C'mon Obama, we weren't born yesterday

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, I stand by that point. And I think both Douthat and Derbyshire have made good comments supporting why it's a valid association to criticize. Attacking me for posting them doesn't support your proposition.

As to the political liability, I don't think the Wright issue is in the same ballpark with the Falwell "issue."

You have yet to even attempt to dispute my arguments as to why both Douthat and Derbyshire (and, I guess, you- though your endorsement is pretty soft at the moment) are wrong. Instead the best you have come up with is "I don't think the Wright issue is in the same ballpark with the Falwell issue." Really more of a factual statement on what you think than an argument, but I don't expect much, so well done.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You have yet to even attempt to dispute my arguments as to why both Douthat and Derbyshire (and, I guess, you- though your endorsement is pretty soft at the moment) are wrong. Instead the best you have come up with is "I don't think the Wright issue is in the same ballpark with the Falwell issue." Really more of a factual statement on what you think than an argument, but I don't expect much, so well done.

If your argument is that a man shouldn't be judged by his closest associations, then I disagree. Obviously the best (and starting) barometer ought to be the man himself: what he says and what he does. And by and large, that's what I've criticized Obama for (empty suit, etc.)

But a man's closest friends and associates influence his thinking, and it's a fair thing for the electorate to weigh in their decision. In this respect, Obama's relationship with Wright bears no resemblance to McCain's to Falwell. It's a bad case of "they do it too!" which really does nothing for your position.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

If your argument is that a man shouldn't be judged by his closest associations, then I disagree. Obviously the best (and starting) barometer ought to be the man himself: what he says and what he does. And by and large, that's what I've criticized Obama for (empty suit, etc.)

But a man's closest friends and associates influence his thinking, and it's a fair thing for the electorate to weigh in their decision. In this respect, Obama's relationship with Wright bears no resemblance to McCain's to Falwell. It's a bad case of "they do it too!" which really does nothing for your position.

In which case, we know James Carville is a secret Republican.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

In which case, we know James Carville is a secret Republican.

Is this supposed to be a response? I already said Carville and Matalin's relationship is well-known and well-defined. Pretending that it's the same with Wright and Obama is again foolhardy. Moreover, neither of them is running for President.

But for what it's worth, I think either Carville or Matalin would have trouble running for the presidency of their respective parties, for (at least) that reason. I think it would certainly be a campaign issue.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Is this supposed to be a response? I already said Carville and Matalin's relationship is well-known and well-defined. Pretending that it's the same with Wright and Obama is again foolhardy. Moreover, neither of them is running for President.

But for what it's worth, I think either Carville or Matalin would have trouble running for the presidency of their respective parties, for (at least) that reason. I think it would certainly be a campaign issue.

Oh please. A "campaign issue" for Carville or Matalin? You are rapidly losing credibility (and you don't have much to lose).

First of all, you are pretending to know the depth of the relationship between Obama and Wright. He has gone to the church for 20 years and he has thanked Wright in the past. What else do we know about the relationship? Little, and yet you have already made them domestic partners.

Second, Obama has already distanced himself from Wright's politics, just like Carville and Matalin clearly have. Your position of "it isn't enough" is as vague as most other positions you take. What is enough, Tex? Take a position on something for once.

Third, the treatment Obama is receiving from Republicans in particular for his association with Wright is hypocritical, at best. Notice McCain isn't saying much? He doensn't want to tread in this water. To do so would be foolish with his association with Falwell and others he vowed never to associate with in 2000 (only later to cozy up to them).

In the spirit of Tex, here is a nice little article on the topic you may find interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-...e_b_91774.html

[Spaz]

This post has nothing to do with the thread topic, so feel free to ignore.

I've noticed a favored trend of those debating issues on this board is to attempt to brow-beat someone into defining their opinions specifically enough to then show where their definition doesn't fit. Obviously hoping to claim some sort of victory.


Pretty disingenuous method, IMO. Not only does it result in misleading conclusions, but creates an atmosphere where defining oneself is contrary to one's best interest.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Oh please. A "campaign issue" for Carville or Matalin? You are rapidly losing credibility (and you don't have much to lose).

First of all, you are pretending to know the depth of the relationship between Obama and Wright. He has gone to the church for 20 years and he has thanked Wright in the past. What else do we know about the relationship? Little, and yet you have already made them domestic partners.

I don't remember all the pieces I've read, but I seem to recall that Wright married Obama and his wife? He cites Wright as a mentor, took a phrase of Wright's for his book, and as you note, has been a member of his congregation for a very long time. It seems it's quite a bit more than a casual relationship.

One wonders why Obama's objection to the man's visceral hate didn't come up earlier.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Second, Obama has already distanced himself from Wright's politics, just like Carville and Matalin clearly have. Your position of "it isn't enough" is as vague as most other positions you take. What is enough, Tex? Take a position on something for once.

I guess I need to clarify that personally, I don't care much about the issue. I am much more interested in criticizing him for the Messianic Cult he's created, than his pastor's racist anti-American bigotry. I read Obama's statement distancing himself ... ok, well enough for me.

I don't think all voters feel the same way.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Third, the treatment Obama is receiving from Republicans in particular for his association with Wright is hypocritical, at best. Notice McCain isn't saying much? He doensn't want to tread in this water. To do so would be foolish with his association with Falwell and others he vowed never to associate with in 2000 (only later to cozy up to them).

You keep bringing up Falwell like it means something.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

In the spirit of Tex, here is a nice little article on the topic you may find interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-...e_b_91774.html

Yes, that was interesting. Was there something in particular you wanted me to comment on?

[Spaz]

Just to see if I'm following this debate correctly...

Tex: Obama's close association with Wright will hurt his electability. His closeness to Wright is more damaging than McCain's association with Fallwell because of proximity & influence of Wright.

Cali: Obama & Wright's relationship is no better or worse than McCain's with Fallwell, and won't have a dramatic affect on electability for either party. Proximity & influence are not distinguishing factors in differentiating the two relationships.


If I've got the gist of things correct, I fail to see why you're still going at each other. Neither of you is likely to convince each other (or anyone else) of your opinion.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

We are a part of a church that encourages us to know our past. We march the trails that our ancestors marched to come out West. We visit Haun's Mill and Carthage with bowed heads and tear-filled eyes. We are moved by those stories and they are a part of our identity. Utah, where many of us call home, was the genius of our American Moses. Our culture and identity spring out of persecution and flight. In our private meetings, and for generations of temple attenders, these stories are/were told over and over again, becoming a deep part of who we are.

As Mormons we have some parts of our own history through which we can (if we dare) begin to appreciate the sensitivities of the black community. As a young child I recall a news story about a very old woman. She had been born into slavery. She was alive when I was alive. In my lifetime slavery was part of the living memory of some. When black families follow the prophet's advice, and explore their genealogy, they journey past trees covered in Strange Fruit and burning crosses. The black genealogist becomes a witness to government sanctioned terrorism, human experimentation (eugenics and exposure to disease) and subjugation.

How can black men and women honor and respect the memory of their ancestors without being angry?

For eighty years following the murder of Joseph, our ancestors swore blood oaths against the American government. Our ancestors moved to Utah when it wasn't even a U.S. territory. The trends of modern Mormon conservativeness, our lack of trust in the government, grow out of this history. Now take the Mormons' persecution and suffering and multiply that by thousands of lynchings and generations of public humiliation and a government that, in Reverend Wright's lifetime, sanctioned official segregation and discrimination.

In the Holy Temple, my great grandfather swore to avenge the murder of Joseph Smith. He swore to pray unceasingly to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and to teach that vengeance to his children and grandchildren. This is the history of our ancestors. I can understand it and sympathize with it. I am also glad that this hateful anti-America message was removed from our ceremonies. Thankfully I was born and raised in a day when the government's ire was not directed at my people. If not, and if I were running for public office, I might find myself in the same position as Obama today, or Senator Reed Smoot from our own history, forced to reject, denounce and deny my church's teachings.

One last note about the history of political activism in black churches. The tradition comes from the times of slavery, when slaves adopted their masters' religion and discovered that church was one of the few places they could speak openly about their situation. At church they would learn to sing together, and these hymns became the music that helped them endure their hardships. The lyrics were full of coded language, and they became a way for slaves to speak freely in front of their captors. Reverend Wright is part of a long important tradition of black activism in black churches. He is more American than apple pie. His anger is righteous, and his criticism is worth our consideration. We can't go about just ignoring major voices in our various American sub-cultures, or we risk shunning a potential Abinidai or Samuel.

I'm personally saddened that Obama felt that it was politically expedient to denounce his preacher.

A nice read and you make some interesting points.

As justified as black anger is, one takes a chance in how people will react to it. Martin Luther King understood this and appealed to the better parts of our beings and changed a nation. Rev. Wright doesn't and limits his reach. Who had a greater impact on paving the way for Obama's candidacy.

Perhaps Obama's association with his church was out of political expediency early on in his career, making denouncing his preacher a simple political calculation.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Spaz

Just to see if I'm following this debate correctly...

Tex: Obama's close association with Wright will hurt his electability. His closeness to Wright is more damaging than McCain's association with Fallwell because of proximity & influence of Wright.

Cali: Obama & Wright's relationship is no better or worse than McCain's with Fallwell, and won't have a dramatic affect on electability for either party. Proximity & influence are not distinguishing factors in differentiating the two relationships.


If I've got the gist of things correct, I fail to see why you're still going at each other. Neither of you is likely to convince each other (or anyone else) of your opinion.

You've got the positions about right, I think. I'm not really "going at" Cali, nor trying to convince him (I don't think either one of us has succeeded at that in any topic over the months).

It's just a discussion.