Then you didn’t read the cite.
How hard do you people need to have your noses rubbed in this?
Regards,
Shodan
So, he said something different to the gay reporters?
I’m pretty sure that “I can’t be bothered, go look it up” ploy is patented.
I’m never sure how stuff like this should be covered or if it should be covered at all. On the one hand, these are ostensibly people the candidates are listening to and it could give insight into how they think, so I understand why people are interested. On the other, the priests/pastors/etc. aren’t politicians, they don’t generally give policy advice, their affiliations with the campaigns tend to be ancillary at most, and ‘the candidate’s pastor said this/the candidate attended the church of someone who said this’ is really a guilt by association story. But yes, Obama had repeatedly acknowledged Wright as someone he respected and Wright had said some things a lot of people would object to. Despite that, most people objected to them for ridiculous reasons, which to me indicates that the story was presented in a way that was inflammatory and lacking in substance - and that people who were agitating for the story were counting on that.
I didn’t miss the point. I said the conclusion you drew was wrong, and I said that because it was wrong. And the story about Perry’s pastor died after about a day. The McCain-Hagee story didn’t go much longer than that. Compare that how long the uproar over Wright lasted.
That is a guy named Hayes, whose role in the news media I am not aware of, making a statement which the writer of the article says was aimed “especially at people charged with covering the story in a neutral way” (without a quotation in support of that characterization). And the statement Hayes made? He said the Wright story shouldn’t be covered because it’s interesting only because it has been misleadingly presented by opinion-writers on the right. That’s, again, not an attempt to bury a story. It’s claiming (with some justification) that there’s no story there at all.
I’m asking you to google three words at look it up yourself. How hard is that. None of this is new.
So he should have stopped attending Wright’s church in 2009, a year after he stopped attending Wright’s church?
We reasonably assume that since this is so important to you, you had the quotes right at your fingertips.
Anyway, I did. Got this here, for instance.
http://righthandthief.blogspot.com/2008/03/least-favorite-jeremiah-wright-quotes.html
(Warning! Tighty righty glurge! Shields up, cootie protocols advised!)
Now, this fellow is quite upset, but mostly about the good Rev’s “anti-American” stands. Like when he opines that the Iraq War was illegal, unjust, and immoral. And that the civilian victims of that war were victims of an international crime.
The Rev. Wright is a Christian preacher, presumably a believer in a loving but just God, even stern. That being so, it cannot surprise us that he would believe America is on God’s shit list. If anything, it should surprise us if he didn’t.
What ridiculous reasons did people have for objecting to his comments? I mean other than the fact that they were so outrageous and inflammatory.
The Perry story and the McCain story didn’t go on very long because there was really nothing to either story…except the opportunity for the media to attempt to smear the candidates as soon as the events happened. The Obama/Wright story was summarily dismissed for a year.
Here’s another example…since you seem so sure that the story had legs because Obama is black and his opponents are all racist. Remember how quickly the media jumped on the accusation that McCain had a mistress? No less than the New York Times covered the story. What ever became of that story? Contrast that with John Edwards. The Enquirer had to corner him in a hotel with his mistress and he confessed to the affair before the media ever seriously looked into the story.
I have and liked them both very much, but I really wouldn’t recommend bringing up his books on a thread in which people are trying to insist that Jeremiah Wright was merely Barack Obama’s pastor and didn’t have a tremendous influence on his political beliefs and how he expressed them.
“Obama hates America!”
Why? Did Hagee and Jeffress not say what they were alleged to have said?
And then it was big news for about a month straight, and not just on Fox. Remind me again how this proves the story got covered up.
Not what I said.
That is simply untrue. Just sitting there and listening to this garbage for 20 years says quite enough about the man.
Yes, but neither McCain nor Perry attended their churches. At the very least they had plausable deniability. That is one thing Obama did not have.
I’ve already covered this. They ignored it as long as they could. Once one major outlet reports on the story the others always do as well. Once the cat is out of the bag all the media outlets try to jump in front of the story. The point is how long it took any of them to bother to look into this story.
Well, there were his claims that “them Jews” wouldn’t let him see Obama and that Israel and South Africa were collaborating to build an “ethnic bomb” that would only kill blacks and Arabs.
Additionally, he’s repeatedly defended and honored Louis Farrakhan as well as insisting that Louis Farrakhan isn’t an anti-Semite which while not being automatically anti-Semitic is pretty extreme and makes people wonder.
Certainly, white politicians who repeatedly defended and honored David Duke and insisted that Duke wasn’t racist or anti-Semitic would have to answer some pretty tough questions.
I’m also surprised people are trying to nitpick over some of his statements regarding 911 being God’s punishment a la Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell and ignoring his claim that the US government invented AIDS.
Sometimes I think it’s ridiculous to quibble over whether or not Wright or Farrakhan were bigots and simply classify them both as nuts.
Ultimately, I think Wright is proof that if you have the word “Reverend” before your name you can get away with saying quite a lot that others can’t.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/111126-how-much-of-rev-wrights-hate-america-and-israel-spewing-does-obama-agree-with-12.html
http://www.akdart.com/obama142.html
I’ll keep going if you like.
True. But Hagee endorsed McCain and Jeffress endorsed Perry, and was speaking right before him at an event. Either way, we’re quibbling on the details at this point. The central issue is that we’re discussing whether or not a person is responsible for the views of a religious leader who they’re connected to.
And then spend several weeks covering it constantly in the middle of the primary campaign, when it arguably had much more of an impact.
That’s certainly an anti-Semitic statement. How about the more general racism? Thank you for doing Yorick’s work for him by the way.
Why do people care if he was “a racist” or not?
Isn’t being a nut bad enough?
Many, if not most religious people are nuts. I try to not hold that against them.
How, exactly, is it “newsworthy”? What conclusion do you feel we should draw?
And? He sat in the church for 20 years. He didn’t say anything, he didn’t personally endorse any of the statements the Right likes to pin on Reverend White. He sat there- along with hundred of other Americans. What, in your mind, is so important about him going to that church?
What. The. Hell. Does. It. Say? You keep implying that it says something, some nebulous wrong, about President Obama. What, exactly?
Yeah, I’m definitely in your camp on this one. I’m glad that Obama quit the church, and called him out on at least some of his bullshit. Whether you ascribe anything deeper to it than “Obama looked up to a guy that turned out to be a nut” likely depends on your politics.