Just watching Obama's speach on religion.

[UtahDan]

His point so far, essentially, is that people don't understand black anger. If they did they wouldn't be so up in arms about what gets said on Sunday. The interesting argument seems to be that Reverend Wright and others came up in a different era and that we ought to understand that. I've heard the same argument used regarding people who come up using the n word.

And now the real culprit: corporate America. Black anger, white resentment, it is all the wrong focus. We ought to be blaming corporations.

Prediction: Obama will never get out from under this and it will undo him. His failure to not just denounce some of the Reverends words but also the Reverend and his preposterous position that he didn't know those things were being said, coupled with the fact that he picked that church out as an adult for political purposes, is a tactical error of catastrophic proportions.

PS can one edit the subject line?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

And now the real culprit: corporate America. Black anger, white resentment, it is all the wrong focus. We ought to be blaming corporations.

I thought that was an odd diversion, but need to make a shout out to working class whites in Pennsylvania.

He equated Rev. Wright's comments with those of his "white" grandmother. He is walking the tightrope.

[il Padrino Ute]

Nope, your misspelling of speech is there forever.

I wanted to hear Obama's speach ( ) but was unable to do so. Hopefully, the transcript is online somewhere so I can read it.

I've heard a few others today comment that Obama really blew it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Nope, your misspelling of speech is there forever.

I wanted to hear Obama's speach ( ) but was unable to do so. Hopefully, the transcript is online somewhere so I can read it.

I've heard a few others today comment that Obama really blew it.

Video and text here:

http://drudgereport.com/flashos.htm

I haven't heard/read it myself, so I'm reserving comment. Heard Limbaugh on the radio call the speech a Rohrshach test: everyone sees what they want to see in it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

His point so far, essentially, is that people don't understand black anger. If they did they wouldn't be so up in arms about what gets said on Sunday. The interesting argument seems to be that Reverend Wright and others came up in a different era and that we ought to understand that. I've heard the same argument used regarding people who come up using the n word.

And now the real culprit: corporate America. Black anger, white resentment, it is all the wrong focus. We ought to be blaming corporations.

Prediction: Obama will never get out from under this and it will undo him. His failure to not just denounce some of the Reverends words but also the Reverend and his preposterous position that he didn't know those things were being said, coupled with the fact that he picked that church out as an adult for political purposes, is a tactical error of catastrophic proportions.

PS can one edit the subject line?

How do you so conclusively state that he adopted the church for "political purposes" and in another thread also state he is discarding that church for "political purposes?" I am intrigued by your ability to know for a fact another person's motives.

Isn't it at least as plausible that he was drawn to the church for spiritual reasons, stayed in the church for spiritual reasons, didn't want to denounce the rantings of his pastor in public for religious reasons (just like you wouldn't denounce the statements of LDS leaders on race in public) but finally was compelled to?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Tex

Video and text here:

http://drudgereport.com/flashos.htm

I haven't heard/read it myself, so I'm reserving comment. Heard Limbaugh on the radio call the speech a Rohrshach test: everyone sees what they want to see in it.

Thanks for that Tex. I'll read it sometime today.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

How do you so conclusively state that he adopted the church for "political purposes" and in another thread also state he is discarding that church for "political purposes?" I am intrigued by your ability to know for a fact another person's motives.

Isn't it at least as plausible that he was drawn to the church for spiritual reasons, stayed in the church for spiritual reasons, didn't want to denounce the rantings of his pastor in public for religious reasons (just like you wouldn't denounce the statements of LDS leaders on race in public) but finally was compelled to?

I rely on Juan Williams and others having said so. Also, I think there is a difference between having a racist past and having said recently that the US government invented AIDS to wipe out black people.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I rely on Juan Williams and others having said so. Also, I think there is a difference between having a racist past and having said recently that the US government invented AIDS to wipe out black people.

Were you a member of the church when Mormon Doctrine was first published? Did you feel compelled to disagree with the book publicly?

Were you a member of the church in 1977? Did you speak out publicly against the church for its failure to grant blacks the priesthood?

Have you wondered how Juan Williams knows for a fact what Obama's motives are? Did he tell you? Or do you just take such statements on another person's motives at face value?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Were you a member of the church when Mormon Doctrine was first published? Did you feel compelled to disagree with the book publicly?

Were you a member of the church in 1977? Did you speak out publicly against the church for its failure to grant blacks the priesthood?

One consistent problem in your rebuttals, Cali, is that you seem to deny the special scrutiny that a presidential candidate gets subjected to. UtahDan isn't running for President and if he were ... well, if you think a Mormon wouldn't be called upon to clarify his views on the priesthood ban, you are politically very naive.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Have you wondered how Juan Williams knows for a fact what Obama's motives are? Did he tell you? Or do you just take such statements on another person's motives at face value?

Juan Williams has an opinion just like anyone else, and he's entitled to it. More importantly, so are the voters. Or are you suggesting that when a politician declares his motive (or doesn't), that it should be the final word?

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Were you a member of the church when Mormon Doctrine was first published? Did you feel compelled to disagree with the book publicly?

Were you a member of the church in 1977? Did you speak out publicly against the church for its failure to grant blacks the priesthood?

Heh. I was two. I actually think you are making an interesting point here and I have thought about it at length this afternoon. Would an LDS candidate in 1977 be expected to repudiate the church over the priesthood ban? I think I have decided that the answer to that is no, that is asking too much.

On the other hand, would it be fair to judge a person on the basis that they refused to do so? I think the answer is yes. I realize that is a paradox. I don't think it is fair to ask a person to renounce their church, but I do think it is fair to judge them based on the beliefs of a church they support.

"How can you attend a church that maintains racist policies?" I think that is a fair questions.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Have you wondered how Juan Williams knows for a fact what Obama's motives are? Did he tell you? Or do you just take such statements on another person's motives at face value?

Look, there is no bottom to the "knowability" hole, but the edge of the sword facing you is equally sharp. What I have heard and read is that Obama made a conscious decision to seek out a prominent black church when his political career began and that he never could have been a successful black candidate in Chicago without that affiliation. I have no idea whether that is true or not, but one it seems logical and two I have doubts that a liberal black pundit such as Williams would fabricate something like that. When he said it on TV he did so with a tone that suggested it was common knowledge, at least that is how I interpreted it.