (or the underlying attitude) are the same as or equal to or justify the Rev Wright’s comments.
What he was actually saying is that there is good and bad in everyone even those closest. He didn’t offer this an excuse but rather an explanation.
The problem that most conservative commentators have with Obama is that he is as good as he appears. They equally believe that McCain isn’t as good as the independents believe him to be. What Obama represents is actually campaign momentum – this is very bad news for the Republicans who were relishing the though of re-running old elections against Hilary Clinton, who has the highest negativity rating out of the three and is guaranteed to assist in driving out Republicans to the polls.
For Conservative commentators the Rev Wright is to Obama what Bill Clinton is to Hilary Clinton. After all if Clinton where in the lead and had momentum, the same commentators would be spending column inches on what we can know about Hilary Clinton’s value system from her sticking with a serial philanderer. It’s really the same old same old.
Republican’s cannot fight on economics because of the perilous state of the US economy and because their own party has the big spending federal government party greater than any Democrat has ever been.
Krauthammer is also a neocon in the proper sense of the term he has shifted from left to right principally on the issue of democracy building abroad. There is nothing much in the Republican genealogy about spreading democracy and transforming the world. He will certainly strongly support McCain and consider that the project is probably still safe with Clinton.
The best piece on Obama from a conservative perspective that deals with the racial issue by someone who knows about the impact of race in a public policy context is by Charles Murray:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTM4MjJkYmNhMjM5MjQ1YzVhNzhjMTE3NzQ1ZWI4MjU=
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
“CBS News has an early poll showing…”
OH yeah, CBS news. The guys behind the fake Bush National Guard papers. For sure they can be relied upon for truth and enlightenment.
I mean that Fox outfit are are just a pack of liars right? They actually present an alternative to the wall to wall left liberal bias of the mainstream media. What fucken arrogance. Put the fuckers up against the wall right? Obama’s hero, the mass murdering psychopath Che Guevara would know how to deal with ‘em.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Radvad:
McCain described leaders of the evangelical right (including Falwell) as “evil” for rightly opposing him on campaign finance reform and labels them agents of intolerance [ clear dis-association]
He then retracts the “evil” comment not the “agents of intolerance” and does not retreat from his wrongheaded position on campaign finance reform.
He then makes up with Falwell at Liberty [clear association]
Thus is now cultivating support from those he once described as “evil” and still maintains they are agents of intolerance for mere political advancement.
Your real difficulty is that you are being too binary on Wright – he’s not consistently bigoted in all areas, he’s not that unusual in Black Churches, and bigotry isn’t limited just to those Churches.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“Your real difficulty is that you are being too binary on Wright – he’s not consistently bigoted in all areas, he’s not that unusual in Black Churches, and bigotry isn’t limited just to those Churches.’
Actually, Wright seems to be a great deal less bigoted than the clever editing of selected extracts of his speeches by Faux News and other right-wing propagandists makes him out to be. Before responding to this post, people, do take a look at the transcript of the “Chickens” speech on http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
In the interests of fairness & balance , I should point out that some of Roland Martin’s reading of the speech is in error, and Sweetness & Light (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/wright-credited-malcolm-x-for-chickens-line) has a correction from a very right-wing perspective that will warm the cockles of your hard little neoliberal hearts.
Enjoy!
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Personally I think this Wright issue is trivial. As I said in January, if you look at Obama’s advisors you find far more significant pointers to his possible actions if he gets elected. For example have a look at this recent interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski who is one of Obama’s FP advisors. He covers both Iraq and neatly touches on the issue of Clinton’s experience vs Obama’s.
If you’re interested here’s another interview expanding on his Iraq views and where he describes Iraq as a war of “Presidential hubris,” which it clearly is.
Brzezinski like Rove is always insightful and I always listen very seriously to what both those guys say. However I am also aware that both of their motivations are somewhat obscure as it were. Brzezinski was almost certainly the architect of many of the Eastern-european “colour” revolutions, it’s likely he was involved in the Kosovo secession, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that his fingerprints are on the Tibetan uprising which is almost certainly a CIA/MI-6 operation. What this means if Obama gets elected is that we can expect relations between China/Russia and US to become quite heated. That to me is a bit more important than whether or not Obama’s preacher is a racist.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
For fuck sake..!!! What’s with the nit picking distraction of this focus on the one speech? The creep has consistently advocated a hate America hate whitey position for decades. Trying to cloud that fact?
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
The selective use of that CBS poll won’t wash with me. CBS have been cheerleaders for Obama all along.
The latest Rasmussen poll shows that Obama has lost ground since this story broke. Note that they also found that 56% said they were concerned about Obama’s relationship with Wright (a friend of none other than that bigot named Farrakhan).
It has to be noted that in Pennsylvania the polls show Clinton with a significant lead while in North Carolina where Obama should romp home with the large black population the gap has closed up to within the margin of error in the latest poll.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Redbaiter Add karma Subtract karma +0 Says: March 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
For fuck sake..!!! What’s with the nit picking distraction of this focus on the one speech?
Since you ask… If people look at one speech, and see how they’ve been duped by Faux News, then maybe they might start to think for themselves, and use more balanced sources of information. I’d say that you are beyond help, though.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
“I’d say that you are beyond help, though.”
You would of course, but considering you’re so obviously incapable of objective judgment, (as displayed by your bigoted attacks on FOX news for daring to break the glass ceiling of left liberal bias in TV News) its a statement that is completely worthless. Many non partisan university studies have proved that Fox is more balanced than other outlets. Obviously you discount these professional studies in preference for Stalinist style propaganda and the strategy of the repeated smear and lie. Pretty weak really. But about what I would expect from someone so politically narrow.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:19 pm
What is it with you and Fox? Get over it. If you think ONE news agency, ANY news agency, is on an exclusive bender with the Wright thing, you don’t even watch much news. Take your nose out of the DailyKos trough and look around, pete.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
It is a pretty long bow to criticise someone because of someone else expressing comments in a church. No one can to point to one occasion where Obama has given even a small hint he supports the more extremist views of his preacher. And Obama is no ignorant savage. He is highly intelligent and educated at the best schools in America, This issue needed to be dealt with and it will resonate with some and it may even make his historic election fairly close. I watched the film “Bobby” the other night. It has been 40 years since he was assassinated on 4 June and died on 6 June 1968. The parallels between him and Obama are stark. I hope Obama is getting the best security possible. Bill Richardson was right, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to elect someone like Obama otherwise it is back to the old white men running things. I think most people see Hillary merely as a surrogate for her husband, electing her is not about getting women into the White House. It is about reinforcing the dependancy of women on men.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
“It is a pretty long bow to criticise someone because of someone else expressing comments in a church.”
Just before, someone was trying to criticise Obama because Wright is apparently a friend of Farrakhan. I guess that’s guilt by association, by association?
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Reid: You’re more than 30 years behind the times, mate. The CIA-Tibet link was smashed decisively in 1974, much to Nixon’s discredit. But it seems to me you might be suggesting the Tibetans don’t have legitimate grievances against China, which would be even more bizarre. Is this the CCP line?
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
From Red: “considering you’re so obviously incapable of objective judgment”
“what I would expect from someone so politically narrow.”
Don’t you blush just a little when you spout that level of hypocracy Red?
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Fuck off Andrew, you’re just a poncing arrogant little leftist bigot yourself. What the fuck makes you think you’re any more objective about Redbaiter or any issue?
Has your teenage bimbo left you for someone who can get it up yet?
[DPF: And that last comment is 5 demerits for going too far.]
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Balls dropped yet Andrew W ?
[DPF: Also 5 demerits]
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Redbaiter, you stated: “Obama’s hero, the mass murdering psychopath Che Guevara would know how to deal with ‘em.”
Please provide evidence that Che Guevara is Obama’s “Hero”, or admit that you talk out of your ass. Thanks.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
jafapete
You clearly have not read the studies redbaiter refers to. To assist you in overcoming your own bias in how you view US news reporting, you should look at the UCLA POLSCI Dep’t (hardly a bastion of conservative thought) study http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm – the takeaway finding: “Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as the Washington Post, USA Today, NPR’s Morning Edition, NBC’s Nightly News and ABC’s World News Tonight were moderately left”
Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy (another school with a long history of liberal advocacy) http://www.journalism.org/node/8197 found that in covering the current presidential race, the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans.
I’d listen to outside non-partisan professionals views on this subject before your bias on the subject of media bias.
An interesting poll out today confirms the growing bitterness between the Obama and Clinton supporters. Quote is from Jake Tapper – ABC’s Senior National News Correspondent and concerns a recent poll done in Pennsylvania: “In the new Franklin & Marshall College Poll, some good news for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and some troubling news for Democrats.
Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, 51% to 35% — increasing her lead from February, when she was up 44% to 37%. She leads among young voters, wealthier voters…voters in virtually every demographic group, with the exceptions of Philly voters and non-whites. In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they’ll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they’ll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won’t vote.
Sixty percent of Obama voters say they’ll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won’t vote.”
Of course jafapete, Democrats never selectively quote do they. The 100 years war quote has been used to prove the left’s belief that McCain desires to go to war with Iran. Read in context, he meant nothing more than the US military stays as long as is necessary to keep the peace – by that basis WW2 has become a 67 year war already due to the ongoing presence of US troops in Germany.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 6:02 pm
“Please provide evidence that Che Guevara is Obama’s “Hero”, or admit that you talk out of your ass. Thanks.”
What will you admit if I do? That you’re an ignorant fool? Maybe. If you were ever honest about yourself. Never a strong point with leftists. Self delusion is their constant refuge.
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915&only&rss
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Redbaiter (so-called) and K.I.A.
Here’s how Prof Robert W. McChesney, Gutgsell Endowed Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, puts it:
“… there are a growing number of media that push a partisan pro-Republican political agenda, often under a thin veneer of being ‘fair and balanced’. So the Fox News Channel, Sinclair Broadcasting, the New York Post, the Washington Times, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, and most of talk radio, all serve as standard-bearers for the Republican right. They aggressively promote right-wing policies and bash Democrats who get in the way. In coverage of Republican wars this translates into aggressive pro-war posturing and wholesale rabid condemnation of anti-war criticism as unpatriotic or treasonous. Because the rest of the news media tend to be timid by comparison, this right-wing phalanx sets the tone for coverage to an extent that is out of proportion to its size. And the rest of the press becomes even more hesitant to contradict the government line.”
Gets it about right. Anyone who can watch more than 5 minutes of the vile right-wing propaganda that Faux News spews forth and not see the bias is brain dead.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
That Peck thing (origin: Roland Martin http://www.rolandsmartin.com/ on Anderson Cooper’s CNN blog) is pretty disingenuous as a defense. First there is no evidence beyond Wright’s assertion that Ambassador Peck said anything about chickens roosting, on Fox News or anywhere else, something Martin fails to discuss. But Malcolm X certainly did have a speech that has acquired that line as an alternate title.
In 2001, on CNN, Peck spoke forcefully against going to war but did not attribute 9/11 to “chickens” of any sort: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/08/cf.00.html It’s also the case that, even if Peck had drawn that analogy from the popular title of Malcolm X’s “God’s Judgement of White America” speech http://www.malcolm-x.org/speeches/spc_120463.htm in his commentary that night, it is wildly implausible to suggest that he went on to say the rest of what Martin appears to be suggesting and no transcript of any appearance of his comes even remotely close to the text.
Fox News transcripts from October 10/11 2001 also fail to produce anything like the chickens line coming from Peck.
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/video-jeremiah-wright-chickens-coming-home-to-roost-september-11-full-sermon/
And this guy has tracked down every possible source for the allegation that Peck said or endorsed on Fox or CNN in any way the idea of chickens coming home to roost. http://sweetness-light.com/archive/wright-credited-malcolm-x-for-chickens-line As you might expect, nothing.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Lots of people heard or heard about Obama’s speech about race and about not repudiating Wright.
Here is Wright’s mentor and original proponent of Black Liberation Theology:
“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]”
Thems the words of Theologian James Cone.. and them’s the words even more Americans heard behind Obama, and behind Wright.
JC
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Could we please stop saying Faux News? It’s very slightly more clever than “Liarbore”, but even cleverness is usually only funny the first time.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 6:20 pm
“Here’s how Prof Robert W. McChesney, Gutgsell Endowed Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,”
So what? Another Marxist academic smears FOX news because unlike the liberal mainstream media, dominated by wall to wall leftists, they dare to give the right equal time. The only reason leftist bigots like you and McChesney hate FOX Pete is because they provide an alternative view to the approved leftist view. As I’ve said before, you’ve built a Berlin wall around our political culture, and you protect that wall with the same old jack booted thugs in the same old Stalinist watch towers, and you’ll shoot at anyone who dares to scale it. FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity all must be smeared, even though they’re proportionately a relatively small part of the left liberal controlled media industry.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 6:27 pm
jafapete
With each post you establish your bona fides as nothing more than a card carrying lefty. I cite polls or reputable studies and you cite the mere opinion of a known left leaning commentator with an obvious bias against any conservative media outlet. In so doing you give partisan opinion equal weight to the findings of large reputable peer reviewed studies from two academic departments both not known for any even remote conservative bias.
Please look at the studies and advise any flaws and spare us quotes from your fellow travellers from the left as somehow establishing the veracity of your positions.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Okay (ineffectual as hell) Red-baiter, your little neocon mate K.I.A. put me on to a study by two academics from UCLA and University of Missouri. (The link in K.I.A.’s post doesn’t work, but the paper was published in Quarterly Journal of Economics (2005) v.120 n.4. As the learned professors say:
“For instance, the two most conservative outlets are the Washington Times and Fox News’ Special Report, two outlets that are often called conservative (e.g., see Alterman [2003]).”
Yep, they find, as you would expect, that the loony right media are, er, biased!
And when K.I.A.’s spent a little more time in the USA, s/he will discover that being to the left of the “average” member of Congress ain’t very liberal.
Instead of spewing out your puerile right-wing hate speech, Reddy, try thinking.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Try this, pete: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
And digest this from that: >>Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.<<
I do have to wonder what you’re on about with that USA stuff, which is completely off point – how do you know how long KIA’s been there? At some point try sticking to a topic rather than projecting your delusions of grandeur.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 6:46 pm
“Instead of spewing out your puerile right-wing hate speech, Reddy, try thinking.”
You’re the one doing all the spewing Pete. Its all you’ve done on this thread, whereas you have been presented by more rational posters with university studies that show your views are nothing more than partisan bigotry, and yet to counter this you have nothing other than more partisan bigotry from fellow Marxists. Get back into your watch tower thug, we’re going to pull your wall down brick by brick by brick.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
jaffapete, stick to writing letters to the editor.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
K.I.A.: Card carrying leftie? YES! (Except, as I noted elsewhere, I haven’t paid my membership dues for a couple of years.) And proud of it. So what?
Francis, it’s the same paper. And, if you look at the table on p. 1228 you will see that CNN NewsNight comes in almost bang on where the average US voter is on the ADA rating scale. Not that, the average US voter would be considered anything other than right-wing in NZ, Australia, Canada & Britain, mind. And, if you look harder, you will see that all of those “liberal” mainstream media are closer to the average US voter than the only right-wing outlets included in the survey.
As I said, try thinking.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
You distorted the conclusion, pete,which is what I was pointing out. You might be able to think better if you turn off that internal echo chamber.
On pages 13-14 of the 2003 draft report (I have it in Word): >>Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News’ Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.
Given that the conventional wisdom is that the Drudge Report and Fox News are conservative news outlets, this ordering might be surprising. Perhaps more surprising is the degree to which the “mainstream” press is liberal. The results of Table 8 show that the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today, and CBS Evening News are not only liberal, they are closer to the average Democrat in Congress (who has a score of 74.1) than they are to the median of the whole House (who has a score of 39.0). <<
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 7:23 pm
jafapete,
You had a potshot at me for this remark:
Well for starters I didn’t say that Obama is guilty by association, so don’t go around posting your own half baked conclusions and then implying they’re fact. I’ll give you a fact, Wright in the 1980′s visited Libya with Farrakhan to see Gadaffi.
Everytime someone here gives you poll data etc you try the usual trick of indulging in obfuscation. Try getting up to speed for a change.
I will give you an opinion on Obama, if the guy hasn’t got the balls to stand up to his looney preacher then how is he going to stand up meeting America’s enemies? Note he has said he will meet some of them.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Jafapete:
Do you even know what neocon means? I recall Phillip John/Roger Nome confusing this concept with neoliberal last year. Just wondering, as you appear to be politically confused, whether you’re linguistically confused too.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
“Card carrying leftie? YES! And proud of it. So what?”
Its why you’re wasting everyone’s time with the same old same old Stalinist drivel that’s what. You suffer from the usual leftist maliase in that you are only half educated but fully indoctrinated. A state of being that usually only occurs in those with some kind of mental deficiency. Leftism is the projection of your neurosis onto society by means of the political system.
Its all explained extremely well in Dr. Lyle Rossitor’s book- “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” You can read an excerpt below, and read more at his website, but for now, even if you just read the final paragraph, you might then understand what it is that ails you.
http://www.libertymind.com
——————————————————–
The liberal motto is “In Government We Trust.” To rescue the people from their troubled lives, the agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship.
Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. With liberal intellectuals sharing the glory, the liberal politician is the hero in this melodrama. He takes credit for providing his constituents with whatever they want or need even though he has not produced by his own effort any of the goods, services or status transferred to them but has instead taken them from others by force.
It should be apparent by now that these social policies and the passions that drive them contradict all that is rational in human relating, and they are therefore irrational in themselves. But the faulty conceptions that lie behind these passions cannot be viewed as mere cognitive slippage. The degree of modern liberalism’s irrationality far exceeds any misunderstanding that can be attributed to faulty fact gathering or logical error.
Indeed, under careful scrutiny, liberalism’s distortions of the normal ability to reason can only be understood as the product of psychopathology. So extravagant are the patterns of thinking, emoting, behaving and relating that characterize the liberal mind that its relentless protests and demands become understandable only as disorders of the psyche. The modern liberal mind, its distorted perceptions and its destructive agenda are the product of disturbed personalities.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
“Redbaiter: Making things up and calling people names since 2004.”
Now that you have admitted that when stating that Che Guevara was Obama’s ‘hero’ you were talking out your bum, please acknowledge to yourself that you are a pathological liar, and need professional help. You seem not able to advance an argument without resorting to childish name-calling, swearing, and outright lies.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 8:30 pm
radar I can tell you , no second thoughts, already notched up a few on the demerit board so this ball boy will pack it in and smack the umpire with a feather.
Edit; metaphorically speaking of course.Thank you Nana’s.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
“Now that you have admitted that when stating that Che Guevara was Obama’s ‘hero’ you were talking out your bum,”
I’ve never made any such admission, rather I have proved my claims as true…. but then you commies have never had the slightest qualms about lying have you? Smears and fabrications are all you ever have. Get back in your watchtower thug. Take your worthless crap to KBB.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Where have you proven your claims to be true? Are you lying about that as well?
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Lindsay Addie:
“Well for starters I didn’t say that Obama is guilty by association, so don’t go around posting your own half baked conclusions and then implying they’re fact. I’ll give you a fact, Wright in the 1980’s visited Libya with Farrakhan to see Gadaffi”
No. Absolutely no guilt by association there.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Red: “Has your teenage bimbo left you for someone who can get it up yet?”
Another lie from Red, she’s in her 20′s, we’re engaged, and she’s expecting.
D4J: “Balls dropped yet Andrew W ?”
As I’ve always said Dad, such comments reflect most on those who make them.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Chris Diack = professional at jumping to conclusions, same disease jafapete has.
Obama was very naive in how he handled his relationship with the bigoted Wright and it will cost him in the long run.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 10:08 pm
“Where have you proven your claims to be true?”
Yawn.. same old same old willful ignorance. Lame little wank wants everything done for him. Read the thread dumbfuck. Read the link I supplied and the rest of the blogosphere. Wake up to Obama’s duplicity in attempting to pass the flags in his campaign office as down to some kind of remotely attached staffer. Its all bullshit. The flags were no doubt endorsed by Obama who is along with his wife, is well acquainted with the staffer, who sees Obama as her mentor, and is actually campaign Precinct Captain and co Chair of the Houston Obama Leadership Team. Obama’s wife Michelle has given a speech with large parts of it traced back to a speech by Guevara.
Obama has always been a Castroist. He has advocated that the travel restrictions on Cuba be lifted and he has also said he would be willing to meet with Castro’s successor without pre-conditions. He has aligned himself with other revolutionaries of the left besides Che Guevara and Castro, including the Sandinistas, and soviet backed Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega.
Fidel Castro has already endorsed Obama Clinton as the “dream ticket” for America. Daniel Ortega has endorsed Obama. Its the height of stupidity to pretend that Obama has no affinity or regard for Che, but thats a barrier that definitely wouldn’t present any impediment to you Radar.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
RB,
You make points that Obama’s adoring unquestioning flock will never think about. This guy who gives speeches about bringing hope and change and says he will draw Democrats and GOP together has hardly covered himself in glory in the Senate by working with Republicans on bipartisan issues. He has spent most of his media time the last seven days appearing on all the friendly outlets that ask him easy questions. No wonder some think he has a glass jaw.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Lindsay Addie:
Actually you are caught by your own ironic statements.
It may have escaped your notice that it was the current Republican administration that re-established diplomatic contact with Libya and Gadaffi. I would say its one of their quiet foreign policy successes. The world is perhaps a little safer.
Whether Obama is critically wounded regarding the Rev Wright issue- it depends on which polls one views. I also think its to early to tell. Can he ‘move on’ with case closed.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx
And from the commentary:
“Obama’s campaign clearly suffered in recent days from negative press, mostly centering around his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps as a result, Clinton moved into the lead in Gallup’s Wednesday release, covering March 16-18 polling. But Obama has now edged back ahead of Clinton due to a strong showing for him in Friday night’s polling, perhaps in response to the endorsement he received from well-respected New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former rival for the nomination. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 2, 2008, click here.)
Both Democrats have inched closer to John McCain in the latest update on registered voters’ general election preferences. McCain holds just a two percentage point edge over both — 46% to 44% over Obama and 47% to 45% over Clinton.
Redbaiter:
Yes even that renowned commie sympathiser Ron Paul thinks US policy towards Cuba is irrational and unproductive.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
“Yes even that renowned commie sympathiser Ron Paul thinks US policy towards Cuba is irrational and unproductive.”
Ron Paul doesn’t have a clue on foreign policy and has sought the support and financial backing of the 9/11 truthers. Case closed. Anything else I said you’d like to cherry pick?
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Utter crap,
The USA and European powers only warmed fractionally to Gadaffi after getting concessions from him over various issues. Farrakhan and Wright visted him in 1984 when Gadaffi was still at loggerheads with the USA and was a still sworn enemy.
This article on Obama by Michael Medved in my opinion at times gets to the heart of the issue despite being a bit long.
I stand by my argument that this will cost Obama the Presidency though he will be the Democratic nominee.
Vote:March 23rd, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Lindsay Addie:
Well you are so certain about the result of the general election – far too soon to say what will happen in a Obama v McCain race. I suspect its more hopeful thinking on your part than analysis.
“The USA and European powers only warmed fractionally to Gadaffi after getting concessions from him over various issues.”
Actually the relationship with Muammar al-Qadhafi’s Libya is substantially better now. As to the fractional warming; that extended to Blair and Bush. Perhaps you’re right; only limited symbolism there.
A combination of sanctions, diplomacy, resolution of the Lockerbie issue and in particular a shift from Libya who perceive a threat from al Qaeda, Libya is no longer a Rogue State. Of course this is a mere token; States shift in and out of rogue status all the time.
Redbaiter:
You are seriously not suggesting that US policy towards Cuban has been successful post missile crisis?
And on the Ron Paul issue: his views regarding US intervention abroad are consistent with those of the “old right” which had a long tradition in the Republican Party. Unlike the neocons (like Krauthammer) who actually brought new thinking into the Republican Party, which is largely a view about the power of the US government to change the world. Their inspiration was in many cases their activist Democratic youth.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 12:31 am
“You are seriously not suggesting that US policy towards Cuban has been successful post missile crisis?
What we’re talking about here is the theory that Obama is an extremist with far left sympathies and who is politically aligned wiht communists, and he’s trying to conceal this fact from the public. You seem to disagree with that theory, but offer little to support your view other than mild outrage that others might see things differently to you. ..and please don’t bore me with your preaching on what the old right (whoever the fuck they were)/ Ron Paul might have in common, or the US relationship with Qaddaffi/ Libya, you only come across as a patronising self important prat talking uninformed superficial nonsense.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 8:15 am
didjaknow barack obama used to be bazza obama..?
(i didn’t know that..)
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/barack-obama-used-to-be-barry-obama/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Redbaiter, that someone who works for Obama’s campaign has a Guevara flag near her in their office is not evidence that Che Guevara is Obama’s ‘hero’. You have proven nothing, save for the fact that you are dishonest. But I already knew that.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 11:48 am
“You have proven nothing, save for the fact that you are dishonest.”
I have shown well enough that Obama is a Guevara fan, and all your weak partisan allegations of dishonesty and your feeble attempt to dismiss all of the evidence by reducing it to the farcical “someone who works for Obama had a Guevara flag in her office” do nothing to change that. Furthermore, it is you who are the demonstrated liar, for you made the entirely false claim that I had made an admission. So far from “proving nothing” I have in fact proved very much.
“But I already knew that.’
You will never know anything. You will not even ever awaken to your own crippled mental state. Get back into your watchtower thug.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
should radar be doing that to a ‘watchtower thug’..?
(punctuation eh..?…she’s a harsh mistress..!)
an insult turns into an exhortation to (repeat!) buggery of tough guys who live in towers..
all for want of a comma..
(yours..in enforcing exacting standards of punctuation..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Philu, I think Redbaited is beyond redemption. Aren’t there any more worthy sparring partners on this blogsite?
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
nah..!..i’ve seen them all off..!
that’s that group whimpering over in the corner..
(roll-call please..!..
start with the ‘a’s..adolf..
finish at the ‘z’s..’zen tiger’..
in between there are metal breastplate-clad women..
and rightwing nutbars from many nations..
..a virtual ‘fruit-salad’..)
peters was here for a while..using some strange name..(‘nasty-person-jake’..or something..)
(i bitch-slapped him out the door..and he hasn’t been back for more..)
(there are so many rightwing-pelts on my belt..it’s too heavy too lift…)
yeah..and redbaiter is as thick as pigshit..
and is so ‘easy..
..he’s ‘taunt-by-numbers’..
(yawn..!..)
(stand well back..!..
i think he/she/it’s gonna blow..!
(and not just that ‘hard-man’ from ‘up there’..
the ‘watchtower thug’ he dug up from the homoerotic corner of his imagination/psyche.. )
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Thought so
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“To balance things up, here’s an article on how Hillary Clinton is a active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles which is known as “The Family”. ”
i’m not sure what The Nation balances out – they’re such a bunch of morons. Days after Obama pleads to move beyond this sort of ugly and cheap politics his sychophantic supporters at The Nation do this. I’m begining to think he is indeed a prophet – the first sign of a prophet is for his followers to be doing the exact opposite of what is preached.
Vote: