I went to a catholic church where EVERY DAY someone who wasn't baptised was not allowed to eat jesus or drink his blood.  My ex-church is, is..., substidencist!! 

so what? he also didn't note that Wright was Obama's spiritual advisor, wed him and his wife, baptized his children, or that Obama was part of his flock for 20 years despite the crap that wright spewed from his pulpit, or that Obama (like Mccain) only dumped wright when it became politically necessary.

This game can go on and on.  Krauthaumer summed it up well.

Kraut was NEVER at Obama's church, so he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.  He is listening to cherry-picked snippets out of context over two decades.  McCain WANTED and RECEIVED Hagee's support (did he REALLY not know what Hagee had said in the past?  Many people did, so McCain is either stupid, uninformed, bigoted, or pandering- or some combo of all). 

Both sides can point to bad qualities about the company that each candidate kept. This is a side-show. You're likely correct about Mccain pandering.  I'm just tired of hearing about both of their pastors when I don't think either candidate adopts their controversial views.

I totally agree.  The only problem is the *media* kept beating Wright's dead horse topic so much that it turned to glue.  The MSM would have been fair to leave Wright out of it all because Obama didn't try to get his support while McCain did try to get Hagee's, and, in my opinion. that is news worthy.     

I actually think both were newsworthy and should've been covered, initially, but enough is enough.  And I agree that Obama got slimed in this regard worse than Mccain, but the newsworthiness of either story has long since passed . . .

I actually think both were newsworthy and should've been covered, initially, but enough is enough.  And I agree that Obama got slimed in this regard worse than Mccain, but the newsworthiness of either story has long since passed . . .

I still overhear people saying they won't vote for Obama because of complete nonsense like the flag-pin, hand-over heart and/or Rev. Wright issue. 

It never ceases to amaze me how many complete imbeciles there are in this country.  This is what Obama has to overcome.   It will be interesting to see if it is even remotely possible.  It will be a herculean effort nonetheless.

Yes and if I were a McCain supporter I would not bring up church membership.  Remember, McCain lied about his membership in a Southern Baptist Church here in Phoenix when he started his run for the Presidency.  Who gets lower and more suspect than someone who lies about his church membership just to suck it up the the far right wing of our country.  Amazing that this fact is never discussed when everyone is so fixated on the Obama church.

Good call Thomp.

Why MMFA wants to continue on about these pastor problems is beyond me...

Unless they want us to bring up Rev. Michael Pfleger?

The guy is a whacko. But what troubled me more was the congregations reaction.

Jeter

I agree, it is time to move away from the Pastors and on both sides.

   You probably say that because Obama's church has spawned another pastor spewing racism. That church seems to have a lot of pastors who teach racism. I didn't know that was part of the Word of God.

   But, since media matters is the ONLY media outlet still worried about 'pastor connections' we will continue to have the item to talk about up to and beyone election day. And, the ONLY time this subject will be brought up is when there is yet another racist pastor speaking from the pulpit of Obama's church. It's a good way of 'deflecting' the attention that Obama's racist teaching church gets off onto McCain.

The question has been asked repeatedly Pil. No one has been able to prove Wright is racist. It is not a proven fact. Loose cannon on occasion, sure, racist no.

"No one has been able to prove Wright is racist."

   I guess no one was able to "prove" Robert Byrd was a racist, either. Is that how he ended up being a leader of the democratic party?

Yesterday's racist is not necessarily todays racist. Some people grow out of it. I'd be interested in what your trip wire is for the deffinition of a racist. Is racism only a one way door?

"Yesterday's racist is not necessarily todays racist. Some people grow out of it."

   Hopefully, the pastors at that church will "grow out of it" soon. They don't seem to have changed, yet.

Well you by referencing Byrd prove that you must hang on to the attack mode to justify your beliefs. How christian of you. Real Christianity is all about second chances, reformation and repentence. Your churchianity is all about punishment and blame. You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

" How christian of you. Real Christianity is all about second chances, reformation and repentence"

   When has Wright repented? When has Wright reformed? When he does I'll see if he changes, but, it isn't me who makes the decision about his salvation so it isn't me he needs to show that reform to. When I see true repentence out of either one then I will have no problem giving them a second chance. I don't see it from Byrd or Wright.

   "How christian of you"   How about how Christian of YOU. How many liberals on this site claim to be Christian AND do not give Hagee or McCain a second chance?? Don't give me your self-righteousness when 80% of the liberals on this site are as hypocritical as you claim I am.  By giving this arguement, you admit that Byrd and Wright are racists. But, that I am supposed to forgive them for their racism. Good job of backing up my claims. Now, let's see if they reform and/or repent.

Hi Philib,

I wish I'd caught you sooner, as I could have saved you a lot of embarrassment(not to mention a lot of unnecessary typing).

Your entire argument seems to be based on your misperception that the media is ignoring the Rev. Wright deal, and that MMFA is the only source keeping it alive.That is, if MM dropped it, it would be gone.

Did you notice that the item is about Krauthammer referencing it on May 29 (Thursday)?

You should really read the items before posting. You may be able to pass as a non-idiot for brief periods.

It aint easy being white, our violins are much smaller.

Agree Jeter, bringing up Hagee only keeps the pastoral affiliations alive, and this Pfleger nut is, well, a nut!

How does pointing out Krauthammer's misinformation here keep Hagee "alive"?

Gov, Stop asking mindless obvious questions, if you don't know, then figure it out, if not, never mind.

Just for kicks, please explain it to me...

"How does pointing out Krauthammer's misinformation here keep Hagee "alive"?  "

   Well, the obvious part is there IS NO misinformation. That is why it is difficult to answer your question. But if you want to know why Hagee is still in the news then:  (Shall we use small words so you under stand?) There are a few possibilities.

 1-because media matters is the ONLY media outlet talking about Hagee or Wright or Parsley or any other bad pastor. If they would stop, then this "story" would die. When they continue, then all the racism that is taught in Obama's church continues to come to the forefront. As hard as mmfa tries, they can't seem to deflect the fact that Obama belongs to a church that loves to have racist teaching pastors. 

 2-the only way to keep that from being headlines is to continually bring up a non-story like McCain-Hagee connection. Since people are tired of hearing about Hagee, they will switch the channel when a pastor related story comes out. That's why mmfa continues to bring up Hagee. When another pastor from Obama's church spews more racism that makes headlines, the best way to make people turn away is to show a Hagee headline.

 3-mmfa keeps it in the news to show how dumb liberals are. They know that Obama's church will continue to have racist-pastor problems, so any time another one spews more racism, mmfa will re-broadcast all the OLD news about McCain/Hagee/Parsley. Liberals do so little thinking for themselves they will believe whatever mmfa tells them to believe and ignore the racism being taught at Obama's church....because mmfa has 'more important' news.

  Personally, I lean towards answer #3.

You don't give many. Facts that is.

Which one of those religeous figures was recently hoping loudly that a certain portion of the population should just STARVE!

   Why don't you fill us in with some facts then? Who was it? What 'out of text' comment are you going to use? You should listen to the entire sermon. He makes a couple bad statements over a 20 history. You should listen to his sermons on a weekly basis to hear what message he is bringing. You should visit his church and experience for yourself his message.

   Those are all excuses used by the left to brush off the racist/hateful statements by Wright. Which one should I use for whatever pastor YOU'RE going to claim is making racist/hateful statements?? Oh, you mean I'm not allowed to use any of those statements? Gee, the left seems so hypocritical.

I'll get into facts after you do. I'm not going to waste my time refuting your opinions with facts. Got places to be this grayish morn.

   I didn't think you'd have anything to say.

Excerpt from the "G-d*mn America sermon:

...He then gets to the thesis of his sermon, saying, "Y'all are looking to the government for only what God can give. A lot of people confuse God with their government." Wright criticizes the Bush administration and its supporters for using Godly language to justify the war in Iraq. He equates using Bush's apparent belief that our Christian God would condone the war in Iraq with the same perspective of Islamic fundamentalists.

"We can see clearly the confusion in the mind of a few Muslims, and please notice I did not say all Muslims, I said a few Muslims, who see Allah as condoning killing and killing any and all who don't believe what they don't believe. They call it jihad. We can see clearly the confusion in their minds, but we cannot see clearly what it is that we do. We call it crusade when we turn right around and say that our God condones the killing of innocent civilians as a necessary means to an end. WE say that God understands collateral damage. We say that God knows how to forgive friendly fire.

We say that God will bless the shock and awe as we take over unilaterally another country, calling it a coalition because we've got three guys from Australia, going against the United Nations, going against the majority of Christians, Muslims and Jews throughout the world, making a pre-emptive strike in the name of God. We cannot see how what we are doing is the same thing that Al-Qaeda is doing under a different color flag - calling on the name of a different God to sanction and approve our murder and our mayhem."

http://www.democraticcentral.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1814

Try me.

I knew Tommy didn't have the answer to the question.

You and the Gov work to figure out the connection for yourselves, busywork is good for the mind.

I knew Tommy didn't have an answer to that question.

Tommy thinks Krauthammer's on MM's payroll.  Or he thinks this forum fuels the beltway.  Regardless, he loves Cheese Doodles and has been typing too much today and must give his tired orange fingers a well-deserved break.  Toodles, Tommy Doodles!

Did you do much acid in the 60's?

How does pointing out Krauthammer's misinformation here keep Hagee "alive"?

Where's his misinformation.  That  Krauthaumer didn't fit into his exiguous comments everything an Obama supporter deems noteworthy does not make it misinformation.  He could've said much more about both Wright and Hagee, and their respective relationships with the candidates. His point was, the issue is a wash, as it should be.

"The obvious counterargument, which the Democrats refuse to accept, is that presidential candidates are endorsed by hundreds of people, half of whom they don't know, some of whom are scoundrels and rogues whom they then dissociate themselves from."

To mean, it's right here.  McCain sought Hagee's endorsement long and hard and held on to it long and hard (until Hitler walked on water and the ripple effect got McCain too wet), so The obvious counterargument is bunk.

To "me", it's right here.... 

On second thought, you're correct.  It is misleading to shove Hagee's endorsement off as just one among thousands of unsolicited endorsements when Maverick did, in fact, actively solicit it.  Nonetheless, I guess I just  could care less about either wright or hagee and wish everyone shared my view.

Steve, The left cares about Hagee, the right cares about Wright, and those that understand they are both irrelevant care about neither.  I share your view.

Too late.  The light has been shined on these religious wackos and what they preach - hatred and divisiveness.   Wright (a vetaran) built his congregation from the ground up and still works to improve his community.  I hope the comparisons of him and Hagee continue til November.

Good point. The light on Hagee is brand new, never before have we seen that much direct light on any of these rightwing nutty preachers, this is startling indeed.

Considering your wish, what will you be wearing to President McCain's inauguration next January, remember, it's cold in DC. 

You mean McCain's inauguration as the chairman of the AARP?  Tux and top hat, of course.

"Wright (a vetaran) built his congregation from the ground up"

   Hmmm, describing Wright as a veteran. Why would being a veteran make being a racist any better? I'm sure there are a lot of kkk members who are veterans.

  And, of course he had to build it from the ground up, since nobody else was teaching the racism he taught, he couldn't have started where someone else left off.

   What I don't understand is why so many members of mmfa continue to defend Wright (racist/hater) while at the same time decrying Hagee (hater) as the ultimate evil. Actually, I do understand, I just get tired of pointing out the liberal hypocrisy that seems to be continually present in their hatred of anything/everything not agreeing with the liberal idea of the American future.

 

Making the tour this morning Phil. If you had more than slime and inuendo on repeat it might be interresting.

Perhaps when you are confused, you should look a little more closely at your premise.  That is where most conservatives make their mistake.  Your mistake is in claiming Wright is a racist or teaches racism without any decent evidence to back it up.  We simply disagree on the premise.  We are only hypocrites in your fantasy world.

   Yeah, I guess blaming white america for creating AIDS in order to have a genocide against the black population isn't racist. Yeah, I guess blaming white america for instituting the 3-strikes law to put more blacks in jail isn't racist. Yeah, I guess claiming white america is feeding the inner city blacks with drugs isn't racist.

   I guess you're right, he isn't racist. That's just his way of life. I wonder how much of this "way of life" Obama learned and clings to? Oh, wait, Obama completely disowns and disassociates himself with Wright. Why is that? Hmmm, could be for the reason I mentioned. You got another reason why he is disowning his friend and preacher of 25 years?

Your 1st para though, I see the sarcasim, is spot on. Falls down a bit in the second one.

"Yeah, I guess blaming white america for creating AIDS in order to have a genocide against the black population isn't racist."--philib

Wright blamed a racist government.  We can absolutely prove that government was racist (e.g. the Tuskeegee Experiment).  Unless you are a racist, you should not feel any offense.

As for the rest of your diatribe, I will not consider any of it without some sort of quotation or citation.  It looks like you are doing the typical misrepresentation through wingnut paraphrase scam.

"Wright blamed a racist government.  We can absolutely prove that government was racist "

   You use the same excuse all liberals use. What "government" do you think he was talking about?!? Was it the black government? Red government? Yellow government? Brown government? The black panther organization blames the "government" for causing blacks great harm, also. What "government" do you think THEY are talking about?

   You won't address a statement where I ask for reasons why Obama disowned Wright? I fully understand why you wouldn't want to respond to that line of questioning. I fully understand that the answer may end up showing I am correct and you are incorrect about Wright's racism.

Yep Phil you are the proud posessor of an opinion. One your can't do anything with but declare that you have it. Yup can't argue with that.

You've had all weekend to move beyond an opinion, to support it, to make a case for it. you have failed to do so. 

I agree with you, media does not need and should not be spending time on this stuff, but they choose to anyway.

Jeter,

If Hillary doesn't wrestle away the nomination, this will again become fodder for the Republicans this campaign season.  

Democrats will try to make a case for equivalence with McCain and Hagee but the difference between Wright/Obama and Hagee/McCain is so great that it won't stick to McCain. Add to it the terrorist Ayers, now the priest Pfleger, plus McCain's own gaffes and it will be devastating.

The Dems and progs are trying to pre-empt this by saying the story is old news. I doubt it will work.

Obama doesn't have much of a record to run on, and what he does have is very liberal, so it will be his associations that Republicans will use to help shape opinion about Obama as a President.

Liberal Dems will vote for Obama and GOPpers will vote McCain. I think the Independents and Reagan Dems will be off put enough to hand McCain the nomination. 

That is if Hillary doesn't sneak in...  :-)

speaking of gaffes... where I said "McCain's own gaffes" I meant "Obama's own gaffes".

I have no doubt the Dems will try to use McCain's age and his gaffes against him no matter who the Dems nominate. 

Democrats will try to make a case for equivalence with McCain and Hagee but the difference between Wright/Obama and Hagee/McCain is so great that it won't stick to McCain. Add to it the terrorist Ayers, now the priest Pfleger, plus [Obama's] own gaffes and it will be devastating.

 

Obama doesn't have much of a record to run on, and what he does have is very liberal, so it will be his associations that Republicans will use to help shape opinion about Obama as a President.

AA,

I don't feel like I know enough about Obama to realistically support him. Yeah, I can read about his views on the issues, but I'm talking more about his character.

One is often judged by the company they keep.

Character doesn't matter in a president, only job performance.  Compare Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Seek your moral leaders elsewhere.

Yeah, one was a lousy president, one was a lousy husband and father......who else have you got?

That 'whooooooshing' sound you may be hearing is the sound of steeve's point sailing far above tommy's little head.

A lot of our presidents were not the best (or at least most loyal) husbands. Thomas Jefferson, FDR, Woodrow Wilson, JFK, Eisenhower, but to name a few. It just took a special partisan chutzpah on the part of the Republicans to impeach a standing president over one.

"One is often judged by the company they keep."--jeter

If that is true, McCain is in for it:

http://nebent.com/pete/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bush-mccain.jpg

Open_Mind,

I agree with you about McCain [Ha! That photo says it all-thanks for the reminder]. I've no plans on casting my vote for the guy.

Hillary's character could certainly be called into question as well...for other reasons.

I'd simply like to know more about Obama. Thus far he's still little more than a virtually unproven leader with a charismatic personality & an eloquent speaking style. With very little history on which to assess this candidate as a potential President, I would at least like to know more about his character.

Unfortunately we often do end up judging folks by the company they keep, especially if we have little else to go on.

Honestly, I find McCain to be pretty liberal for a Republican and I like him quite a bit despite his pandering to some really scary folks.  I also like Obama, because he is a brilliant and dynamic speaker.  I don't really care too much who wins between the two.  It is pretty much win-win the way I see it.

Personally, I believe Obama will win - he has the advantage in almost every conventional way the presidency has been won in the last 50 years or so.

Democrats will try to make a case for equivalence with McCain and Hagee but the difference between Wright/Obama and Hagee/McCain is so great that it won't stick to McCain. Add to it the terrorist Ayers, now the priest Pfleger, plus McCain's own gaffes and it will be devastating.

AA, the person who makes the statement is accountable PERIOD!!! What someone else says CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be attributed to anyone but the person who makes the statement or comment.

Guilt by association is going to come back to bite YOU in the butt. 

"the person who makes the statement is accountable PERIOD!!! "

   I agree. However, when a teacher is hired by a school to teach and the teacher is in front of the students teaching the values of that school, who is accountable for what is being taught? The school or the teacher?

the teacher is in front of the students teaching the values of that school,

You have no point Philb.

A teacher is required to teach facts NOT values. The schools is there to teach History, English, Science and Math, not emotions.

Rev. Wright spoke those words NOT Obama and trying to paint Obama with that same brush is sad, pathetic excuse for not voting for him. You don't like his views on something, fine, but stop using Rev. Wright as your excuse.  

"A teacher is required to teach facts NOT values. The schools is there to teach History, English, Science and Math, not emotions."

   You really believe that? Why do they teach 'how to put a condom on' in school? Is that a fact, a value or an emotion being taught at that moment?

"Rev. Wright spoke those words NOT Obama and trying to paint Obama with that same brush is sad, pathetic excuse for not voting for him. You don't like his views on something, fine, but stop using Rev. Wright as your excuse."

   If you pay attention you'll notice we are talking about Pfleger, not Wright (at least not directly). I think some understood my analogy, but I'll explain it for you, since you don't understand it. The "teacher" (Pfleger) is hired by the "school" (Trinity United Church of Christ) and teaches the message that the school wants to have taught, (you can figure out the rest, right?).

   Interesting that this "school" seems to have a lot of "teachers" who have the same problem with whites. Another interesting point, Obama is friends with this guy too. Has been for many years. Just what ARE they teaching at that "school"?

I think Pearline's post sailed right over your head. If I was a school teacher, I'd say read it over and take some time to digest it. Really. Especially the part about "guilt by association."

Even in that, you fall short, because you'd like to think that you can reduce these pastors to caricatures. All the people that they have helped through the years would beg to differ.

   What did Jesus say about "works" being the reason for your salvation? It doesn't matter how many good deeds these men have done if they are still living outside the will of God. Racism is NOT being Godly. It doesn't matter how many kids they feed with their racism.

"Especially the part about "guilt by association."   "

  Mary, I'm not talking about what happened to Obama or his beliefs. I am referring to my continued belief that particular church is teaching racism to it's followers. They hire a 'guest' pastor and he teaches the same thing. The had a pastor who taught racism for a looong time. Guilt by association has nothing to do with my blaming that church for hiring pastors who teach what that church wants to be taught. I am in NO way blaming the students for being taught racism, I hope they can find their way out of that, I am blaming the church for hiring then allowing the teaching of racism.

My God you are ignorant.

Agree, this guy is not christian.

"only dumped wright when it became politically necessary."

And why did it become necessary?  Because Wright wouldn't shut up. 

"And why did it become necessary? "

  Beause, while America is ready for a black president, America is NOT ready for a president who has been taught/inspired/advised by a racist. While being in that position helped him climb the ladder of success in Chicago and Illinois, it is apparent that there is a different voter base nationwide than just locally. While being taught by a racist and befriending racists works in Chicago, it doesn't when running for president.

If you accept the empty floor logic that Wright is somehow racist. Somehow that opens doors for you. That product exsists in the same place that vaporware comes from.

It is pretty apparent at this point that philib is just another dittobot.  He has been asked repeatedly to backup his assertions and been destroyed every time.  He simply has too much invested in this myth to let go.  I think somehow in philib's twisted world, it somehow shows less integrity to change your mind in the face of all the contrary facts.

"He has been asked repeatedly to backup his assertions and been destroyed every time.  He simply has too much invested in this myth to let go."

   And, I've repeatedly pointed out racist statements and racist values that Wright espouses. I think it's your 'open mind' that seems to ignore all possibilities except ones that only agree with your position. That isn't being very "openminded" is it? I guess I'm not the only one with too much invested in "myths".

You've called some statements racist. You haven't done anything but that. The why are they racist statements is where you fall. You can't say why, its just your opinion. Wieght of opinion is worth about zero.

"You've called some statements racist. You haven't done anything but that."

   Go back to my post that you called "sarcasm". Do you think any of his statements, that I pointed out, are racist? It IS my opinion that they are racist. It IS my opinion that the kkk is racist. There are no lynchings going on now, does that mean they changed? No, they still hold racist beliefs, but that is only my opinion. I have no proof other than racist statements they have made. Similar to Wright.

Why does Wright as rascist work so well for you? Who has he disenfanchized, who did he send to the back of a bus, some other drinking fountain. Who has he lynched, taken a baseball bat to, declared subhuman?

Expressing outrage is not equal to racism.

- eweston8542983 / Friday May 30, 2008 5:52:42 PM EDT

Thanx Mary.

Your welcome and thanks for your comments. Being a keyboarding pundit like Phib isn't quite the same as reacting to racism directed at a person over a lifetime. his perspective might be somewhat different if he was born in a darker skin color.

"Being a keyboarding pundit like Phib isn't quite the same as reacting to racism directed at a person over a lifetime. his perspective might be somewhat different if he was born in a darker skin color."

   How Christian of you. You want ME to forgive Byrd for deeds done in the past, yet you don't forgive others for deeds done to you in the past. Isn't that a form of hypocrisy?

Byrd doesn't need your forgivness, don't strain yourself over it. You stop pushing that your target of wrath is racist, and you could get forgiveness. I really don't think you want that forgiveness though.

With regard to the Wright/Obama thing. Can you even concieve of any action by the two solo or in concert that would reasure you as to their integrity?

Do you take a position and then find a way to support it. Or do your positions come from reflection of events and historical context.

Are you a partison of coersion or freedom for the individual?

Who do you prefer Prince Rupert, or Cromwell?

You did not provide any "racist statements" from Wright.  You provided only your own apparently twisted paraphrases of what your interpretation is.  I have seen many of these interpretations by you dorks.  Damian G. a little further down the thread called Wright a racist against blacks for what turns out to be Wright mentioning that African music is often based on a pentatonic scale as opposed to a more European style heptatonic scale.  You guys are simply too clueless for words.

So, when I was a Catholic, years ago, I should have dissociated myself from the Church because the priests were molesting children?

Why didn't you other Catholics do the same?

/sarcasm

The argument that Obama must believe everything in his church because he was a member there for 20 years is just dishonest. 

Even though Hannity isn't mentioned in this article, I would like to ask him:  Why didn't you leave the Catholic Church when you found out that priests were molesting children? 

Why would you expect Obama to leave his church because his pastor might have said a few things that the general population might not agree with?  My former priest used to say things that I didn't agree with, but I didn't leave the church over it.  There's a difference between your faith in your G-d and the pastor and the way he conveys a message.

KRAUTHAMMER: The Obama campaign and the Democrats will say that McCain has his Reverend Hagee, and Obama has his reverend, and they disavowed them, and they're sort of morally equivalent.

No, Charles, you delightfully deliberately-obtuse moron you, we're saying that since John McCain crawled on his belly to get John Hagee's endorsement even while his Hitler-was-an-agent-of-God garbage was floating out there for anyone with a TV set to see, that McCain is more linked with Hagee than Obama with Wright.  McCain literally asked for it...

What Krauthahumer fails to grasp is that Gramps McCain ACTIVELY SOUGHT OUT the endorsements fo Hagee and Rod Parsley.  So he should get an amout of heat equal to what Obama has gotten because of Rev. Wright.

Perhaps Krauthammer's counterargument to this would be that McCain was only seeking Hagee's endorsement for craven political reasons, not any deeply held belief, so his insincerity gets him a pass and his poor judgment is a non-issue.

just guessing here.

More, I'd say, WZ.  Wright hadn't said any of the things around which the Right has stoked up the controversy when Obama joined the church, while Hagee's and Parsley's swill was already out there while McCain went begging them for endoresments.  If he didn't know what they'd said, he shows himself a lazy researcher who panhandled them for endorsements because they have large audiences; if he did know what they said, he shows himself a far-right hatemonger just like them.  Not someone I'd want for President either way...

Left,

Your condemnation of McCain is even more apt with regards to Obama.

How in the world did he not know Wright was such an anti-American? It is incredulous to believe that in 20 years Obama did not know. 

McCain can be criticized for not doing his homework but Obama to claim ignorance over Wright does not pass the POTUS smell test.  

"How in the world did he not know Wright was such an anti-American? It is incredulous to believe that in 20 years Obama did not know."

Perhaps if he'd had the right-wing media edit down Rev. Wright's 20 years of sermons to 40 seconds of "anti-American" bombast for him, it would have been easier to see.

But he did. The GOP tried but it still didn't help.

Only when Wright bloviated at the National Press Club did Obama finally become indignant. 

Yes, and did Mr. Obama even thank the GOP for all of their help?  What an ungrateful politician.  Fox News clearly showed that Rev. Wright hates America and whites and Jews and Republicans and babies and bunny rabbits, all in like 40 seconds.  Obama is too dense to see that, if you can produce a 40-second YouTube clip of somebody saying crazy things, then they must be, in fact, crazy and anti-American. (see also, Robertson, Pat; Falwell, Jerry)

On the other hand, a crazy pastor?  Now I've seen it all...

</sarcasm>

Kyle,

All sarcasm aside, has Wright ever disavowed or apologized for his 40 seconds of fame statements?  If not, one must conclude that they do in fact accurately represent his attitude toward the U.S.

You may now go back to splitting hares. :-) 

Or perhaps Rev. Wright (being familiar with the context of the sermons from which his statements were plucked, statements that, so starkly isolated and framed so unflatteringly, can sound "anti-American" to those who are prone to seeing anti-Americanism in anything less-than-jingoistic) is comfortable with his feelings for his country, a nation he served honorably in both the Navy and the Marines.

Perhaps he feels as if he has nothing to apologize for or disavow, and that anyone who believes that 40 seconds of edited statements "accurately represent his attitude toward the U.S." are so lacking in critical faculties that no amount of explanation would make a difference to them.

So Wright's accusation that the U.S. Government created AIDS to perform genocide on blacks needs further embellishment?  Oh ok. 

The only thing that takes longer than the 40 seconds is Obama defenders trying to defend such outlandish statements.  

Show me the exact quote where Write made that "accusation".  I haven't seen it yet after asking conservative after conservative to produce it.  Does it even exist?

The pastor reportedly said in a sermon just after 9/11, "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."

Okay.  That is the first I have seen that quote.  A little research shows that Wright did backpedal later when asked about that quote - saying it was "possible", but it does seem paranoid in its original version.  Paranoid, but not at all racist as many conservatives have claimed.

I think that is a problem you get to in religion. It is hard for me to come down too hard on Wright considering that most preachers believe as a foundation of the religion that a virgin gave birth to a child - which isn't rational on its face.

"So Wright's accusation that the U.S. Government created AIDS to perform genocide on blacks needs further embellishment? Oh ok.

The only thing that takes longer than the 40 seconds is Obama defenders trying to defend such outlandish statements.

- ANOTHERAMERICAN / Friday May 30, 2008 5:15:48 PM"

Yeah, because the US government would never do something that outlandish...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Study_of_Untreated_Syphilis_in_the_Negro_Male

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell

I think Wright is wrong about AIDS, but non-consensual medical experimentation by the government on its citizens is well documented.

Fair enough.  I know he apologized (sort of) to Catholics, but did Hagee ever apologize for his comments about Jews?

Also - the America that Rev. Wright grew up in didn't like blacks very much, either.  Now that we have civil rights for African-Americans, is he obligated to forget ALL injustices of the past?  Are you absolutely certain that no injustice exists in this country?  Because I'm fairly certain that it does.  If that makes me anti-American... well, actually, no it doesn't!

I don't feel as though Wright should have to apologize for anything.  The opinions he shared are just that - opinions.  He's allowed to have them, you know. 

Obama never sought Wright's endorsement.  That is a fact.  Obama never needed Wright (as McCain needed Hagee - gotta court those fake Christians, you know).

Wright made some remarks that were, well, disturbing.  However, if you look at the context in which he made the remarks, you can see the point he was trying to make. 

Don't you find it sad, AA, that the only example of 20 years worth of hatred for Jews, Whites, Republicans can be found on ONE 40-second clip?  Please. 

Your rats on the right will stoop to any level to trash someone for your own political gain.  It's sick. 

So, I ask all of you right-wingers out there, why haven't you dissociated yourself from your party based on the hatred of America and it's core values?  It's just a question...

So, I ask all of you right-wingers out there, why haven't you dissociated yourself from your party based on the hatred of America and it's core values?  It's just a question...

 

• - commonsenseliberal

Pat Buchanan (speaking of modern conservatism), paraphrasing the social critic Eric Hoffer: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket."

http://www.truthout.org/article/the-fall-conservatism Great article on the fall of conservatism by George Packer

Left,

Your condemnation of McCain is even more apt with regards to Obama.

How in the world did he not know Wright was such an anti-American? It is incredulous to believe that in 20 years Obama did not know.   -anotheramerican / Friday May 30, 2008 4:26:30 PM EDT

 

Except the GOP has been involved with the Religious Right -- where comments like Hagee's are common currency -- for a lot longer than 20 years. McCain, in saner days, called them "agents of intolerance" so he knows what they are about. He disparagingly called Bush a "Pat Robertson Republican" back in 2000, but now he's become what he reviled. I'll be happy to talk about Wright, as long as Hagee, Parsely, Robertson and all the other religious nuts who have been propping up the Republicans for the past 30 or so years are part of the discussion.  

How in the world did he not know Wright was such an anti-American? It is incredulous to believe that in 20 years Obama did not know.

Perhaps Wright's years in the Marines defending the country overshadowed the seconds of out-of-context crap the media ballooned up for all to see.

And, criticizing America is not the same as being anti-American. Only the GOP believes that.

Every parent who corrects their child isn't anti-Children.

I thought the comedy was over on the Glen Beck thread!

Do you forget that Wright accuses the government of creating AIDs in order to practice genocide against blacks?  Tell me again how is that like correcting your child? 

 

So - do you believe that the Tuskegee clinical studies, that lasted until 1972, were a hoax as well?

I'm not saying that Rev. Wright's claims are true, but there is precedent and reasoning behind what he believes, as misguided as that may be.  He's not just saying that because he 'hates America'.  He was a friggin Marine for chrissakes!

Of course, America is a country that was anti-black for nearly 200 years.  Maybe you overlooked that fact.

Kyle,

No, I do not believe the Tuskagee study was a hoax. Why would you say that?

Are you familiar with the study? It started in 1932, well before there was cure.  It involved 300 poor black men in either Alabama or Mississippi who had already contracted syphillis which was affecting blacks at a higher rate in the rural South. The goal was to find out the effects of syphillis over time. At the time it was approved by the medical establishment, both black and white. When penicillin was discovered these men were not told of a potential cure or given it. That is disgraceful, a tragedy, and an injustice.  It is a sad chapter in medical research.

However unethical this study was, there was no no "government" attempt at genocide to people of color. There was no wide spread collusion to kill off blacks. The test subjects were thought to be non-contagious when the study started.  

To infer that the government has had it in for blacks because of this one, very limited study, is ludicrious but is lapped up like kool-aid by the liberal  left here and by race baiters like Wright.

"However unethical this study was, there was no no "government" attempt at genocide to people of color. There was no wide spread collusion to kill off blacks. The test subjects were thought to be non-contagious when the study started.

To infer that the government has had it in for blacks because of this one, very limited study, is ludicrious but is lapped up like kool-aid by the liberal left here and by race baiters like Wright.

- ANOTHERAMERICAN / Saturday May 31, 2008 12:36:03 PM EDT"

To believe that the US government -- federal, state and local -- hasn't, throughout much of this nation's history, systematically enslaved, brutalized or oppressed people of color takes a very special ignorance of history. And while there is no credible support to show widespread collusion to "kill off blacks," you might want to ask Native Americans about the US government's genocidal role in decimating their population.

How in the world did he not know Wright was such an anti-American? It is incredulous to believe that in 20 years Obama did not know.

Probably the same way McCain, who spent a year kissing Hagee's a**, didn't know that Hagee believes that God sent Hitler to get the Jews to move to Israel. 

   Obama sure disowned Wright quickly, didn't he? 25 years of friendship completely broken off after Wright spews his hatred in public.  McCain disowns Hagee after one year of a$$ kissing when his statements become public. Of course, McCain never attended Hagee's church and was never exposed to his teachings other than what was printed in the news. Obama had direct contact and knowledge and acceptance of Wright's positions. Well, until they become public...then Obama couldn't get rid of Wright fast enough! What has been Obama's excuse for flinging Wright out the door? Something like; 'I didn't know he was that way'? Exactly what 'way' is Wright that Obama has to totally disassociate himself from his friend/mentor/spiritual advisor of 25 years? Could it be racism? Or is Wright simply another 'hater'? Seems like a harsh punishment if Wright is simply another 'hater'. But, if that's the reason YOU want to believe....

 

Time for a cold shower Phil. Think of other reasons. There are lots beyond the two you are fixiated on. Some chock full of humanity. You want a hateful cancerous relationship from the Obama/Wright relationship. Any other explanation does not fit your desires and is appartnetly rejected out of hand because it does not fullfill your needs for this relationship.

 

"There are lots beyond the two you are fixiated on. Some chock full of humanity."

  Oh? Give me an example. Give a couple, since you claim more than one other possibility. What other excuse has Obama given?

text of Wright's audacity to hope sermon

He's given excuses?? Would you care to reproduce one of those excuses. Then tell why it should be defined as an excuse,

Still waiting for your no doubt comprehensive definition of a racist.

   I didn't think you'd have the nuts to address the reasoning behind Obama distancing himself from a friend of 25 years. Typical of a liberal, when you get the heart of the matter you run and hide behind your mama saying 'he did it first'.

In your mystical world people never change and disagree, fall out, go from close freinds to bitter enemies or merely disgruntled with each other. There's a buttload of fictional and nonfictional writing that concerns this in passing, or as a main theme. Multiply that butt load a few times for all the reasons for why and repeat for outcomes. If its such a rare thing in your space and experience.... what planet are you from?

I don't believe Rev. Wright is any more anti-American than you are, AA.

Krauthammer is obviously using some of that conservative humor we all hear about. He thinks Pastor Hagee is a comedian...Look at all those laugh wrinkles on his face.

He spends lots of time in synagogue, whipping up Hanukah jokes and chuckling about the war on Christmas.

McCain can be criticized for not doing his homework but Obama to claim ignorance over Wright doqes not pass the POTUS smell test. 

Someone's worthiness of being the POTUS should be judged on things like the war and the economy. In that regard, McCain smells stank.

That's just the 'old person' smell that people start to develop when they become septuagenarians.

Not to fear, Obama has the Iran and Hamas endorsement all locked up.