Log in
2012 May 18 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2008/03/19/racists/
0
0
Racists!
Mar 19
 › 
  |   50 comments

Andrew Sullivan: “To read the Corner today was to be reminded that some are immune to the grace and hope and civility that Reagan summoned at his best; the anger and bitterness is so palpably fueled by fear and racism it really does mark a moment of revelation to me.” Nice Andrew. Say, weren’t you worshiping George W. Bush like that only a few years ago, and calling all those who disagreed with Bush “traitors” back then? Today you changed your approach a bit and argue that those who disagree with Obama are “racists”? Nice.

  1. Posted by Claudia
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32477 ›
    Claudia Michael, seriously, you have to stop taking every single commentary and extrapolating it to an attack on anyone who doesn't want to vote for Obama. Andrew Sullivan said that some people will not be able to look past their issues on matters of race. You can like it or not, but that is undoubtedly true, some people (both black and white, LIKE OBAMA SAID) will simply not put down their anger and realize that the other guy isn't just making things up, that their IS still prejudice, and that we need to confront it. Now, what is actually beginning to get on my nerves is the fact that so many people will look at phrases like "Some Obama opposition is racist" or "Some Clinton opposition is sexist" and jovially remove the "some" out of the phrase, turning it into a red herring and therefore avoiding the uncomfortable task of actually talking about the issue.
  2. Michael van der Galien
    To read the Corner today was to be reminded that some are immune to the grace and hope and civility that Reagan summoned at his best; the anger and bitterness is so palpably fueled by fear and racism it really does mark a moment of revelation to me.
    With some, he doesn't mean that some at the Corner aren't racist. No, his point is that they're all racists. And this is the approach he and bloggers like him have taken from the get-go. These people have never, and I mean never, made a racist remark about Obama. So why are they racist? I linked to the Corner on purpose, so people could check it out themselves. It's just a baseless accusation, one that Andrew is making constantly. Notice that my criticism is at one man; Andrew Sullivan. Not at you, not at Jason, not at Justin Gardner, but at Andrew Sullivan. And I think I'm quite right about him; first it was George Bush he worshiped now it's Obama. First opponents were traitors, now they're racists. That's how he operates.
  3. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32486 ›
    C Stanley Claudia: sorry, but Michael is correct here. You changed Andrew Sullivan's words to be about the general idea that anti-black racism still exists and that some people won't vote for Obama because he's black. Unfortunately for you, that isn't what AS said. Instead, as Michael clearly pointed out, he directed his racist accusation at the writers at the Corner, but he provided no evidence of that. Apparently he believes they are racist simply because they weren't blown away by Obama's speech and they don't now dismiss all of the anti-white racism that spews from Rev. Wright.
  4. Posted by Pete Abel
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32507 ›
    Pete Abel Sorry, as much as I respect Michael on many fronts -- and you, too, Christine -- I have to agree with Claudia here. Perhaps Andrew glossed over details, perhaps his reaction was to the plethora of material available from hard-right radio, print, Web, and TV media and he inadvertently assigned all of that to The Corner.  Or perhaps it was the conglomeration of other media linked in his mind with sniping posts like this one at The Corner that led to his conclusion. I don't know.  What I do know is that after reading stories like this one at Politico.com, I have the same reaction Andrew does, that the modern American conservative movement is latching on to arguments that are "palpably fueled by fear and racism," and is thus as guilty of hateful speech as they accuse Rev. Wright of being. Obama publicly denounced Wright's words.  Maybe it's time for conservatives to do the same with respect to the words of hate-mongering pundits like Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly.
  5. Michael van der Galien Did you actually read that post Pete, the one at the Corner you link to? How in the world is that post even remotely racist? Man, you're doing exactly what Andrew Sullivan is doing. That's below you. And with regards to the haters on the conservative side: this young man has called on conservatives to denounce people like that since he was blogging. However; no conservative leading politician calls those people his or her "spiritual mentor." O, and Obama went to a Church for 20 years in which they preached anti-Americanism and hatred. And what does Obama do? He pretends that Wright says what the entire black community thinks and believes, where that is absolutely not the case ("can't disavow Wright" just like he can't "disavow" the entire AA community). As for the approach of the GOP: in a way it's sad, in a way Obama's got it coming. He doesn't disavow Wright, he went to Wright's Church for 20 years; was baptized by him; brought his girls there; got married by him and there; he associated with this anti-American, anti-Semitic and racist hatred for over 20 years. Even if he doesn't agree with Wright, it still tells me all I need to know about Obama that he's willing to tolerate this nonsense for 20 years, and only says something about it when a controversy erupts. If he was white, and Wright was white as well, you all would be calling for his head.
  6. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32513 ›
    C Stanley Agree with Michael again, Pete. What is it in that Corner post that you would consider a possible indication of racism? I pretty much agreed with the post, so I guess you can go ahead and call me a racist too then. Here's the thing that I think many liberals or center lefties don't understand; reasonable, thoughtful conservatives generally aren't buying Obama's speech for two main reasons. The first is that the speech is yet another example of words which don't match actions (because Obama waited until he was forced to speak out strongly against Wright and other anti-white racists/antisemites) and for that matter, he didn't even speak out as strongly as he should have because he gave excuses for those kinds of beliefs instead of giving a blanket condemnation. And second, we find that the speech attempts to justify a very liberal/progressive agenda on the basis of the necessity for government to fix past errors of society. So if you can't see the difference between those kinds of criticisms and racisms, a clear difference IMO because conservatives are simply calling out SOME African Americans who practice anti-white racism and calling out SOME Democrats for using race to advance a liberal/progressive agenda, then so be it.
  7. Michael van der Galien
    What is it in that Corner post that you would consider a possible indication of racism?
    It was critical of Obama.
    I pretty much agreed with the post, so I guess you can go ahead and call me a racist too then.
    Racist! (I also agreed with most of it, so I'm guessing I'm a racist as well)  

    Here’s the thing that I think many liberals or center lefties don’t understand; reasonable, thoughtful conservatives generally aren’t buying Obama’s speech for two main reasons. The first is that the speech is yet another example of words which don’t match actions (because Obama waited until he was forced to speak out strongly against Wright and other anti-white racists/antisemites) and for that matter, he didn’t even speak out as strongly as he should have because he gave excuses for those kinds of beliefs instead of giving a blanket condemnation.

    And second, we find that the speech attempts to justify a very liberal/progressive agenda on the basis of the necessity for government to fix past errors of society.

    Halleluja! Well said Christine. But this is somehow unacceptable. You know, MLK walked the walk as well as talked the talk. Obama doesn't. I get the impression that some want us to be so impressed by Obama's decision to address race, that we should now all support him and stop criticizing him.
    So if you can’t see the difference between those kinds of criticisms and racisms, a clear difference IMO because conservatives are simply calling out SOME African Americans who practice anti-white racism and calling out SOME Democrats for using race to advance a liberal/progressive agenda, then so be it.
    Yup, agreed. Problem is: that's not going to "unite" anyone.
  8. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32522 ›
    C Stanley
    I get the impression that some want us to be so impressed by Obama’s decision to address race, that we should now all support him and stop criticizing him.
    Yes, and also I think that Obama himself, as well as his supporters, seem to feel that he has the definitive answers about race because his own background bridges the racial divide. Well, sorry to say that I don't buy that; he certainly brings a lot of personal experience to begin the discussion, but that's not the end of the story. For one thing, his personal experience is quite unique (his black heritage is African, not African American, and his upbringing was a combination of living abroad and living in a very multicultural environment in Hawaii.) That's the experience of a unique bi-racial American, but you have to add to that millions of other experiences of white people growing up among mostly whites, whites living in mixed race environments, blacks among predominately black environments, blacks among mixed race, etc. He speaks as though his own unique experience somehow takes into account every lived experience of all Americans, and that's just not the case. As a result, he ends up paying lip service to certain concerns, justifiying others that shouldn't be justified, and generally stifling the real discussion instead of instigating the kind of deep reflection and open debate that is necessary.
  9. Posted by Pete Abel
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32524 ›
    Pete Abel I didn't consider that Corner post racist.  Please read what I wrote:  I labeled the post "sniping," which I think it was -- because Obama did not excuse or codone or accept Wright's hateful remarks.  He explained the context of Wright's comments, but clearly condemned the remarks.  He didn't lump all black people into the same bucket, but said Wright is symptomatic of an element (and a distasteful one at that) of black American culture, which is correct as far as I can tell. And in terms of the association with Wright and the church -- Michael -- I'm sorry, but your blanket condemnation suggests you've never spent a moment in an American church, much less a high-energy church, such as those common throughout the black and white Pentecostal communities. In the heat and passion of a sermon delivered in those settings, Wright is not the first nor will he be the last to let the emotion of the moment over-ride his better judgment.  I've watched those videos on YouTube, and having been in settings like that, what I saw was a man overcome by emotion, saying some remarkably hateful, stupid, careless things, which may or may not reflect his everday beliefs and behavior. What we don't have is 20 years of context.  Where are the hundreds of other sermons Wright delivered?  If his hateful, careless comments were three or four among hundreds, and those hundreds of others paint a different picture, then we are doing our collective selves a huge disservice by even having this debate. We will have to agree to disagree on this subject.
  10. Posted by Claudia
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32525 ›
    Claudia
    Here’s the thing that I think many liberals or center lefties don’t understand; reasonable, thoughtful conservatives generally aren’t buying Obama’s speech for two main reasons. The first is that the speech is yet another example of words which don’t match actions
    And this is where reasonable people who did like his speech happen to disagree. Words and actions, that's a very good place to start. First of all, though Wrights comments are utterly inexcusable, they have been turned into a red herring in one respect at least. The extrapolation has been made that if he said these things sometimes, he must be saying them ALL THE TIME, and that Obama went to church to hear that sort of ranting non-stop, all the time. Obama himself has said that though it's not the first time he's heard intolerant speech from the man (wow actual honesty instead of plausible deniability, how terrible!) that it's not by any means the whole picture. You can not believe him, and I do. Why? Because of actions, because of reality. Obama is as white as he is black. The insinuation that's being levelled that he secretly agrees with Wright and is an anti-white racist is absurd. He hates his white mother? His white grandparents too? Nothing in his record, his manner or his policies give the slightest indication that he's even mildly racist. I think it's fine that people look at Wright and use it as a warning sign. It's smoke, you have to look for the fire. But there doesn't appear to BE a fire. There is no indication that Obama shares Wrights positions on these issues, there is no THERE there.
  11. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32530 ›
    C Stanley
    First of all, though Wrights comments are utterly inexcusable, they have been turned into a red herring in one respect at least. The extrapolation has been made that if he said these things sometimes, he must be saying them ALL THE TIME, and that Obama went to church to hear that sort of ranting non-stop, all the time.
    This is getting so tiresome. Don't you folks agree that there are SOME comments that can't be made OK by context? And are you really trying to say that the ones we've seen by Rev. Wright aren't examples of those kinds of comments? Plus, my understanding is that some of the excerpts being shown are from the DVD's produced and sold by the TUMC! They're not being cherry picked by Obama attakers, they were picked by the church as examples of Wright's preaching! Plus, you can't have it both ways. I keep hearing arguments like yours, Claudia and Pete, about how these remarks are not necessarily indicative of the whole of Wright's teaching, yet simultaneously people (including Obama) are using the rationale that these types of statements are made every week across the country in black churches, and that theologians like Wright are honored and respected for preaching black liberation theology. Which is it? That these are just statements he made when he got a little worked up, or that they aren't a big deal because they're part of a broad teaching that is harmless because it's so common?
  12. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32532 ›
    C Stanley
    Words and actions, that’s a very good place to start.
    And if one believes that, Claudia, then condemning words and actions that are wrong is a very good next step- and it shouldn't be taken only after one is forced to take it. "Just words?" was a very good phrase. Unfortunately, Obama can't now pretend that Wright's words weren't very important, can he? If words really matter, then one must not only say the right words, but also be willing to speak out against those who say the wrong ones (and not wait 20 years, and allow one's kids to be taught by those wrong words.)
  13. Michael van der Galien Michael Gerson (Washington Post columnist):
    Barack Obama has run a campaign based on a simple premise: that words of unity and hope matter to America. Now he has been forced by his charismatic, angry pastor to argue that words of hatred and division don't really matter as much as we thought... In Philadelphia, Obama attempted to explain Wright's anger as typical of the civil rights generation, with its "memories of humiliation and doubt and fear." But Wright has the opposite problem: He ignored the message of Martin Luther King Jr. and introduced a new generation to the politics of hatred.

    King drew a different lesson from the oppression he experienced: "I've seen too much hate to want to hate myself; hate is too great a burden to bear. I've seen it on the faces of too many sheriffs of the South. . . . Hate distorts the personality. . . . The man who hates can't think straight; the man who hates can't reason right; the man who hates can't see right; the man who hates can't walk right."

    Barack Obama is not a man who hates -- but he chose to walk with a man who does.

    Read it. Shorter: Obama's speech doesn't make any sense, if you keep in mind that he went to the church, etc.
  14. Posted by Pete Abel
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32538 ›
    Pete Abel Obama has condemned Wright's hateful words repeatedly ... what's the issue here, Christine?
  15. Posted by Claudia
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32539 ›
    Claudia Christine, did you miss the part where I said that his words were inexcusable? I checked and it's there. The argument is not, I repeat, IS NOT that I think that those words are OK, or harmless, or right in any way. What I am trying to counter is the constant insinuation that Obama sat himself down every Sunday and heard those sorts of statements said on continuous loop for 20 years. That the whole sum of his religious experience is properly contained in those clips. It COULD be that way, but there is frankly no evidence of it. In fact, the same way that happens to millions everywhere, those sorts of statments were probably said now and again while the majority of church sermons were far far more pedestrian. Haven't you ever been frustrated by liberal portrayal of religious conservatives, where you could swear that all sermons were dedicated to talking about the abomination of homosexuality, the evils of feminism etc. every day all the time? In fact although many Americans probably hear bigoted views spoken in Church with relative frequency, that doesn't in fact mean that this is the central theme of their church. It also, and this is important, doesn't mean that someone, even if they are a member of that church, agrees with every word that's spoken in it. You also haven't addressed my statements on actions. Do tell, what part of Obama's personality, personal history, professional history etc. makes you think he agrees with Wright's statments?
  16. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32541 ›
    C Stanley The issue is that he condemned only what he had to condemn- he never made the choice to stand up and publicly criticize it on the whole, during all the time that he sat in those pews, Pete. And even now, he minimizes it as though it's no difference than the minor disagreements that many of us might have with our own pastors. That just doesn't cut it for me, at all, because even after he condemns certain remarks he doesn't really take responsibility for why he never walked out of the church, why he thought it was fine to raise his children in that church, etc. He's minimizing it, and excusing it (see the Juan Williams clip above- I completely agree with his take on it.)
  17. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32542 ›
    C Stanley Claudia: No, it's you that is missing the point. It doesn't matter whether or not Obama agrees with those offensive views. What matters is why associated himself with them. If words matter, then why did those words not matter that much to him? Why did he feel that the rest of the church's environment or teaching was enough to ameliorate the harm there? Does he really think (or do you, or other Obama supporters) that if a right wing pastor was preaching hate that it would be OK to stay if the church had a really good community and the pastor was otherwise a good guy who just had this weird blind spot? That doesn't make sense to me, and I honestly don't think it would to you either. At the very least, if there was a conservative politician who had that kind of association with a gay bashing pastor, I'd want him to admit that he was wrong to have waited so long in speaking out against it. And if that person tried to duck out of responsibility for doing so by acting as though he didn't know (that he had missed those parts of the sermons) I wouldn't believe him either.
  18. Posted by Pete Abel
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32543 ›
    Pete Abel "Now he has been forced by his charismatic, angry pastor to argue that words of hatred and division don’t really matter as much as we thought …" That's not at all what Obama is arguing.  He's arguing that the remarks by Wright were WRONG and that we need to discuss and examine why some people believe these things and how we can jointly move beyond those archaic and WRONG sentiments. Again, we apparently are going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.
  19. Michael van der Galien
    Obama has condemned Wright’s hateful words repeatedly … what’s the issue here, Christine?
    He has only condemned it after people confronted it with him, and it became an issue. But before that he listened to this crap for over 20 years. Yet, you - a person who constantly rails against the radicalizations of the far-right in the US - defend this, arguing that if he condemned certain remarks 20 years later, ah well, all is good. It doesn't work like that in the real world, nor should it work like that. He was willing to accept this crap for 20 years, but now he's distancing himself partially from it. That's too little, and especially too late. And it's fake, dishonest and political opportunistic. He had the opportunity to speak out against black racism, anti-semitism and anti-americanism years ago - like MLK did, which is why people like Wright and Farrakhan hated him - but he didn't do so. No, he only did so - partially - when he had to do so for political reasons. And you don't see anything wrong with that?
  20. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32545 ›
    C Stanley
    In fact although many Americans probably hear bigoted views spoken in Church with relative frequency, that doesn’t in fact mean that this is the central theme of their church.
    Read my post above; this WAS a central theme of this church.
    It also, and this is important, doesn’t mean that someone, even if they are a member of that church, agrees with every word that’s spoken in it.
    Yet I simply don't believe that you'd apply this standard equally to the opposite side of the coin (a gay bashing pastor who had been described as the long time spiritual mentor of a conservative candidate.)
  21. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32547 ›
    C Stanley Bottom line is that Obama obviously can't turn back the clock. So, is there anything he could do now that would come across as more sincere to people like me? Yes, as Juan Williams says, he could at least have the guts to apologize for having waited this long to speak out; he could describe it more like a personal epiphany, that he now realizes he was wrong to think that the good outweighed the bad in staying in that kind of church environment (and endorsing it with his presence, and presumably supporting it financially as well.) Again the cynic in me comes out though; even if Obama knows this, he probably also knows that it's to his political advantage not to do it. Why? Because frankly, people who feel like I do are the ones who STILL won't vote for him because we disagree with his policies. I'd like the man and respect him more, but I still wouldn't vote for him. I'd say that calculation came into play when he wrote the speech.
  22. Posted by Claudia
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32548 ›
    Claudia
    Yet I simply don’t believe that you’d apply this standard equally to the opposite side of the coin (a gay bashing pastor who had been described as the long time spiritual mentor of a conservative candidate.)
    I would if that person had a gay brother with a long term partner and I knew he treated them with respect. I would if the overwhelming data I knew about that person indicated  that they were not gay-unfriendly. Dick Cheney partially leads a party that has made political footballs out of gays and lesbians, and he's not a man I'm fond of. But I don't believe he's homophobic in the least. He clearly treats his lesbian daughter with love, and in many small ways has made clear that he's not anti-gay. That really is enough for me. Sure if I saw that they had a virulently anti-gay pastor I'd worry that the politician shared those views, it's only natural. But if one side of the scale of evidence far outweighed the other, I'd stick to what the apparent facts told me.
  23. Posted by Pete Abel
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32549 ›
    Pete Abel Michael -- first of all, don't pretend that you know any better than anyone else what it's like in the "real world."  Second, Obama has consistently spoken out against divisive speech in all its forms every time that I've heard him talk or write. What it comes down to is this:  I don't believe Wright's predominant message was one of hate in the years Obama sat in those pews -- if I did think that was Wright's predominant message, I would agree with your take on the matter. Instead, what I believe happened is what I've seen happen in the real world time and time again. Someone preaches a predominant message of love and justice -- and lives and acts that way in "the real world."  That's the impression he makes on those around him.  Then, in a few heated moments, he says some very hateful, inexusable things.  Either those things were not directly heard by Obama or he wasn't paying attention when they were said -- whatever the case is, his assessment of Wright was on 20 years of love and justice and social action, and somewhere along the way those handful of moments of hate were lost in the shuffle.  Now they're not.  And now Obama has responded forcefully to them. That's human. That's the real world.
  24. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32550 ›
    C Stanley
    I would if that person had a gay brother with a long term partner and I knew he treated them with respect. I would if the overwhelming data I knew about that person indicated  that they were not gay-unfriendly. Dick Cheney partially leads a party that has made political footballs out of gays and lesbians, and he’s not a man I’m fond of. But I don’t believe he’s homophobic in the least. He clearly treats his lesbian daughter with love, and in many small ways has made clear that he’s not anti-gay. That really is enough for me.
    That's actually not a bad analogy, so let's look at it a bit further. Instead of a person staying in a church with offensive views, in this case you're using the example of a man who stays in a political party that endorses some views that you feel are offensive. OK, first to dispense of this: I certainly don't see equivalence between ANYTHING officially sanctioned by the GOP and the kind of hate speech that Wright has engaged in....but still, we'll go with this. So then you say that you give Cheney the benefit of the doubt because there's reason to believe that he doesn't personally hold those offensive views. Great! I also give Obama the benefit of the doubt, because I don't at all believe that he's an anti-white racist nor an antisemite, nor an America basher. Yet what I don't give him the benefit of the doubt on is staying in close association with those who do that. And here's the difference with Cheney: as a conservative, there is no other party to be part of than the GOP in America. Are there similarly no other churches that Obama could have chosen? Uh, oops, it seems there are plenty of others. So, no need to give up on all of the other beliefs and practices that he found attractive in this church.
  25. Michael van der Galien
    Michael — first of all, don’t pretend that you know any better than anyone else what it’s like in the "real world."  Second, Obama has consistently spoken out against divisive speech in all its forms every time that I’ve heard him talk or write.
    Yeah, except for the 20-odd years he was in this Church, listening to what a hateful pastor had to say about this or that. As for the real world: I'm right about this. It only works like that in politics, not in the real world. People look at this and ask exactly what I'm asking: how come you accepted this nonsense for 20 years?
    What it comes down to is this:  I don’t believe Wright’s predominant message was one of hate in the years Obama sat in those pews — if I did think that was Wright’s predominant message, I would agree with your take on the matter.
    Black Liberation Theology. Anyway; was he always hateful? Of course not! White racists are also very loving towards whites. But the hatred is an inherent part of Wright's beliefs and teachings, this much is clear by now (as Christine also points out, the videos come from DVDs sold by the Church itself). Obama himself admits that he heard Wright make remarks like that. Yet he never questioned it, he never opposed it. And that for a guy who says he's about unity and change and judgment and courage.

    Instead, what I believe happened is what I’ve seen happen in the real world time and time again. Someone preaches a predominant message of love and justice — and lives and acts that way in "the real world."  That’s the impression he makes on those around him.  Then, in a few heated moments, he says some very hateful, inexusable things.  Either those things were not directly heard by Obama or he wasn’t paying attention when they were said — whatever the case is, his assessment of Wright was on 20 years of love and justice and social action, and somewhere along the way those handful of moments of hate were lost in the shuffle.  Now they’re not.  And now Obama has responded forcefully to them.

    That’s human.

    That’s the real world.

    And that's the biggest nonsense I've heard on this subject. You act as if this happened every now and then, but conveniently ignore that this is exactly what Wright believes AND that obama knew it, since he already talked to wright a year ago, saying that he would probably be forced to distance himself from him.

    And he didn't respond "forcefully": he responded in a way that's typical for Obama, namely by acting one day, but living in an entirely different way. If my pastor would EVER say anything about blacks like how Wright talked about whites, I would walk out of the Church, talk to the pastor, tell him to change his tone, or I'm not coming back. And that's only once. But with Wright it's not once; it's time and again. And in the real world, words and actions matter. Obama falls short on both.
  26. Posted by Pete Abel
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32552 ›
    Pete Abel Michael -- I apologize for the heated tone of my prior comment.  I was strident toward you about your characterization of the "real world," then proceeded to be equally strident about my view of the "real world."  That was uncalled for.  What I do think we have here is a passionate difference of opinion.  I'm only sorry if I let that passion get the better of me in trying to have a civilized exchange.
  27. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32553 ›
    C Stanley Claudia: I'd also point out, that I'll bet most of the time what you are concerned about with GOP politicians who have associations or endorsements from gay bashing preachers isn't that the person himself is homophobic. Instead, the concern is that the person isn't having the guts to stand up and do what is right in condemning those beliefs- and by not doing that, he gives them more legitimacy and political clout than they should have. Am I right? And if so, can you see how I feel the same way about a Democrat who, through his actions and close associations, has similarly given too much legitimacy to black nationalism? And that even in his condemnation he also excuses it?
  28. Michael van der Galien

    Yet what I don’t give him the benefit of the doubt on is staying in close association with those who do that.

    And here’s the difference with Cheney: as a conservative, there is no other party to be part of than the GOP in America. Are there similarly no other churches that Obama could have chosen? Uh, oops, it seems there are plenty of others. So, no need to give up on all of the other beliefs and practices that he found attractive in this church.

    Not only that: this is the man who made Obama a Christian. Keep it all in mind.

  29. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32556 ›
    C Stanley Pete: I just think you are giving way too much benefit of the doubt here. Have you explored to find out more about this church and its teachings? Were you aware, as I pointed out, that some of the clips being circulated are from DVDs sold by the church? If they were just things that occasionally popped out of Wright's mouth in the heat of the moment, why would they make the cut into those DVDs? You seem to buy into this idea because it fits with your life experiences of people who are basically good but have some moral blind spots that you're willing to excuse. OK, but would you really choose such a person to be a spiritual mentor? And if you were a politician who intended to lead people beyond racial divisiveness, would you not see how this would look to outsiders, even if you did have this agreement to disagree with your mentor on certain points? And if racial divisiveness was something you felt was a great problem, wouldn't you see that these teachings being preached to thousands of African Americans as part of the gospel would be harmful? If Obama believes as he now says, that it's important to move beyond that, then how could he sit by while the opposite was being preached for the past two decades? Wouldn't it actually have been quite important for Obama to be a leader in that respect, to choose a church which was uniting rather than divisive for the races?
  30. Posted by Pete Abel
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32557 ›
    Pete Abel Christine -- conservatives have multiple options other than association with the GOP, from independent voting, to third-party support, to working with the conservative wing of the Democratic party.  Certain conservatives stay with the GOP because on balance they think it is the most effective at carrying out the conservative agenda.  Perhaps that's similar to how Obama viewed his church of choice, as the most effective at carrying out real social justice programs in that part of Chicago. I don't know.  I think there are legitimate concerns in all these threads.  While Claudia and are perhaps too quick to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, I do think you and Michael are too quick to chastise him for not speaking out sooner.
  31. Posted by Pete Abel
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32558 ›
    Pete Abel Christine -- Our comments are crossing paths.  My #30 corresponded with your #24.  That said, the end of my #30 partially responds (presciently, perhaps?) to your #29 comment -- namely, the two sides of this thread might both be relying on extremes, either too lax or too harsh in our respective judgments.   Again, I don't know.  I don't have all the answers.  I like to think I do, sometimes, but perhaps there are traces of merit in all of our respective back-and-forth here, and in the end we each have to parse through those traces of merit to reach our own conclusion.  At the very least, I promise to give this some additional thought, as I hope you (and Michael) will.
  32. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32559 ›
    C Stanley Pete: what I meant was that Cheney, as someone who chose a career in politics, really had no other choice (sorry, but the conservative wing of the Democratic party wouldn't even come close to matching up with the views of a conservative like Cheney.) Basically what I'm saying is that in a two party system, I think there's room to easily give the benefit of the doubt when assessing whether or not people involved in the party endorse all of the beliefs or practices of the party as a whole. I think that your point about Obama perhaps choosing to remain in that church because it was fulfilling social justice programs in Chicago is very likely true. But he could also have worked as a politician who praised that work, or found ways to partner with them, without himself being so closely aligned personally with the pastor. Am I being too hard on him? Yes, I consider it possible that I am- but I think it's more dangerous to excuse him than it is to hold him to a high standard on this.
  33. Posted by Pete Abel
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32563 ›
    Pete Abel Consider Mike Huckabee's take on this subject -- this probably best describes where I am, and why I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt: http://donklephant.com/2008/03/19/huckabees-wise-statement-on-race-and-blame/
  34. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32564 ›
    C Stanley Yes, I can agree with you and with Mike Huckabee on that part of it too. But the difference is in having that understanding (which allows forgiveness of Wright for making hate filled statements) and in choosing a person with an enormous chip on his shoulder as a spiritual guide and mentor.
  35. Michael van der Galien
    Consider Mike Huckabee's take on this subject -- this probably best describes where I am, and why I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt
    Um. Wasn't Mike Huckabee considered - by liberals, moderates and many members of the conservative base - to be extreme and wasn't he called out on some of his extreme statements which were compared to Wright's extremely moderate? Perhaps we should google some of the people on what they had to say about Huckabee, and what they now say - very tolerantly so suddenly - about Obama.
    I think that your point about Obama perhaps choosing to remain in that church because it was fulfilling social justice programs in Chicago is very likely true. But he could also have worked as a politician who praised that work, or found ways to partner with them, without himself being so closely aligned personally with the pastor.
    Christine; you know what. That doesn't excuse him one bit. He could've spoken out nonetheless. He chose not to do so. That's a sign of this man's character. And you're not too harsh. Just, again, imagine what would've happened if Obama and Wright were white. Just imagine.
    Christine — conservatives have multiple options other than association with the GOP, from independent voting, to third-party support, to working with the conservative wing of the Democratic party.
    Unless I'm mistaken, but to compare political parties to Churches is a bit awkward. They're not even closely comparable. Things you accept in political parties, you don't accept in a church, and especially not from a man you consider your "spiritual mentor." Last time I checked, most people who are serious about their faith consider their faith to be intrinsically more important than politics.
  36. Michael van der Galien
    Yes, I can agree with you and with Mike Huckabee on that part of it too. But the difference is in having that understanding (which allows forgiveness of Wright for making hate filled statements) and in choosing a person with an enormous chip on his shoulder as a spiritual guide and mentor.
    Exactly. O, and: if it's something you feel strongly about, you simply don't go to that Church anymore, especially not when the pastor's entire ideology and theology are based on all those racist premises. The inexcusable is exactly that: inexcusable.
  37. Michael van der Galien
    Michael — I apologize for the heated tone of my prior comment.  I was strident toward you about your characterization of the "real world," then proceeded to be equally strident about my view of the "real world."  That was uncalled for.  What I do think we have here is a passionate difference of opinion.  I’m only sorry if I let that passion get the better of me in trying to have a civilized exchange.
    I didn't see that comment: no hard feelings here. I understand. If friends can't have heated exchanges they're not such good friends after all. It's a political, not a personal disagreement. We all agree that blacks and whites are equal, that racism is wrong - no matter what kind of racism - so this isn't something worth losing friends over. It's just a political disagreement; so no offense taken, hope the same goes for you. We're passionate about politics, and about this subject, but that's not wrong, as long as we lal understand that those who think differently aren't stupid, ignorant, naive, racist, or what not. Talked to Claudia about this earlier today, and it never ceases to amaze me that reasonable, intelligent people can listen to the same speech and draw completely different conclusions. It's a sign, I guess, that we all focus on different things, find different things important, andsoforth.
  38. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32570 ›
    C Stanley
    And you’re not too harsh. Just, again, imagine what would’ve happened if Obama and Wright were white. Just imagine.
    Ah, but therein lies the difference between having intellectual integrity and having double standards. Of course I agree with you that there would be an incredible outcry about this from the left if the situation were reversed- but I strive to be better than that. ;-) Funny that you brought that up about Huckabee though; I was just over at Stubborn Facts and in the comment section, Michael Reynolds twice in one post praised certain conservatives for having the 'correct' view of Obama's speech (first, he said that even Pat Buchanan and Bay Buchanan noted the quality of the speech, and then he brought up Mike Huckabee's comments. Yeah, I'm sure Michael Reynolds considers Mike Huckabee to be a respected authority lol.) This seems like a variation on that famous Mark Twain quote about how your parents suddenly become a lot smarter after you reach adulthood; in this case, political opponents suddenly seem quite smart if they agree with you on one particular issue.
  39. Posted by Claudia
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32582 ›
    Claudia Re: Huckabee. I don't see the issue with agreeing with him in this instance. If you think a guy is right about a subject, saying that doesn't invalidate all your other disagreements. I probably disagree with Huckabee on a wide range of subjects, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend like he's wrong on the subjects I DO agree with im on. It's called finding common ground. I'm told it's a good thing.
  40. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32593 ›
    C Stanley What I find amusing about it, Claudia, isn't that people are 'admitting' that they agree with Huckabee on this or that they're finding common ground with him (those of course are fine.) It's that suddenly they're using Huckabee's opinion as though it adds weight to their own argument that I find silly. Obviously they only agree with him because they happen to agree with him- not because they consider his opinion to have any merit as an authority on the matter.
  41. Posted by Kevin H
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32631 ›
    Kevin H I'm just catching up, but I have some early thoughts about the posts Pete highlighted in reply #4. They aren't racist, but they are incompotent. I get the impression that Victor Davis Hanson didn't listen to the entier speech, or was unable to understand it. Lines like: "Indeed, the last thing Obama wants, in fact, is an honest, painful discussion about race in America, especially how centuries of racism, but also as well as present demagogic leadership, white guilt, and ineffective and counterproductive government programs, have all factored into present endemic problems of illegitimacy, extraordinary high crime rates, and often racist narratives from the likes of Wright and Farrakhan to rap music — and yet have not precluded the amazing success and parity with the rest of America on the part of well over half of the African-American community." Are DIRECTLY refuted by Obama's speech, where he acknowledges, both the fact that government programs such as welfare had made things worse, and that there has been a significant amount of change for the better in the last 50 years which he himself is a symbol of. The article is pure drivel that has no useful content, but I wouldn't call it racist. The politico piece certainly isn't also directly racist, but does point out nicely that there is a current of racism in parts of society. People like Obama's grandmother still exist, and still have fears of the angry black man which can be exploited by those who wish to use it. Oh, and my father, a lifelong republican who will still probably vote for McCain, called the speech "brilliant", so I think the appeal goes well beyond Obama's base.
  42. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32641 ›
    C Stanley Kevin: I'd say though that there was in the speech, and has been in general in Obama's actions and rhetoric, a great deal of disparity in addressing the concerns of white (poor and middle class) Americans as compared to the amount of time he spends addressing concerns of blacks like Wright. Even the fact that he joined this church purportedly to better understand that angry black viewpoint, shows that this was a primary concern of his. Meanwhile, he seems to think it sufficient to include one brief clause in a sentence about how welfare policies may have hurt blacks, and he equates his grandmother being afraid of being harrassed by a black man (which she apparently was, and then was harrassed by her husband for reacting fearfully as though that in itself was a racist reaction??) with the whole racist philosophy espoused publicly by Wright. He downplays the black racists and works to understand them and help whites understand them, but he barely concedes that whites have any real gripes about racial divisions. He plays up the way that racial fears can be exploited by white racists, and downplays who they can be exploited by black racists. So yes, Hanson exaggerates when he says that Obama doesn't want that discussion at all- but still, I give him a partial pass because it was easy to miss the brief comments that acknowledged the views that Hanson espouses. I'd say Hanson was sloppy in going too far with his criticism, but he wasn't entirely wrong or incompetent, either. I'd say it's not that Obama doesn't want the full discussion on the table, but rather that he doesn't quite have the courage to challenge the liberal orthodoxy as Hanson would like to see him do.
  43. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32644 ›
    C Stanley Oh, let me clarify something in my first paragraph above. I don't mean that Obama generally has been all about race or that his rhetoric overall has focused on blacks. I only meant this in regard to the times that he does discuss race, and his actions in the past like joining this church to gain understanding of a particular worldview. What I'm saying is that I don't see a similar attempt to better understand the views of 'white America'; it's as though he thinks his biracial identity and his upbringing were sufficient for that but I disagree.
  44. Posted by Kevin H
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32722 ›
    Kevin H I have to say, CS and MvdG, I don't agree with you on almost anything but the non-racist nature of Pete's example Corner post. First off, MvdG #5: is this line sarcastic? "However; no conservative leading politician calls those people his or her "spiritual mentor."" Because I'm sure you've seen the McCain/Parsley story and McCain calling him a "spiritual guide". Parsley is much more dangerous than Wright. I have yet to see anything where Wright advocates the violent resistance to whites, nor can I find any common cause with people like Hagee who are looking forward to Armageddon. For more general on #5 and #6, it seems to me you guys want things to be, pardon the pun but, black and white. You either want Obama to completely disregard Wright and you want Obama to say Wright either completely stand for the Black community or his words are completely opposed to it. This to me is the wrong way to look at it. We (and I think I can include both of you in this) constantly want politicians to discuss things with more depth, and to reject hollow one-liners, but it seems to be that Obama is getting punnished for doing exactly that. This is a incredible intricate subject matter which I think Obama is refeshingly open and honest about, and that should be applauded. Obama wasn't drawn to the church because of it's anti-American statements as your comments suggest. He makes very clear what drew him to the church and what allowed him to suffer some of Wrights comments which he said "weren't simply controversial" but "distorted", "not only wrong but divisive" Obama also doesn't "pretends that Wright says what the entire black community thinks and believes" He speaks of it as a hold-over from a past decade, not that long ago, filled with direct racial strife, far from the defining war cry of an entire people. I myself start to feel angry when I see the the hate expressed by whites in the desegregation era, and I can only image that that hate would always be part of me were I forced to live as the target of that hatred. He does not ever insinuate that AA's hate defines them, and instead portrays it as an obstacle to be overcome, and a source of weakness which can be manipulated. CS, I think you have a good point about the Liberal agenda (#6). It is perfectly reasonable thing to see the same thing as expressed in Obama's speech without having to come to the conclusion on specific policies. However, that portion is a very small segment of the speech, and does not change the fact that overall the speech is incredibly thoughtful and honest. #8 by CS, Obama explicitly says he doesn't have all the answers: "I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy – particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own." #11 I would say that Wrights comments are 100% not OK, even given the context. What I would say however, is that Obama's choice to stay in the Church, or to not speak out forcibly against them when they happened (which apparently was rare) is ok given the context. #13 This is practically exactly what is said by Obama in the speech. He fully acknowledges that Wright's words are actively hurting progress. "That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races." Comments like that really make me think you took little time to read and understand the speech before jumping to conclusions. I mean common, how can you support the quote you give in #13 and not support the words spoken by Obama? #17 I assume CS then you will be unable to bring yourself to vote for McCain either, as he is actively associated with anti-Catholic figures? Perhaps the fact that it is more of a poltical favor (which might need to be repaid) changes something? I don't see how. #19 You act like this is a dramatic change in stance for Obama. It seems to me completely consistent with his previous stances. His message has always been about unity, never about division. There is more than one way to oppose a movement. He could have stood up and said, "I won't be a part of this", but instead he choose a path of active involvement and tried to shape his own direction. The second seems to me the stance of a true leader. #27 I'm starting to see the heart of your issue. And I think the speech in its entirety is the answer to your question, and Obama's answer is history. That he sees the hatred expoused by Wright as a direct reflection of the hatred poured in to him by whites in the past. While this doesn't excuse those words, it does lessen their power. "But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union." I don't just think he is talking about a 'white debt' or such concept here. I think he is also speaking about Wrights sermons as well. I think there is a key message of this speech, that the words of people like Wright do not have the power to denigrate us to a simple racial election as long as we stay focused on the goal of unity.
  45. Posted by Kevin H
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32725 ›
    Kevin H the link on Corner was in reference to his speech, not trying to show his previous actions in contrast with his speech. It was crap, pure and simple, and you give it waaay to much credit. He in no way downplays the concerns of whites "In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time." Those are real concerns he is addressing, and not dismissing.
  46. Posted by Kevin H
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32727 ›
    Kevin H I wouldn't he "downplays" black racism or hatred, but I would say he humanizes it, which isn't such a bad thing at all, for any type of hatred. It helps prevent a cycle of hatred where you hate someone just because they hate you. I think my response to #13 had a good quote showing his stance on the effect (rather than the cause) of black hatred
  47. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32733 ›
    C Stanley I thought it was wrong for McCain to pander to Hagee and others, wrong to call Parsely a spiritual guide...but you seriously aren't saying that this makes the relationship the same? If you believe that, then you have no clue what a Christian means when he/she says that another person is HIS/HER spiritual mentor. McCain neither said nor implied any personal connection like that. And as to wanting him to disavow the antiCatholicism- I've written my opinion on that, and I don't see an equivalence between Catholic/nonCatholic rift in America and racial rift, do you? I'm getting really tired of being told that I'm missing the point, by people that I clearly think are missing the point themselves. Kevin, when you say: <blockquote>This is practically exactly what is said by Obama in the speech. He fully acknowledges that Wright’s words are actively hurting progress. "That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races." Comments like that really make me think you took little time to read and understand the speech before jumping to conclusions. I mean common, how can you support the quote you give in #13 and not support the words spoken by Obama?</blockquote>How can you not see that the speech comes 20 years too late? That my complaint is that he's only NOW saying what needed to be said to (and about) people like Wright. As Ed Morissey said, why didn't unity begin at home, and if he felt unwilling or unable to try to shape the views of the congregants of TUCC then why would we believe that he's going to be willing and able to do that difficult task in the whole country? You're willing to say that it's OK for him to have personally taken a different path- fine, I would be too, if he was an average citizen instead of someone running on a change and healing platform for POTUS. Unfortunately don't have time to go point by point with the rest, but that's my quick response, Kevin.
  48. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32736 ›
    C Stanley <blockquote>You either want Obama to completely disregard Wright and you want Obama to say Wright either completely stand for the Black community or his words are completely opposed to it. This to me is the wrong way to look at it. We (and I think I can include both of you in this) constantly want politicians to discuss things with more depth, and to reject hollow one-liners, but it seems to be that Obama is getting punnished for doing exactly that. This is a incredible intricate subject matter which I think Obama is refeshingly open and honest about, and that should be applauded.</blockquote> One more quick point here, I do agree that what Obama is trying to do is extraordinarily difficult. But if I'm to believe that there's any chance of him doing this difficult thing, I have to see actions that would make me take him seriously. A half hearted condemnation that comes way too late doesn't cut it. And yes, on that part about white resentment he hit a good note- but it was one note which was then drowned out by the rest of the chorus. Even if you take his anecdote about his grandmother, at one part of the speech he's saying that whites have reason to have these fears and resentments and then at another part he's comparing his grandmother's justifiable fear (or perhaps even some unjustifiable but private utterings) to Wright's hate filled screeds. And again, part of my argument about his disconnect with the white community is that nothing in his adult life experience showed that he felt it just as important to understand the white side of the equation as compared to the enormous effort he seems to have made to understand the black side. I'd even accept some degree of skewing, because naturally he's seen as a black man by our society and because of the obvious history which gives more substance to black complaints. But as someone who is attempting to be a postracial black man, he has an obligation to show more neutrality and to give considerable weight to both sides of the racial issues. He has 20 years of a close relationship with a black separatist on one side- and that's supposed to be balanced out by a few statements of why white working class Americans have some reason to resent being blamed for every ill that befalls black people?
  49. Posted by Kevin H
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32758 ›
    Kevin H Ok, I'll admit, I don't see the difference between the word "guide" and "mentor", seems like a pretty esoteric semantic battle, but I'm fairly ignorant of those things so please tell me the difference. 20 years ago Barak might have said the same thing if you had asked him, or maybe he only would have said essentially the same thing 10 years ago, but I think it's clear that from the onset of this campaign, he was expressing views extremely compatible with this type of speech. This is much more than a "half-hearted" condemnation. This is basically calling his family member a bigot. That is the significance of the portion about his grandmother. He is talking about how personally hard it is for him. I have to say, I haven't seen anything ever about Obama to suggest he has made "enormous efforts" to understand black issues. The issues he pushes on (while you may agree or disagree) seem to be pretty racially neutral, more concerned with socio-economics than race. That is what I mean by consistently talking about unity, this doesn't seem to be a philosophy that he only found on Tuesday morning, but a lifelong direction. So, if you believe he has this black issue bias, please show me where he has gone to 'enormous' lengths to promote programs or policies aimed solely at black people. While he's pro-affirmative action, so is Hillary Clinton and many other white democrats, would you call her neglecting white interests? I think that has more to do with what I said in the comments of the Rush Quote put up by MvdG. Liberals see freedom as a result of, not a cause of, equality.
  50. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #32760 ›
    C Stanley
    Ok, I’ll admit, I don’t see the difference between the word "guide" and "mentor", seems like a pretty esoteric semantic battle, but I’m fairly ignorant of those things so please tell me the difference.
    Actually the distinction I was making was between "a" spiritual guide (to others) vs. "MY" spiritual guide/mentor. The latter is how Obama has called Wright, and his close association through the years is much different than just acknowledging that others have been spiritually led by a particular person. The enormous effort part was about his personal life. I admit I'm getting this second hand, but I'm told by those who've read his books that he said that he consciously chose to associate with people like Wright, and to attend that church, in order to better get to understand the concerns of the black Americans that worshipped there. He apparently felt that he'd be expected to understand that, and his own upbringing was different than the average African American so he felt his experience was lacking in that regard. As an adult, he chose to remedy that, but my point is that there's nothing in his biography to show that he similarly needed to better understand white America. He felt his experience was sufficient for that, but not sufficient to understand blacks. I think the current tone deafness of having gotten himself in this situation by associating with the likes of Rev. Wright shows that he miscalculated there. Throwing in a few statements doesn't show the same kind of understanding of whites who feel they're harmed by reverse racism.
1