Apparently the good vibes McCain has been generating for refusing to discuss Wright, and trying (oh so hard, I’m sure) to get the NC Republican Party to stop running ads about it have dissipated:
So, what you’re saying is, you really wish you didn’t have to talk about Wright, but Obama, by saying that people are talking about it, has forced your hand? Not to mince words, Senator McCain, but that is utter horseshit. Many people, myself included, were willing to give you a lot of credit for your approach to the Wright situation, but you have proven yourself to be just the sort of politician you claim not to be.
Sorry that it’s a bit mild; this is my first time starting a Pit thread. However, this is some high-level jackassery from McCain, and I felt it demanded a Pitting. Perhaps someone more loquacious can contribute a Pit-worthy set of adjectives to describe McCain’s dissembling.
I read that Obama called Wright “a legitimate campaign issue.” Not quite just “saying that people are talking about it.” 'Course, my sources may be wrong.
It’s not just the stuff you mention; I got the impression that many Republicans, especially those in North Carolina, were ticked at McCain for rejecting the ads (and, by proxy, insulting the NC GOP) in the first place. I’m guessing there was a lot of pressure brought to bear, and most of what he says at this point is just to cover up the Big Retreat.
While I understand why you’re asking this, are you implying that being in the military universally means a good experience with them? That serving with them at any point in history must mean you always hold them in the highest respect? Certainly the military, especially under Bush, has done a lot to alienate people who might’ve once thought more highly of them.
Meanwhile he accepts, in person and with an “I’m honored” speech, the endorsement of John Hagee, a man who has referred to the Pope as an antichrist, says a planned (i.e. not one that even actually happened) gay festival caused Katrina (God at 6,012 years old apparently can’t tell the difference between gay revelers in the Quarter and impoverished families in the 9th Ward and, oh yeah, half of southern Mississippi), that anti-semitism is what the Jews get for not recognizing Jesus, and that you should give more to the church [specifically his] than to your 401K because Jesus will probably return to Earth before you retire anyway. The difference between Hagee and Wright is that I’ve seen both interviewed by Bill Moyer (Hagee for a series on Genesis and Wright for the segment on Wright the other night) and Wright comes off as the far more intelligent, well informed, and less fanatical and hateful. While I disagree obviously with his more provocative claims, I also have seen some of his speeches in their entirety (the immediately post 9/11 ones especially) and context really does make a major difference, while with Hagee context usually makes it even worse.
Sampiro: I know. The best thing conservatives I’ve read can seem to muster is a lot of sputtering about how at least Hagee wasn’t McCain’s spiritual advisor for twenty years, and never served on his campaign, etc. etc.
Which also irks me. Obama has repeatedly stated that Wright was never his “spiritual advisor” but his pastor. From what I’ve read they were never particularly close.
While it wouldn’t exactly help him politically to say it, I’ve always had the feeling (and having never met him and just knowing him through speeches/books/interviews) that Obama is probably still very skeptical about religion (not saying the “A” word, but skeptical) and the benefits of joining a politically active megachurch with more than 8,000 members were probably not completely lost on a guy who planned to run for office from that district. Of course I could be wrong, and if he said this in an interview it would be about as helpful to his campaign as saying “I wasn’t in church those mornings because I was out shaking down kids for money to buy crack”, but my opinion.
Oh yeah. You should have seen the crap Mullah Omar took for not wearing the Al Qaeda flag pin on his robes. Bin Laden was all like, “Omar, all of our suicide bombers, planners, and administrative personnel wear the flag pin. Why do you love America?”
Obama described Wright as his “friend, mentor, and pastor”. (Cite.) Wright converted him to Christianity, married him, and Obama got the title for his book from one of Wright’s sermons.
But yeah, apart from that, they were practically strangers. :rolleyes:
While I realize you’re being sarcastic, that’s actually pretty much true. I had several professors in college I thought very highly of and would consider a mentor on certain areas, but was also “practically strangers” with (we didn’t hang out or call each other and the like). I also made up my own mind on political matters or anything on which they had opinions not directly related to their area of expertise.
I’ve been watching Wright’s speeches on CNN for the last day and I can totally understand what drew Obama to him. Wright is a brilliant man and a brilliant orator- he works in very obscure facts about the Bible (the acronymic stanzas of Psalm 113,for example and other preliterate devices used to remember sacred texts) into sermons for a mass audience and gets cheers. I’d go to his church to hear him if I were in Chicago and I’m neither Christian, black, nor particularly left wing.
As for the title of his book, book titles come from widely diverse places. Margaret Mitchell named a book about the South 1861-1873 for a line in an 1890s poem by an alcoholic tubercular English poet- she liked the phrase.
So you would continue to say that the person who converted you to a religion, and who was your friend, pastor and mentor, who you sought out and listened to for twenty years, is not your “spiritual advisor”.
I think this is the point at which we simply have to agree to disagree. If words don’t have any specific meaning, there is no point in talking.
