With the exception of O’Reilly I have no idea who the other people are. And O’Reilly is talking about Obama’s friends hating America. No question some people thought that but I don’t remember it being a meme in the election…no more than the birther movement.
I don’t think it is quibbling. Being endorsed by someone is quite different from deciding to sit in their church. And, remember, this wasn’t just some church that happened to be run by a pastor who had some unorthodox ideas from time to time. The church practiced liberation theology. Obama knew, or should have known, what he was getting himself into.
The story had been building for so long that they could no longer ignore it…at least until Obama gave his much ballyhooed race relations speech.
Are you really incapable of looking up something that easy. I’m not asking you to go to the moon!
You don’t remember “White folks’ greed runs a world in need”, “US of KKKA”, blaming the government for “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.”
Do you need a link to each of those or can you just type them into google?
I can link to pages expressing any opinion you can think of. That doesn’t mean the idea is widespread or valid.
And the other involves not being disgusted at the shit that is coming out of your own pastor’s mouth on a weekly basis. Either he was sleeping or he agreed with the good Reverend.
I’m thinking of the second statement. You know, the one where he threw Wright under that bus.
So Hannity, (on Fox), pushed this nonsense for a year before it finally got legs. That hardly challenges my point that it was created by Fox.
Your views of Liberation Theology appear to be couched in language reserved for “Communists” in the 1950s. Liberation Theology has a number of different elements and it is not particularly “political” except that it calls on governments (and corporations) to act responsibly and fairly. It does not call for the disbanding of governments or corporations. It does not seek to overthrow any governments. It calls on fair treatment of the poor and the recognition of equality among people. Some of its goals, particularly in regard to economics, are the sort that raise hackles, (and some are a bit silly), but it is not particularly extreme in most of its manifestations. Even Wright only gets quoted on a tiny selection of his one-off expressions of anger and not on the substance of the majority of his statements.
I am not partial to Liberation Theology, or its American derivative, because much of it is not in concord with my religious beliefs, but it is hardly something to be concerned about. (Unless, of course, one is wedded to the Religious Right–a much more powerful political movement associated with religion that seems to get a pass on many of its aims.)
So, you think the whole thing is nonsense? You also seem to believe that Fox made the poor Reverend make all those racist and anti-semetic statements? Did they force ABC to pick up the story? Then how was it “created” by Fox? I think you have it backwards.
Liberation theology has been steeped in Marxism since its creation. So, yes, I think that needs to be taken into consideration when selecting a President. That is newsworthy on its own. Add to that the comments that Wright has made and you have to ask yourself what kind of a man would be associated with a church like that. What kind of a man would have Jeremiah Wright as a spiritual mentor?
What I was citing is that the opinion exists, since you had asserted that either it wasn’t ridiculous or it wasn’t a reason people objected to the Wright thing.
I think the Wright story went national on March 14 of 2008, and the “much ballyhooed race relations speech” was about four days later. The one you’re talking about now was from late April.
That’s not the reason most people objected to the Wright statements…or at least you have not demonstrated that with your cites. Most people thought his comments were disgusting and wondered whether a guy could sit in a pew for 20 years listening to this and not agree with Wright.
Yes, some people certainly felt that Obama “hates America”. Some people also believe Obama is a secret Muslim, he was born in Indonesia, 9-11 was an inside job, and that the earth is flat. I can link to all of these ideas as well…it doesn’t mean that most people believe any of them.
Okay. That is roughy when all was forgiven by the media. Obama says he’s disgusted by the many comments made by his preacher of 20 years and everything is okay with the press. Remember this is his religious mentor, his pastor for 20 years, and they guy Obama selected for the African American Religious Leadership Committee of his campaign. Obama denounces him and the media acts as though Obama had no idea what was coming out of Wright’s mouth.
I’m sure you have cites to prove this. I said earlier that there were multiple reasons to object to what Wright said, but that a lot of people objected for stupid reasons. Those reasons were stupid because they reflected a poor understanding of what he was saying. It’s one thing to object to Obama not leaving the church and dissociating himself from the guy entirely, and another to think there is a real likelihood that Obama is a socialist who ascribes to liberation theology and hates America. One reflects a rational objection and the other doesn’t.
I didn’t say anything about what most people believe.
Another successful coverup. By coverup, I mean the press kept a lid on the story by replaying “God Damn America!” nonstop for about a month in the middle of a tight primary race between Obama and Clinton.
The press didn’t declare things were OK. The story stopped being news: Obama denounced Wright, Wright made fewer public pronouncements, and other things became news.
What’s your take on how this should be covered? Should Wright’s statements be replayed once a day (or maybe once on every news program) just to make sure nobody forgets about them - because we can’t allow voters to forget that the pastor of his church made some inflammatory comments? Should this receive less, more, or the same amount of coverage as news on the economy, the candidates’ platforms, international politics, the ongoing primaries, and really important stuff like ACORN and Bill Ayers?
I need to prove that most people didn’t believe this?!? I think you need to do a better job of proving that most people did believe this.
Well, what does sitting in that church, which practices liberation theology and has an anti-semite as a preacher, tell you about Obama? He obviously was not offended by those remarks.
Really?
Bolding mine.
I’ve answered this many times already. The press can only keep a lid on a story for so long. The amusing thing is that this story would probably not have ever seen the light of day if not for Fox News. Also, this story broke after 42 states and DC had already voted in the primaries. The press took a nap for over a year.
Please. The media will milk a story that is damaging to a Republican but, if the subject is a media darling then all is forgiven as quickly as possible. Some things were never considered “news” to the networks. Wright’s comments about AIDS and 9-11 were completely ignored by the network evening shows.
Well, I think the media should take into account all of Obama’s controversial relationships and maybe try to pull the whole thing together instead of reporting on, and summarily dismissing, all of the individual stories. I think the media shows bias when it jumps all over McCain’s alleged infidelity, Bush’s DUI, Perry’s endorsement as well as some rock, yet pays only lip service to stories like Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, etc.
I don’t care one way or the other. I’m just pointing out that you just made the same kind of assertion you’re saying it was unfair for me to make. You’re right - in one post I said most people objected to Wright for stupid reasons, and I can’t prove they objected specifically for the stupid reasons. I said in a couple of posts that there were stupid objections, and that’s a claim I can (and did) support. So I’ll stick with that.
Or didn’t take them seriously, didn’t hear them, didn’t think it was worth leaving the church over, etc. This is why I said earlier that stories like this are generally about guilt by association. If you wanted to say Obama was an anti-Semite or a believer in liberation theology and had to support it based on his policies or his own actions or statements, your evidence would be nil. Instead, you’re attributing views to him based on the fact that he didn’t quit a church.
I don’t think your answer is relevant.
Which, in the case of Obama, meant they remained news for a month and a half while the statements by Hagee and Jeffress lasted approximately one news cycle. Conclusion: Obama is a media darling who is getting special protection.
Moving this up to deal with it separately: the media didn’t “jump all over it.” The Times reported it and it was a crap story that shouldn’t have been reported in the first place.
What you are actually proposing - I’ll pretend to be surprised, if you like - is that the press interpret everything regarding Obama as negatively as possible because that matches your opinion of him. Wright was a major national news story for a month. Obama’s “relationships” to Ayers and Rezko were pretty tenuous and both received national news coverage. I’d be curious to hear your opinion on the thread that ties Wright and Ayers and Rezko together into one story. Perhaps “Senator Barack Obama is running for the Democratic nomination on a platform of hope and change, but he has connection with a former domestic terrorist, an controversial pastor who preaches black liberation theology, and a real estate developer under investigation for fraud and bribery?” That reads like an RNC press release or Freeper post, not a news story. There’s nothing connecting the individuals or the stories to each other and not that much linking them to Obama in the first place, which is why most voters evidentily didn’t care about them.
Bush’s DUI was a fact and a fairly big one, although it goes without saying that it was released on Election Day or the day before (I forget which) as an attempted [del]October[/del] November Surprise.
You must care since you brought it up. You even attempted to cite your claim. Now you want me to either prove a negative or admit that my doubt concerning your comment is just as unfair as your actual comment.
If it were one comment I could see your point. But there are many such comments that were made. Hell, Obama quoted one of Wright’s racist utterings in his book. In addition, Wright is a supporter of Farrakhan. You put those together and it’s quite a bit different than one off-color remark one Sunday when Obama was sleeping during the sermon.
I don’t know how you can find my answer irrelevant. The networks played very little of the Wright snippets when they did surface. As I mentioned, the network evening news shows completely ignored his kooky AIDS and 9-11 chickens coming home to roost remarks. the networks played up Obama’s kumbaya speech and gave something like 5 times the amount of airtime as they did reporting on the Wright story. Obama’s initial refusal to disown Wright was considered “heroic” by the evening anchors…until Wright’s press club speech.
The difference is how quickly the media jumped on these non-stories trying to smear the Republican candidates. Of course the stories died quickly but they leave the impression with the voters. This is exactly what Rush Limbaugh calls the “drive-by media”. They make an accusation, the accusation makes news for a few days, and when the dust settles there never was a story. The problem is that people remember that they heard something about this candidate hating Mormons or something to that effect while the media is on to the next non-story.
See my comment above. This is the perfect example. The morning shows were all over this story calling it a potential bombshell. By evening they were concerned about the sourcing for the story. No matter, the damage was done.
Please don’t attempt to put words in my mouth. I never claimed a conection between Wright, Ayers and Rezko. When I said the media should pull the whole thing together I meant Obama’s associations with a number of unsavory characters including the self-described Communist Van Jones. The only common thread is Obama’s poor judgement. The media should care about this just a little.
I’m not talking about your “doubt.” You made an affirmative statement about the reasons people objected to Wright. Can you support it?
OK. So it’s unfair to use guilt by association tactics if there were only one quote, but if there are many, it’s fair and reasonable? Help me out here.
Yes, they only played some of the most inflammatory parts. Curse their covering up of things by broadcasting them.
Again, nonsense. Obama’s speech was given a few days after the controversy broke, and it stayed in the news for another month. They were covering the controversy, not Obama’s speech. And some of that coverage was about Obama’s “racist” comments about his grandmother.
Unless they don’t. The Hagee story made no difference to McCain’s campaign, and while Perry’s campaign has fallen apart, it wasn’t because of Jeffress. His campaign didn’t disown what Jeffress said and they paid no price. In general the public doesn’t seem to care much about any controversy related to Romney’s religion.
Yes, we all know Rush is above things like that.
The story did more damage to the Times than McCain.
“Democrat Obama associates with someone a Republican doesn’t like. Film at 11.” The fact that a candidate you don’t like has vague “relationships” with other people you find unsavory is not a news story.
That they were outrageous and inflammatory? You want a cite for that?
Use some common sense. If your mentor says something bad about Jews once then I may think poorly of you…or I may think that maybe you have no idea that your mentor said that. If your mentor makes racist comments in public on a regular basis and supports a anti-semite like Farrakhan, I don’t think it is far fetched to assume that you must be aware of this. If you do not think that this is reason enough to put some distance between you and your mentor then I can only assume that, at the very least, anti-semetic and racist comments do not bother you. Is it guilt by association? Of course. If you associate with a racist I will assume you are one as well.
I don’t think they played the most inflammatory parts at all.
What is your point. The smear tactic is okay as long as it doesn’t hurt the candidate?
Wow…that’s a great response. So now you hold network news reporters and anchors to the same standard that you hold Rush Limbaugh? Got it.
Not for lack of trying.
I don’t consider a communist and 9-11 truther appointed by Obama to be a vague relationship. Do you consider Wright to be a vague relationship? Would you serve on a board with, and launch your political career from the house of, a domestic terrorist? I wouldn’t.
Obama called Rezko “a friend”. Obama sought Rezko’s help in purchasing land after it was widely known the FBI was investigating him. Is that a vague relationship?
I didn’t say the smear tactic is OK. I said earlier that I am not sure there is any point in doing these stories at all. The problem is this: you’re asserting the coverage of Hagee, Jeffress, and Wright indicates a bias toward Obama. If that’s so, why did the scandal that hurt Obama get extensive coverage for a month and the stories that reflected poorly on Obama’s opponents get buried quickly? Your response was that the liberal press had to cover the Obama story even though they didn’t want to, and there was nothing to the other stories, so they couldn’t cover them. That indicates that if there was any bias, it was pretty weak because the bias keeps failing to do what the biased people want it to do.
I don’t hold Rush to any standard, and neither does Rush. If you are going to cite overtly Republican groups and Rush Limbaugh in support of an argument that the media is biased toward Democrats, you can’t expect me to take it seriously.
It was a bad story. It also didn’t damage McCain’s campaign - once again, the liberal bias failed at the first obstacle - and the Wright thing was damaging to Obama while he was still trying to fend off Clinton for the nomination.
You know I’m quoting you here, right? You said this:
If there is no relationship between Ayers, Rezko, Wright, and Jones, then there is nothing to “pull together.” The only thing uniting these people is that they have connections to Obama, and you’d like to see those connection used against Obama to maximum effect. That’s not a news story. And again, none of these things are secret. Wright and Ayers and Rezko received plenty of news coverage. The electorate didn’t seem to care much about Rezko, and ultimately, a majority voters decided either that the Wright and Ayers links didn’t concern them or didn’t concern them enough to make them want to vote against Obama. Wright was in the news for a long time and Ayers was mentioned repeatedly during presidential debates, so you can’t make the claim that the voters didn’t know about them because the press kept it quiet. Jones left or was pushed out of his position as a White House advisor after a loud campaign by conservatives.
The bottom line here is that the idea that Obama is an anti-American socialist, black liberationist, anti-Semite, is a line of B.S. that conservatives worked very hard to gin up - and of course, as part of the deal they said anybody in the media who didn’t fall for it and scream those allegations as loudly as possible and at the first opportunity is guilty of bias. That’s also garbage.
Because they were outrageous and inflammatory. What other specific reason do you need?
Well, if you want me to produce a picture of Obama with a shirt that says “Fuck Jews” I have to admit I don’t have one. Since Obama’s preacher is an anti-semite I assume, at a minimum, that anti-semitism doesn’t bother Obama.
OMG! Reading that site will burn your retina!:rolleyes: Read the data on the time spent on the stories before dismissing it out of hand. Typical.
Read that link I provided. The story did not get extensive coverage from the networks. The coverage given to the story was toned down and did not present Wright in all of his glory. The story was mainly carried by Fox News starting a full year before ABC stumbled upon the story. You seem to think the timing of the story was inopportune for Obama. I think covering the story before the primaries started would have been much worse for him.
Take off the blinders. I didn’t cite Limbaugh on anything. I agree with his use of the term “drive-by media”. If you can’t be bothered to read the link I provided then quit bitching about it being an overtly Republican group. Do you turn your nose up to every media matters link? What about HuffPo? I usually expect that reaction when someone cannot refute data or has run out of substance.
Yes, it was a bad story. So what? the Times made it a page 1 story and the networks picked it up. If there was any evidence at all I think it would have been reported ad nauseum. Look at the Cain story…the original story in Politico had zero evidence but it was immediately picked up by all the networks and played for days on end. Contrast that with how the media handled the Edwards affair where, by the way, there was much more evidence. They ignored that story for as long as possible. Remember how much the media reported on Clinton’s bimbo problems? The media completely ignored Paula Jones’ press conference.
The part you fail to understand is that the media immediately reports on any story or rumor that involves a Republican. Facts be damned. If the subject is a Democrat the media drag their feet. Remember how slow they were to report on Anthony Weiner? The list goes on and on.
Yes, I know exactly what I said. That’s a fairly lame attempt at a “Gotcha”. I explained what I said but you don’t seem to like my answer. I said they should pull the whole thing together. That doesn’t mean there is any connection between the different associates of Obama. They need to look at the man’s judgement at the very least. His judgement is the common thread. Well, that and the fact that so many of his associates are extreme left loons.
yorick73, you have truly led an exception life if you have never been in a situation where a person you respect has expressed views to you strongly disagree with. No preacher, professor, coach, mentor, political leader, parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, brother, sister, has ever said anything that you strongly object to (unless of course, you terminated the relationship immediatly). I mean, you ‘associate’ with people on the dope every day who hold opinions you find deplorable. What does that say about you, exactly? I mean, you have probably had friendly conversations with other dopers in CS about movies or whatever, and these could be the same people you have fought tooth and nail against in GD. I mean, what does that say about you?
For all we know, part of the frelationship between Obama and Wright was they worked together to help the community, AND they had friendly debates behind the scenes about [insert boogy-man here]. You say you’ve NEVER had a relationship like that?
The reason the story had no legs is that most americans can relate to having a mentor for specific subject matters while not swallowing whole their views in other areas. That’s why no one who wasn’t anti-Obama in the first place gave a shit.
Most of the “racist” and “anti-semitic” statements, (prior to Obama actually being elected, when Wright went after the “Jews” in the White House staff), were overblown. No one has ever provided any evidence that they were routine utterances from the pulpit. ABC picked up the follow-on story after Wright had reacted to a year’s worth of attacks by Fox and blew his cool.
Piffle. The version of Liberation Theology that made it into Protestant churches in the U.S. was pretty far removed from the Catholic Liberation Theology of South America and the overt links to Marxist thought had been severely diluted as it aged in South America, (under the disapproving gaze of Cardinal Ratzinger), and then transferred from the cultures in which it originated to the extremely different cultures of a different continent over twenty years. Finding “Liberation Theology” in Wright’s thoughts is irrelevant if you cannot find them in Obama’s–and they are not there.
Being afraid of the commies was silly in the 1950s and is ludicrous over forty years later. Genuine Marxist thought never had a serious chance to take root in the U.S. and it never will.
