How about a cite for that? I’ve only ever heard Obama claim that he wasn’t present when Wright made very specific comments in question.
I’ve never heard him come even close to a categorical denial of hearing any inflammatory comments.
Which, as far as you know, is true. He did not say today that he had heard inflammatory comments “of that sort” from the pews. He said that he had heard “controversial” comments before. There is a whole range of possible commentary which might be considered “controversial,” without being incindiary or inflammatory or “of that sort.” From what I’ve been seeing and reading, Wright’s commentary became less restrained and more inflammatory during his last couple of years at the pulpit because he knew he going to retire and took kind of a “what the fuck” attitude. Obama has not attended during the last year or so and had not been exposed to Reverend Wright: The Director’s Cut before.
Anyway, a lot of what Wright said was truthy and defensible, if hyperbolic, The only thing he said that was really outre was the AIDS stuff, but that’s not racist, just paranoid And it’s not even THAT ridiculous a thought to someone of Wright’s generation. It’s not like the US government hasn’t intentionally given black Americans diseases before. Tuskegee was still going on in the 70’s.
Cite?
Leaving aside that I didn’t find the parts of the speech where he excuses the language by Wright, would you be good enough to share with us who Wright “really is”?
If you want to show what makes these “religious extremists” so, well, extreme, please do so. And please define what you mean by “relationship”, at at what point you find it troubling. Until then, McCain should go on making all the speeches he currently is making.
Just because he did some good doesn’t absolve him of the bad. Surely you agree with that in principle, don’t you? And the mention of the grandmother was I think one of the few errors he made. We cannot choose who out grandmothers are. If we are dealt a bad hand in that regard we make do, unless things are truly horrible. Friends and acquaintances—AND MENTORS—are another matter entirely. Who we choose to fill those roles speaks very well to the person we are.
This is exactly why it is disingenuous and hypocritical for the right wing to condemn Wright and his relationship with Obama. Pat Buchanan compared Wright to David Duke on MSNBC. There is no comparison. Buchanan is a smart man; he knows there is no comparison but said it anyway to provoke fear. It is okay for the right wing to scapegoat, capitalizing on stereotypes and prejudices, while espousing propaganda to promote nationalism/blind patriotism. This conveniently distracts from the reality of corrupt government.
I honestly don’t understand why Obama is being held to a higher standard than other politicians with high profile ministry endorsements. Evangelists like Pat Robertson, John Hagee, and Jerry Falwell are responsible for extremely divisive, hostile and judgmental comments. Hagee wants the president to bomb Iran to hasten the second coming. Robertson and Falwell blamed the ACLU for 9/11 and said AIDS is God’s punishment of homosexuals. Those Constitution lovers are heathens and gays deserve God’s smite. Robertson compared feminism to Nazism. These are all ministers who have publicly endorsed every Republican candidate since Reagan. Republican voters must agree or dismiss these comments, either way, there was never much outrage.
Let’s not forget Ted Haggard, a spiritual adviser to G.W. Bush, condemned homosexuality yet had homosexual sex with a prostitute and snorted Methamphetamine. :rolleyes:
I think he is a bright guy, who as a pastor, has done some good. Evidently a lot of good. He is also part of the Hate America crowd, hyper-focusing on our ills and thinking the worst of us, to the point of spreading incendiary bullshit. In the 60s, one could argue that his strain of black liberation theology had some use. Today, as even Obama agrees, it is harmfully divisive. It is part of the problem, not the solution. It feeds the racial divide instead of closing it. Anyone who wants us to believe he has both the judgement and belief set we (the majority) want in a leader, would not look to a man like that to be his mentor.
Hope that helps.
It wasn’t a 20 year relationship with a mentor, it was a whistle-stop. It would be like stopping at Obama’s church for a day.
I wouldn’t make a bigot like Wright a mentor so I don’t understand your point. And his grandmother was his guardian. I suppose he could cut her loose for voicing the same feelings Jesse Jackson did but it would be a stretch to compare that to Wright’s diatribe. Either way, grandma is the person who took care of him as a child and Wright is a deliberage adult association.
You and I can rationalize the behavior of Wright until the cow’s come home but that isn’t the debate. The debate is how far this will travel. The Reverend Wright will be heard over and over again and people will ask why Obama made him his personal spiritual advisor for 20 years. His speech will be the answer to that question.
It’s one of the major disconnects with atheists and thoughtful religious people, I think: the belief that we will take everything from the pulpit as, well, gospel. The fact is, most of us recognize that the people to whom we listen in our lives are dead right about some things, dead wrong about others, and can make us seriously ponder for everything else. It goes for parents, politicians, and preachers alike.
As far as being a mentor is concerned, well. Perhaps I mistake how most people define ‘mentor’ – it isn’t just a person with whom we agree totally and want to become precisely like. It’s a person with wonderful qualities and strengths we wish to see in ourselves, despite their flaws. I can think of a dozen examples in my own life, but let’s take my friend the preacher. I think my friend’s taste in books is really painful and I take issue with some of the tenets of that friend’s religion. This person has done things I don’t agree with, that I would never do, that I would denounce.
And yet, this person also reminds me by their presence and their actions how I can be a better person. Their giving and selfless nature is astounding, as is their constant desire to do more, more, more to help the people surrounding them. Their sense of duty is immense.
Do I consider this person a mentor? Heck yes. Do I agree with everything they say? Goodness no.
A mentor is not there to be a human paragon of sheer perfection, or else Christians ought not be pointing to anyone other than the big J.C. They should be amazing at something, however, to the point of being inspiring and capable of seeding greatness in others. We’re seeing Wright’s worst, and just like the cynical bastards we are in America, some of us are uninterested in conceiving that he might have a pretty good ‘best’.
What bad? That he has a nutty belief or two? That he’s critical of US foreign policy? I don’t see any of that as so unforgivably “bad.” It seems to me like his works have all been pretty good. Jesus said a corrupt tree cannot bear good fruit, therefore “…by their fruits you will know them.” If the works are good, the man is good, by Christian standards.
Do you have some knowledge of Jermiah Wright ever doing anything “bad” enough to override the good.
This “Hate America crowd” you make reference to doesn’t exist, by the way. It’s a figment of the right wing imagination.
Whay “behavior” do you find so objectionable?
That one made me grind my teeth. You have to keep in mind that such a comparison is actually a backhanded compliment when coming from the likes of Mr. Buchanan, racist-at-large:
This cite has some other interesting tidbits about the man throwing stones at Wright and wrongly, by extention, Obama.
The first of these statements is incorrect and the two comments are not saying the same thing. 9thFloor, can you cite an example of Obama parsing?
Magellan01, I was certified to teach reading and tested by the state to see if I could discern minute differences in meaning. I had a perfect score. (This isn’t to say that I don’t miess up or garble my own sentences here. But when I pay attention, I generally “get it.”
Osama did not lie. He was very specific about what he said. The differences in what he said that he was present for and what he was not present for were explained and they are important because they make the difference between an honest man and a dishonest man.
According to Obama, he was present when Wright gave sermons on some controversial subjects. (He didn’t say what these subjects were.)
He was not present when Wright said “God damn America” or when Wright said that the government had introduced aids, or when he said that America was responsible for the acts of terrorism on 9/11 – or for any of the other sermons shown in soundbites during the last week on television.
I hope this helps to clear things up.
I would be happy to read Wright’s comments in context and to see some of his other sermons. I’m sure he has many after all of these years in the ministry.
Cite for where he implicitly claimed MLK for his side?
I wanted to address the real issue. This is what I get for wasting time. I have to close down. There is a storm coming.
Peace. Real Peace.
Cite that he’s not lying?
I happen to agree with most everything that Wright said. What’s your point?
Mine is simply that Obama categorically denied ever hearing inflammatory statements of that sort made by Wright (in an interview with Anderson Cooper, by the way) in 20 years of attendance. Does that sound credible to you?
He further **specifically ** denied hearing **of ** Wright’s 9/11 comments even though they were widely broadcast. Anderson Cooper, to his credit, tried to keep a straight face that Obama had never heard or KNOWN that Wright made those 9/11 comments even though he PUT THE MAN ON HIS ADVISORY BOARD.
Sorry, that just doesn’t fly. He’s lying. Which is understandable.
“**He ** and his top aides have started to give excuses and split hairs with the enthusiasm…”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23681429
I also found his race speech to contain parsing which has now been reduced (as noted in this debate) to the difference between words like ‘inflammatory’ and ‘outre’ and ‘indefensible’ and ‘wrong headed’, etc., etc. His position on race has been reduced to parsing and it’s evident even down here in the trenches of his supporters speaking on his behalf. The whole shebang is down to technicalities now. The bottom line is he, once again, has said one thing and been caught possibly/probably meaning another like with NAFTA and Iraq and Rezko.
By repeatedly quoting and invoking MLK during the campaign. He complained it wasn’t fair for Bill to speak on behalf of Hillary since he’s the former Prez but he routinely invoked the dead MLK, implicitly claiming him. It’s part of his appeal.
McCain has actively sought and received the endorsement of John Hagee. Some choice Hagee quotes:
How much have you heard about this Hagee guy from the media? How much outrage have you heard from people about McCain’s seeking of his endorsement? Are the same people criticizing Wright also criticizing Hagee? Which is worse: suggesting that America is guilty of a lot of injustice, or suggesting that God lacks smart weaponry and devastated the Gulf Coast in an effort to get a gay pride rally cancelled?
Daniel
Nope. You made the initial claim. It’s your responsibility to back the claim up. The buck stops with you.
This doesn’t prove anything.
I’ll second Diogenes. Cite.
That’s not a factual article. That’s an editorial. An opinion piece. It isn’t a proper cite. Find another one.
Nope, the buck stops with him. He’s the one that’s making the assertion that he’s not lying. He hasn’t proven that to me. He’s clearly lying, IMO.
Tell him to go find a cite.
Beyond which, you’ve just made clear your response to any such cite would be “that doesn’t prove anything” so why bother?
The fact is he told Anderson he’d never heard of such comments until he starting running for POTUS. Then in his speech he said he had heard such comments. There’s your two cites.
He contradicted himself, lied, and the media will be jumping on that contradiction momentarily. He will try to weasel out with parsing of language between what constitues “such comments” and “incendiary” vs. “controversial” etc.
Which is why I said he’s now in the land of parsing.
Yeah, yeah that doesn’t prove anything. LOL Nobody’s trying to prove anything to you Mr. Wolf. I’m expressing my assessment, my interpretation, and my opinion.
Just like you.
What’s a factual article? One that you agree with?
An editorial is a proper cite. It all depends on what’s being cited and for what.
I’m not referring to the opinions expressed in that opinion piece, I’m referring to the facts listed as to what Obama said and the inherent inconsistency in saying “probably” at times and then not saying it at others. Those are the facts of what he said, as reported within that opinion piece. It’s not the gentleman’s “opinion” that Obama said those things when and how he did. He’s directly quoting.
Now, if you think those quotes are fabricated and want a cite for the cite knock yourself out. LOL But at that point, it goes into “silly season.” (that’s a quote by the way – contained right here within my opinion piece! Wow! And it’s still a fact that Obama said it!)
The opinion comes where you decide what to make of the reported quotes.
I’m telling you what I make of the factual, reported quotes.
It’s why I think he’s now entering the land of parsing. That’s why.
So shrug off something else, like my opinion, but not the reported facts just because they are listed in an editorial.
Anyway, I’m sure you know that so go into defensive mode I’ve given you the cites and you dismiss them. Seeing as how that’s the approach you’re taking, I won’t bother any further.
The fact that racism is still in the USA is a fact,It is better than it was 50 years ago but it is still there. Blacks judge whites and Whites judge blacks just on skin color.
I would like to see people ecxept the fact that we all just belong to the human race which is really the only race.
If I were black I would still prefer the USA over Africa. The things that are going on there, is far worse than the racism here. every news broadcast from Africa shows blacks killing blacks and surely not trying to make a better place for the people to live. It is sad and wrong what goes on there,and that is not skin color but ethnicity. and politics.
Monavis
He was in Con Law Professor mode, and I got the feeling he’s had most of this speech in his head for a long time. The only risk with Con Law prof mode is that it might have been to complicated or nuanced to reach the folks he most needs to reach.
And I was glad to come here and find that other people think it was one of the best speeches in recent memory.