So can a Republican ad that has anything to do with the Rev. Wright be made without cries of “Willie Horton!!!”?
A Republican ad that has anything to do with the Rev. Wright cannot be made without entirely justified cries of “Willie Horton!!!”
It cannot be made without being racist, no.
Hmm. Maybe I haven’t been paying close enough attention, but I have this feeling (just a feeling, but no more) that the Wright issue isn’t inherently, on its face racist. I think that if Obama had been taking spiritual guidance from a preacher who said exactly the same things, but was white, we’d still be hearing these same things. Color doesn’t seem to make a difference to conservatives when the right wrong things are coming out of their mouths. If it can be interpreted as “America hating,” “terrorist loving,” or “extreme leftist,” they’d say what they seem to be saying here. I mean, maybe it’s “worse” in this case because of the possible “look at the Negro trying to overthrow the white race” message, but I’ve seen them rant enough times against George Soros, Sean Penn, and any number of white people to think that this time, they really ARE upset JUST by the message (or, more importantly, the perceived message).
I hope I’m making sense.
The biggest smear against Wright is that he’s racist, though. An allegation that’s completely unfounded by any of his statements, and I really do think they deliberately looked to fabricate an image of angry, black man and then graft an “anti-white” meme onto the end of it which will seem justified simply by the fact that he looks angry and he condemns white racism.
Ah, then perhaps I was not reading closely enough, or reading the wrong things. I thought the biggest smear against Wright was that he was “anti-America” (the “God damn America” bit)?
Not sure that’s fair to say. Not that it wasn’t Bush’s intent but that it wasn’t Gores.
That’s what I thought.
I disagree that any attack on Wright is necessarily racist. You can dispute what he says without attacking the man. For instance, his statement that god is punishing America because we’ve done bad things is false and should be refuted. His implication that America deserved what it got on 9/11 because we have bombed others is false and should be refuted. His comparison of 9/11 to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is false and should be refuted. His characterization of white America as the “U.S. of KKK A.” is false and should be refuted. His statements that the government gives black people drugs and AIDS is false and should be refuted. None of these have anything to do with his race; if a white person said these things they would be just as false and just as damaging and need just as much refutation.
You keep saying that people are upset because he is telling the truth, but I disagree. Although some of his premises may be uncomfortably true, the conclusions that he draws from those premises are false. His premise that the government builds lots of prisons and passes three strike laws to get blacks off the street may be true, but his conclusion, that the bible says that god is damning America for these things, is false. His premise that we bombed Japan and supported terrorism is true, but the conclusion that he draws, that we deserved 9/11, is false. The people in those airplanes and buildings had no part in the decisions to bomb Japan or support those terrorists, and the suggestion that they deserved to die because of decisions made by similar-looking people 60 years ago is offensive. That is my problem with Wright, and it has everything to do with what comes out of his mouth, and nothing to do with what he looks like.
He didn’t say the victims “deserved” 9/11. he said it was an inevitable result of our own violence (or more precisely, a result if the government’s actions) and he was right, IMO. Even if you disagree with it, it’s still not “radical” or “anti-American” or “crazy” to say that some of America’s own actions led to 9/11 or to say that God would strongly condemn (“damn”) some of the acts and policies committed by the US.
He said 9/11 was “America’s chickens coming home to roost.” I don’t really want to get into dueling dictionaries with you, but “chickens coming home to roost,” in every context I’ve ever heard it used, does mean that the consequence is deserved.
And leaving aside the fact that anyone who positively claims to know how god feels about anything is already a couple fries short of a happy meal, I think it is “crazy” to say that Hiroshima led to 9/11. How many twists and turns are there in that line of reasoning?
And my point was, in all those objections I raised about what he said, there was not one thing with any racial context whatsoever. Even if you disagree with my conclusions, you can’t say that my objections are racially motivated.
At most he’s saying the country deserved it, not the victims. Great big difference.
So what? Saying the country deserved 9/11 because the country did bad things is still false.
Besides, how can “America” deserve something? “America” is a pile of rocks and dirt. “America” didn’t bomb Japan, people from America bombed Japan. I reject this notion that a country can deserve something.
But those were not Wright’s words. He was actually quoting something former Ambassador to Iraq, Edward Peck had said on a Fox News interview. Fox News has been very careful not to mention the fact that he was quoting someone else. They’ve also tried to male it appear that he said “Goddamn America” in the 9/11 sermon, when it was a totally different sermon and said in a context that had nothing to do with 9/11.
name a preacher on Earth who doesn’t do that – hell, name a ,politician who doesn’t do that.
[/quote]
And my point was, in all those objections I raised about what he said, there was not one thing with any racial context whatsoever. Even if you disagree with my conclusions, you can’t say that my objections are racially motivated.
[/QUOTE]
But what I’m saying is that he was quote-mined for a collage of decontextualized
“inflammatory” statements, that all of those snippets were strung together to make it look like one long, insane rant, and that this tactic, in itself, was motivated by a desire to appeal to racist instincts.
He didn’t say “deserve.” He never used that word. Jerry Falwell, on the other hand, used exactly that word, yet no one expected any Republican politicians to disavow themselves of Falwell or Robertson or Dobson or any of the other legitimate hate-mongers on the Religious Right.
OK, that is a little different, but he is still agreeing with Peck and endorsing his view.
Agreed.
Of course they all do that. Point?
I totally agree with you here. However, you also said that there is no way you can make a commercial about Wright without it being racist. I disagree: I think, even conceding you the “America deserved 9/11” point, that you can legitimately raise serious concerns about some things he said without being racist. I was not at all trying to defend Fox News or any of the other media coverage of him to date, I was just pointing out that it would be possible to make a commercial about him that was not racist, because he has said some pretty stupid things.
Dukakis might actually have been the worst Presidential candidate of my entire lifetime. Even then, at 17, it was quite obvious to me that he was a sacrificial lamb who’d been nominated more or less because the Democratic Party had to nominate somebody. The only Republican equivalent I can think of is Bob Dole.
The Willie Horton ad was shooting a dead horse.
Yeah, I’ve heard that one for years and I’ve lived near Chicago almost my whole life. My FIL makes Archie Bunker look like the biggest liberal in the world. In his own house he uses every offensive epithet possible about people of other races, countries, religions, sexual orientations or anything else (yes, he even uses “Willy” to refer to black people). In public, though, he and his sons (the Hitler Youth) will talk about Canadians. :rolleyes:
Rev. Wright’s sermons could be considered racist by some but they are definitely anti-American in the eyes of many conservative people. If he wants to preach about how America is evil or how it has oppressed people that is his choice. I doubt, though, that the sermons that have been played ad nauseum on TV and YouTube were the only instances where he spoke in that manner. Members of his congregation would know what kinds of sermons to expect from him, especially after he had been preaching there for so many years. For Obama to deny having any inkling about Wright’s rhetoric is ludicrous. This preacher was his mentor and advisor.
BHO* should just suck it up, say, “Yeah, I heard him make those sermons but I ignored his rantings because I respected the work he has done for the community,” or some such BS, and let the issue drop. BHO was forthright about his drug use, he admitted to having business dealings with Rezko (and actually seemed pretty chagrined and embarrassed about it, too) and even admits to smoking! Why can’t he show a little backbone here like he did about Calypso Louie Farrakhan.
I can’t picture a realistic “Willie Horton” style ad that can be used against BHO. Unless it comes out that he had been drowning kittens or was hanging around playgrounds wearing only a trench coat, I don’t see much that he can be hit with. And therein lies his problem. He doesn’t have enough political history for his opponents to mine for dirt. HRC has tons, from when she was “co-President” and also from her time as a Senator. You could also drag back her record as a partner at the Rose law firm. McCain definitely has dirt that can be used against him. Hell, he’s older than dirt. But BHO is too new, too green. That makes his opponents nervous because they have little to hang on him. Instead they have to create controversies about his pastor or his “elitist attitude”.
*I can’t call him BO. In my mind it always means Body Odor.
Republican candidates are regularly attacked for pandering the hate-mongers of the religious right. Obama is getting tarred with the same brush.
When the Republicans go to Bob Jones University, that makes the news - and legitimately so. Obama is getting the same treatment here - guilt by association.
As for stringing some of the more virulent comments by Wright together to paint an illegitmate picture - it sounds like the Michael Moore treatment to me.
I hope they re-broadcast the Moyers interview - my TV is in need of repair, so I can’t see the screen to set the recorder.
[btw - I have no issue with Wright, I have attended services in similar type churches and the in-your-face style of sermon is part of the culture. I think that we need MORE of that, but that too many are scared of the IRS right now to really get into the trenches with their constituents.]
OK, I can’t let this go. (Yes, I am bored at work, why do you ask?)
I got these cites from some newspaper databases available through the Cincinnati Library, so I can’t provide direct links. Anyway, for anyone who still cares (and I realize I’m probably the only one), here’s more info on the Gore-brought-up-Willie-Horton argument.
Gore, Dukakis, and Jesse Jackson debated in New York on April 12, 1988. This debate is the source of the incorrect belief that Gore was the first to bring up Horton to attack Dukakis.
From an LA Times story about the debate (“Gore, Dukakis Tangle During N.Y. Debate”, Robert Shogan, 4/13/88):
(my bold)
This description from Newsday (“Dukakis, Gore Trade Punches At Felt Forum”, Catherine Woodard and Myron S. Waldman, 4/13/1988):
So, Gore brings up the program in general, referring to 11 murderers who failed to return, including two who killed while on furlough. Note that Horton did not kill anyone after he failed to return from furlough (Willie Horton - Wikipedia). He raped a woman and beat her fiancé, but did not kill either of them. So, Gore did not refer to Horton by name and was apparently not even referring to him obliquely, since Gore specifically mentioned two cases of murderers who murdered again while on furlough.
Bottom line: Gore did not originate the Horton attack.
The first post-debate mention of Horton’s name I find is from the Wall Street Journal, six days later (“Dukakis’s ‘Murder’ Record Is a Crime”, Maura Casey, 4/19/88):
So, it was the noted left-wing rag The Wall Street Journal that appears to have first brought Horton’s name up (note, “William”, not “Willie”, by the way). The Bush campaign (or their surrogates) presumably could have picked one of the two convicts who killed while on furlough, but they picked Horton as their example instead. One wonders what it was about Horton’s case in particular that made an effective political ad, and why the ad could not have just used language more like Gore’s? I will have to devote serious thought to that question.