trouncing a room of liberals

"We do not want more stasis in our education system"

In this video Paul Ryan trounces a round table of liberal pundits and governors with his sheer policy knowledge and optimistic, quintessentially American vision. I'm glad that as the general election campaign chairman he is not allowed to endorse anyone in the GOP presidential nomination process. He won't have to have his conservatism questioned for endorsing who I suspect he would endorse.

Things fall apart

Joe Lieberman thinks that now, during a recession, is not the time for a massive overhaul of 1/6th of the economy. He has opened the door for a Democratic retreat on the issue of health care reform.

I think we all realize now that attempting vilify or otherwise dismiss the town hall protesters was a colossal miscalculation. Team Obama found, unlike when they successfully made the Clintons the enemy during the campaign, that making regular American people out to be the enemy and somehow a product of some nefarious zombie influence doesn't work well at all.

At this point many fellow liberals are losing faith in Obama. At the liberal bastion Salon.com, left-leaning pundits are hand wringing and wondering what went wrong and at The New Republic: what could have been done differently.

The Democratic leadership cannot even get their story straight when it comes to whether or not a "public option" is or is not to be included in ObamaCare.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.

-William Butler Yeats

Face it, it's time to pull the plug on ObamaCare.

Comment Buster

This RFL post is going for the comment record.

Comment 90:

The Rube Goldberg approach of creating layers and layers of arbitrary regulatory nonsense and then claiming it will cut costs while at the same time covering millions of more Americans for free is not something people are buying into and therefore it will never work.

Have you dudes on the Left even figured out yet whether or not a "public option" is an essential part of reform?

Let us know when you figure that one out and then ram the legislation through already with no Republican support if its such a swell idea.

I'm happy to hang all these bad policies around Obama's neck. Let's get this era over with, The Opacity of Hope or whatever.

Common Sense

In the dark of night

In the stimulus bill debacle, we've come a long way away from any notion of "transparency", that buzz word team Obama has thrown around ad nauseam.

We are at the point where we're borrowing a trillion dollars from China and spending it on things that our government doesn't imagine the American people deserve to know.

What sort of banana republic crap is this?

Let the tax payer know what we're being asked to pay for, for god's sake!

A Bitter Pill

Because of the tireless and unending Bush Bashing of the last eight years I was hoping that we could have at least a month or two where the president wasn't a primary source of the nation's ire. A honeymoon would have been nice, a respite from the ever present trashing of the commander in chief.

But the way Barack Obama has been acting the last couple of days is making that impossible.

And I was someone willing to give Obama a chance. Like an arranged marriage, I was willing to try to make the best of it. I had hoped that Obama's pragmatism and penchant for political expediency would win out over his left leaning ideology.

If Obama turned out to be a Ronald Reagan, great. Unfortunately, at this point he's looking more like a cross between LBJ and Jimmy Carter.

Hope and change?

More like fear and same. Within a week or so of the inaugural address the hopeful tone has all but evaporated into the frosty Washington DC air. In its place arguably the same kind of fear mongering that the Left endlessly accused the Bush administration of perpetrating to get things done. The difference of course being that the threat of terrorism is very real and the need for a pork laden spending bill to beat back "The worst financial crisis since the great depression", much less evident. (The stagflation of Jimmy Carter's early eighties was worse).

If Bush had done what Obama is trying to do he would have shoe-horned every Republican pet project into the Patriot Act. That is the equivalent. It's using an emergency to reward the special interests of your political party! With this so-called stimulus bill, the Democrats are doing an end run around the normal budget appropriation process in order to foist upon us their usual political agenda. They are using a financial crisis to lavish their supporters with billions of dollars of federal cash. They can't stuff the bales of cash out the door fast enough, it seems. We're told that it's such an emergency that we don't even have time to think it through really, just sign it. Hurry, hurry, hurry, it doesn't matter what we do, we have to do something, anything! This stimulus bill debacle is madness.

And it could be Obama's political death. He's been trying to scare us that "we will never recover" if we don't pass this bill. I'm afraid that Obama's political career will never recover if this thing passes and then fails to deliver as it will inevitably do according to any economist who understands the basic principle that we will have to raise taxes down the road to pay this thing off. And we'll have to pay this off right around the time that the inflation caused by this will be kicking in according to every economist who's name isn't Paul Krugman.

In one of Obama's recent partisan fear mongering speeches he proclaimed that, "somewhere a business is closing its doors". He has yet to explain how rewarding Democratic special interest groups and simply stuffing cash out of the doors will have a tangible effect on the businesses in danger of closing. A temporary payroll tax suspension will have a tangible effect on businesses and employees, irreversibly increasing the size of government and causing inflation down the road can only harm, not help the private sector economy Obama claims to be interested in helping.

A now we're told by Obama that tax cuts are "the failed policies of the past".

Really? That's interesting considering that Obama actually campaigned on tax cuts. How many times were we told that there would be tax cuts for 95% of Americans? Yet in place of tax cuts were getting the largest increase in the size of government since the New Deal.

Obama promised over and over in the campaign to go through the federal budget "line by line" and eliminate wasteful programs. Well, here's his chance to live up to one of his hollow promises. Don't hold your breath. Like the promise that he wouldn't appoint lobbyists and the promise that he would bring a new tone to Washington. So much for the new tone, in Washington DC it's business as usual as Obama is now digging in his heels in a one-sided partisan defense of Nancy Pelosi's Democratic spending extravaganza.

For Barack Obama the more things change, the more things stay the same.

I really am fairly surprised that Obama is behaving with such a tin ear. The people are starting to turn against this bill, so to entrench yourself in defense of it in its current form strikes me as politically tone deaf. And I've always known Obama to do what is politically expedient, just ask Reverend Wright.

I have been avoiding directly criticizing the President for about as long as I can on this blog. The issues are too important and Obama is acting far too partisan for me to keep that up anymore. For Barack Obama the honeymoon is over and the bloom is off the rose. Any notion of Obama as a transformational or transformative leader has been swept aside.

And unless a serious overhaul takes place, this bill that is being stuffed down our throat will be a bitter pill indeed.

Incongruity

The liberal mind is an interesting thing to study. It defies logic on such a regular basis that it belies classification. It is slave to neither logic or emotion exclusivley. Rather, it toggles between the two at will, depending on the demands of the particular argument at hand. Truly a unique and mind-bending specimen, the Liberal mind.

Apparently there is a video tape that depicts Barack Obama in attendance at a 2003 send off banquet honoring Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian scholar and activist. This video tape was given to the LA Times who have suddenly decided not to release the tape to the general public claiming that they are under an obligation not to air the tape.

The McCain campaign is demanding that the Obama supporting LA Times release the video tape.

My question is: Who gives a video tape to a major media outlet, and then demand that they not release it?

The LA Times excuse for not releasing the tape is very implausible, and stinks to high heaven of media bias.

In the tank for Obama anyone?

If that blatant example of media bias weren't enough, Obama supporting liberals are now simultaneously arguing that Obama's relationship to Khalidi is no big deal and then in the next breath, argue that the tape should not be released.

Well which is it? Is Obama's relationship with Khalidi no big deal?

Then what, one wonders, is the harm in releasing the tape?

At some point here, the last thread of logic is lost.

Just release the tape, LA Times, and this thing goes away.

So long as there's a tape that exists still unreleased, there will always be this additional unresolved partial-revelation about a man who, as we learn more, has a veritable tapestry of shady and/or questionable associations that all share more or less the same sort of anti-American and/or anti-Zionist bent.

But in the new Stalinst 'Obamerica', we're not allowed to ask such questions or have such concerns, I guess.

No doubt the comrades in the MSM will succeed in suppressing any further evidence, including this video tape, that may depict Obama in even the slightest of unfavorable lights.

Here's to hoping that there's something left of America in 2012.

dissembling acrobatics

Greg Sargent, a prominent Obama supporting blogger, wrote the following in response to McCain's correct assertion during the debate that Obama voted against a bill that would have explicitly required a doctor to do whatever he/she could in order to attempt to save a baby's life after surviving a botched abortion attempt:

Desperation: McCain Claims That Obama Voted To Let Babies Die

Sheer desperation: John McCain hits Barack Obama for allegedly voting to let babies die.

The reference, of course, is to Obama's opposition to a measure in Illinois that would purportedly have provided care for babies born amid abortions -- something that was already legally required, anyway. The bill was widely viewed by critics as a sneak attack on Roe v. Wade.

To our ears, this is a more despicable smear than just about anything we've seen, worse than Ayers or anything else. It wreaks so overwhelmingly of desperation and dishonesty that it's incredible that McCain actually agreed to it when Steve Schmidt or whoever told him it would work and he really, really would score big points if he lobbed this attack tonight.

Obama himself attempted to perform the same sort of dissembling rhetorical acrobatics during the debate on this issue but the fact remains that the statement that Obama voted against this particular piece of legislation is a correct statement. Mr. Sargent here states that, "The bill was widely viewed by critics as a sneak attack on Roe v. Wade.". So Critics saw it as an attack on Roe v. Wade?

Conclusion: Due to political pressure from the far left pro-abortion lobby, Obama voted against a bill which would have spelled out what was required when a baby was somehow born alive during a botched abortion attempt. This does seem to be an extremely pro-abortion stance and, as McCain stated, out of the mainstream.

There is at least one documented case that I am aware of where a down syndrome baby was left to die in a laundry closet.

Legislation was brought about to prevent further incidences of this sort of thing.

Barrack Obama voted against this legislation.

To point this out is not some scurrilous charge that is outrageously beyond the pale.

It's very simple, either Obama did or did not vote against this piece of legislation.

There, all dissembling has been reassembled.

the politics of grievance and resentment

In words, Obama is a uniter instead of a divider. In deeds, he has spent years promoting polarization. That is what a "community organizer" does, creating a sense of grievance, envy and resentment, in order to mobilize political action to get more of the taxpayers' money or to force banks to lend to people they don't consider good risks, as the community organizing group ACORN did.


After Barack Obama moved beyond the role of a community organizer, he promoted the same polarization in his other roles.

That is what he did when he spent the money of the Woods Fund bankrolling programs to spread the politics of grievance and resentment into the schools. That is what he did when he spent the taxpayers' money bankrolling the grievance and resentment ideology of Michael Pfleger.

When Barack Obama donated $20,000 to Jeremiah Wright, does anyone imagine that he was unaware that Wright was the epitome of grievance, envy and resentment hype? Or were Wright's sermons too subtle for Obama to pick up that message?

How subtle is "Goddamn America!"?

Barack Obama has carried election-year makeovers to a new high, presenting himself a uniter of people, someone reaching across the partisan divide and the racial divide-- after decades of promoting polarization in each of his successive roles and each of his choices of political allies.

Yet the media treat exposing a fraudulent election-year image as far worse than letting someone acquire the powers of the highest office in the land through sheer deception.

-Thomas Sowell

root cause

Keith Olbermann Brown

I believe that Keith Olbermann has been reincarnated.

As Campbell Brown.

The tip off isn't necessarily the ridiculously obvious pro-Obama bent as much as it is the sanctimonious delivery and snide yet sing- song tone of voice as she recites what some lefty wrote on the tele-prompter.

Who does Ms. Brown think she's fooling, I wonder, when everybody knows that she's so in the tank for Obama, she's soaking wet.

I love the fact that Sarah Palin is pissing off the MSM.

If Campbell Olbermann Brown is angry, then the McCain campaign is doing something good.

unreal

In an effort to influence the election by influencing voters, ABC News apparently edited out whole chunks of the Sarah Palin Charlie Gibson interview.

Here we go again with blatant left leaning media bias. I'm sure ABC News would argue that they edited for time constraints or some other lame argument, but the effect of editing out certain key passages of what Palin was saying had the obviously intended effect of making her appear less coherent on matters of foreign policy.

Why do liberals have to constantly cheat in a pathetic attempt to win the argument?

Here's some advice to ABC News: If you don't want to be accused of cheating and being guilty of left leaning media bias, just run the interview of a Republican candidate in it's entirety. Don't edit out whole passages of the strongest arguments of the candidate! Because we're gonna find out what you did, you stupid bastards.

Would it even be possible to have someone at ABC News editing the interview who isn't in the tank for Obama?

If Charlie Gibson had any knowledge of this insipid editing then he's no better than Dan Rather (who I'm sure most lefties privately regard as a hero for fraudulently trying to take down President Bush on the eve of the 2004 election).

Here's the full context of the foreign policy discussion with the bold and underlined sections being those that were conveniently left out in order to shape people's impression of Sarah Palin's grasp of the issues being discussed.

Liberals and the media

Sometimes I wonder if liberals even understand what it is that every one else objects to about the biased and slanted general news coverage provided by the predominantly left leaning mainstream media.

Keith Olbermann and Chris Mathews were today relieved of their duties as MSNBC news general election anchors.

It seems that the more the left leaning media digs it heels in, the more ground it loses. Yet amazingly, declining readership of liberal publications and bottom of the barrel ratings for liberal television and radio enterprises have served only to somehow embolden far left influenced media rather than discourage it.

When your enemy is in the process of destroying itself it is unwise to point it out, but in this case I can't resist.

How it is that these supposedly intelligent lefty media types could have such a tin ear when it comes to what is expected of them in the realm of journalism? It must have to do with their own high opinion of themselves that causes them to fail to realize that their own audiences, those that cling to guns and religion, are not as stupid as they think. This is what Sarah Palin means when she speaks of the 'elite media', who in her case, have taken media bias to new levels of tawdriness and hypocrisy.

I mean, does the left at least grasp what people objected to when Dan Rather capsized his own career in a blatant effort to influence a political campaign by promoting a fraudulent Bush National Guard story on the eve of the 2004 presidential election?

That fact that many of those on the left are inclined to defend Dan Rather in "Rathergate" essentially dictates that they are doomed to repeat similar, if not the same, mistakes. Because this narrative of left leaning media bias has been around for so long at this point, it has fully taken hold in the public consciousness at large as a normal feature of the political landscape.

So when people see Keith Olbermann berating 9-11 victims or Chris Mathews "getting a thrill up his leg" for Obama they have clear confirmation of the insidious permeation and general brazenness of left leaning political bias bleeding into what is presented supposedly as hard news.

They never learn, so they're gone. Do Olbermann and Mathews even understand why they were taken off their assignment of delivering general coverage during the rest of the campaign? They seem so stubborn and one-sided that I'm sure that they have some sort of rationale that blames Haliburton or George Bush rather than the real culprit: their own failure to comprehend the difference between commentary and general news coverage.

Au contraire

The short version of the Democratic Party primary campaign is that the media fell in love with Barack Obama but the Democratic electorate declined to.

"I felt this thrill going up my leg," said MSNBC's Chris Matthews after one of the senator's speeches. "I mean, I don't have that too often." Au contraire, Chris and the rest of the gang seem to be getting the old tingle up the thigh hairs on a nightly basis. If Obama is political Viagra, the media are at that stage in the ad where the announcer warns that, if leg tingles persist for more than six months, see your doctor.

Out there in the voting booths, however, Democrat legs stayed admirably unthrilled. The more the media told Hillary she was toast, and she should get the hell out of it and let Obama romp to victory, the more Democrats insisted on voting for her. The more the media insisted Barack was inevitable, the less inclined the voters were to get with the program. On the strength of Chris Matthews' vibrating calves, Sen. Obama raised a ton of money – over $300 million – and massively outspent Sen. Clinton, but he didn't really get any bang for his buck. In the end, he crawled over the finish line. The Obama Express came a-hurtlin' down the track at 2 miles an hour.

But what does he care? Sen. Obama has learned an old trick of Bill Clinton's: If you behave like a star, you'll get treated as one. So, even as his numbers weakened, his rhetoric soared. By the time he wrapped up his "victory" speech last week, the great gaseous uplift had his final paragraphs floating in delirious hallucination along the Milky Way:

"I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people … . I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal … . This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation."

It's a good thing he's facing it with "profound humility," isn't it? Because otherwise who knows what he'd be saying. But mark it in your calendars: June 3, 2008 – the long-awaited day, after 232 years, that America began to provide care for the sick. Just a small test program: 47 attendees of the Obama speech were taken to hospital and treated for nausea. Everyone else came away thrilled that the Obamessiah was going to heal the planet and reverse the rise of the oceans: When Barack wants to walk on the water, he doesn't want to have to use a stepladder to get up on it.

There are generally two reactions to this kind of policy proposal. The first was exemplified by the Atlantic Monthly's Marc Ambinder:

"What a different emotional register from John McCain's; Obama seems on the verge of tears; the enormous crowd in the Xcel Center seems ready to lift Obama on its shoulders; the much smaller audience for McCain's speech interrupted his remarks with stilted cheers."

The second reaction boils down to: "'Heal the planet'? Is this guy nuts?" To be honest I prefer a republic whose citizenry can muster no greater enthusiasm for their candidate than "stilted cheers" to one in which the crowd wants to hoist the nominee onto their shoulders for promising to lower ocean levels within his first term. As for coming together "to remake this great nation," if it's so great, why do we have to remake it? A few months back, just after the New Hampshire primary, a Canadian reader of mine – John Gross of Quebec – sent me an all-purpose stump speech for the 2008 campaign:

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it."

I thought this was so cute, I posted it on the Web at National Review. Whereupon one of those Internetty-type things happened, and three links and a Google search later the line was being attributed not to my correspondent but to Sen. Obama, and a few weeks after that I started getting e-mails from reporters from Florida to Oregon, asking if I could recall at which campaign stop the senator, in fact, uttered these words. And I'd patiently write back and explain that they're John Gross' words, and that not even Barack would be dumb enough to say such a thing in public. Yet last week his demand in his victory speech that we "come together to remake this great nation" came awful close.

Speaking personally, I don't want to remake America. I'm an immigrant, and one reason I came here is because most of the rest of the Western world remade itself along the lines Sen. Obama has in mind. This is pretty much the end of the line for me. If he remakes America, there's nowhere for me to go – although presumably once he's lowered sea levels around the planet there should be a few new atolls popping up here and there.

Marc Ambinder is right. Obama's rhetoric is in a different "emotional register" from John McCain's. It's in a different "emotional register" from every U.S. president – not just the Coolidges but the Kennedys, too. Nothing in Obama's resume suggests he's the man to remake America and heal the planet. Only last week, another of his pals bit the dust, convicted by a Chicago jury of 16 counts of this and that. "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew," said the senator, in what's becoming a standard formulation. Likewise, this wasn't the Jeremiah Wright he knew. And these are guys he's known for 20 years.

Yet at the same time as he's being stunned by the corruption and anti-Americanism of those closest to him, Obama's convinced that just by jetting into Tehran and Pyongyang he can get to know America's enemies and persuade them to hew to the straight and narrow. No doubt if it all goes belly-up, and Iran winds up nuking Tel Aviv, President Obama will put on his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger face and announce solemnly that "this isn't the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew."

Every time I hear an Obama speech, I start to giggle. But millions of voters don't. And, if Chris Matthews and the tingly-legged media get their way and drag Obama across the finish line this November, the laugh will be on those of us who think that serious times demand grown-up rhetoric.

-Mark Steyn

...and the world didn't end

Hillary Clinton was on the O'Reilly Factor and the world didn't stop rotating on its axis. Barack Obama and Howard Dean have appeared this week on the Fox News Channel and yet there was no disturbance in the the space time continuum.

All this despite the urgings of the far left. The far lefties at The Daily Kos and Moveon.org have been demanding that all prominent Democrats and Democratic candidates boycott FNC, the most watched cable news network. The far left brain trust behind the Fox News boycott have been ignored by any Democrat that matters at this point.

The far left inner circle would have us believe that somehow left leaning individuals receive unfavorable and/or blatantly unfair treatment on Fox. This interpretation of FNC is pure fiction. There just isn’t a moment someone can point to where a left leaning individual is somehow not allowed to make their point. Fox continues to do well in any kind of objective study of their general coverage.

Any pundit with an argument worth making has full access to be heard on Fox News, period. The “Fox News is an evil and unfair right wing hate machine” narrative is so lame at this point, it's laughable. It's merely a smokescreen used to obfuscate the real reason as to why the far left despise and are afraid of Fox News.

The truth is that the far left is terrified that their candidates or their ideas cannot stand on the merits without the safety net of the liberal MSM and/or the lefty blogosphere constantly propping them up.

This speaks to the intellectual cowardice that runs deep in the far left echo-chambers of Moveon.org, The Daily Kos, and Media Matters.

As was the case with the censorship of Stalinist Russia or even modern day Red China, it's funny how it is always the forces of the political left that are afraid of information and the free exchange of ideas.

This inability or disinclination to engage in honest debate, manifested in one way by an irrational conception of Fox News, is fundamentally why I can never be one of them.

the real reason Obama is friends with this man

It has been revealed to me, the real reason as to why presidential candidate Barack Obama has had a twenty year friendship with one pastor Jerimiah Wright who has been recently revealed to be a passionately racist, anti-semetic and America hating mega church pastor who has regularly preached an ideology of a "victimhood mentality" and racial division.

The following is a coversation with an Obama supporter taken from the blog Organized Chaos where the real reason as to why Obama has had a relationship with Jeremiah Wright is discussed:

Chris:

I remember telling a friend a year or so ago that no one will be able to get anything past Obama when it comes to issues. It will be his church and his middle name that will give him the most trouble. It appears to be happening.

Jaz:

Obama’s affiliation with this pastor is about issues. It’s dismissive to attempt to separate Obama’s stance on “issues” and the philosophy behind what shapes his stance. So long as Obama remains a member of Wright’s congregation he is tacitly promoting the world view that is preached there.

It’s not about religion per se at all. It’s about wondering where Obama stands on the very topics discussed at the church which he regularly attends. Does Obama believe that 9-11 was brought about as a result of our so called meddling overseas? Would Obama act quickly to defend Israel if Iran should choose to go to war with them? These are questions that I genuinely do not know the answers to.

The teachings of reverend Wright bring up a host of “issues” which call into question where it is that Obama stands. “Minister” Farakan, as BO calls him, looks mild in comparison to this furiously anti-semitic pastor. Does BO “reject and denounce” this man or will he continue to attend sermons and name books after them (The Audacity of Hope)? Will he still be contributing tens of thousands of dollars to this champion of hate speech?

Something as transcendent as someone’s spiritual guidance and philosophy cannot simply be compartmentalized and then dismissed.

Chris:

Jaz, I would think that someone who openly, proudly, and vehemently supported Mitt Romney would want to do is make religion an issues argument. The church Romney belongs to and regularly attends believes that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and when Jesus returns he will return to Jackson Co. Missouri to setup the New Jerusalem. They also believed until 1978 that black people were second class citizens and were punished by God.

They also believe that God lives on another planet called Kolob. That women only receive salvation through their husbands and must submit to their husbands through God’s demands.

I could go on and on about mormonism and about how out of touch it is with mainstream America. I could also go on and on about how mormonism is the only religion to actually take up arms against the American government, making them a terrorist organization. I don’t think it’s necessary to say much more and to stress the fact that Romney not once had to distance himself from the hate filled teachings of the mormon church. Outside of denouncing what Rev. Wright said, I’m not sure Obama should do anymore distancing, especially considering Republicans have gotten a free pass on religion this year.

“Something as transcendent as someone’s spiritual guidance and philosophy cannot simply be compartmentalized and then dismissed.” Maybe you should apply the same to Romney.

Lisa, Rev. Wright preaches no more hate than Hagee or Parsley or Benny Hinn. The direction of their hate is different but the substance is all the same. Since Jaz brought up the fact that religion is an issue, then, again, someone who supported Mitt Romney should be very careful about pointing fingers at Obama.

It is very possible to attend a church and not know exactly everything your preacher believes. I’ve had many preachers I disagreed with and still attended. For instance, there are a lot of Catholics who don’t support everything the Pope says, especially in terms of birth control and women’s rights. Going to church is just as much a social function as it is a spiritual one.

If Obama is to be held to a different standard about religion then fine with me.

You are correct, Dems are famous for screwing up presidential elections.

Lisa:

The media didn’t ignore Romney’s Mormonism at all. That’s why he had to make a speech about it. While it is true that Mitt Romney did not have to make a point-by-point denial of every aspect of the Mormon faith, it’s also true that the media made his Mormonism an issue. I don’t know how you can say that Republicans got a free pass on religion this year, especially with the microscope Romney was under with the MSM.

But I’ll get back to my argument and let Jaz defend himself, since he’s perfectly capable of doing that. :)

Rev. Wright has a history of saying inflammatory things like the quotes which have been all over the press this week. He and Obama have a close relationship. That’s been well-established (in my view anyway). It’s indeed possible that the Obamas just attended this man’s church as a social affair. Many politicians do it. But why would you have a pastor who doesn’t share your values marry you and your wife, or baptize your children? He has said controversial things enough times that it’s hard to believe Obama didn’t have the slightest idea about the character of this man.

I’m not talking about knowing every single belief of a pastor. I think you’re right that there will always be things we haven’t heard about in a sermon. But if you go to a church for 20 years, it’s very likely you will get a good idea of that person’s core beliefs. My problem with what Obama has recently said is that he said it was the first time he had heard some of these statements by Jeremiah Wright. I don’t buy that at all.

It doesn’t matter what I say to you about this, because you’re loyal to your guy…and I respect that. I had enough doubts about Barack before this minister came along. I wasn’t going to vote for Obama before all this came up, and I still won’t vote for him in November. So at least I’m consistent. :)

Don’t be worried. I still think Barack wins the nomination. He’s got a bunch of delegates now, and I don’t think this will keep him from getting the nomination. After that, who knows?

Chris:

I’m not worried. I’ll vote for Obama or Hillary. Either are better choices than John McCain.

Not one time was Mitt Romney ever asked to reject or denounce mormon beliefs. Not once. He was given a free pass entirely and so is McCain. Never was he asked about Jackson Co. Missouri being the Garden of Eden and the spot where Jesus will return– which is totally out of touch with mainstream America and Biblical teachings. He gave a speech on his mormon beliefs because he felt compelled to. The media never once asked him about which mormon doctrines he agreed with and which he rejected. Not one time has McCain been asked to reject or denounce John Hagee or Rod Parsely, people he actively sought endorsement of. Barack has been asked numerous times to reject and denounce not only people he never sought endorsements from, i.e., Farakhan, but also been subjected to denounce his very own pastor of which he has been saying for years that he doesn’t always agree with everything Wright says and does.

You don’t have to believe Obama, or vote for him. As much as I’ve said Wright’s actions are detrimental to Obama, I also think they are no worse than McCain actively and openly flaunting endorsements from preachers who preach politically-filled hate nearly every day on their television programs. Hagee calls for the destruction of Israel and says America brought on hurricane Katrina. Wright says America brought on 9/11. Not much difference there.

Lisa:

With McCain and the religious right, we know that it’s a wink and nod type deal. He hates the religious right. Always has. He doesn’t like conservatives much, either. The fact that he’s using these endorsements to possibly gain support for the general election doesn’t change how he really feels about us. McCain has a history that shows him calling out the “agents of intolerance” in 2000 and Falwell and his ilk were still popular back then. He needs the religious right and Christian conservatives to support him in the general, so I can understand reaching out to people like Hagee. McCain can say all the conciliatory things he wants to, and most of us aren’t fooled, because we are fully aware that he’s just pandering to get votes, just like any other politician would.

The only reason I’m inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt here is because you know him, and I trust your judgment of people’s character. (Well, except for your portrayal on PN of Dubya, Rush, and numerous other people who happen to be Republicans, but that’s a subject for another post…) ;)

Jaz:

Chris,

So because Barack Obama’s close associate and mentor has been revealed to be an America hating racist you have managed to find yet more fodder to attack Mitt Romney with, a person no longer even in the presidential race, because of his religion?

How Mike Huckabee of you.

The two situations are not parallel. One discussion is about the, often misrepresented, doctrinal teachings of a specific religion and whether the candidate should have to answer for church doctrine.

And the other discussion is about the personal relationship between the possible next President of the United States and his close associating with an anti-semitic racist/race baiter and a domestic enemy of the county.

So no, as I said, it’s not about religion with this Wright flap.

It’s about judgment, questionable associations and core beliefs.

This is not a “side issue” as Chuck Schumer claimed on FOX News Sunday yesterday.

This situation speaks to a central issue of what it is that African American voters actually believe. And what Barack Obama is expected to buy into in order to gain their support. This is getting towards the real reason why it is that Obama has had a long association with this character. Two words: “street cred”.

As far as Romney goes, he freely admits that his faith “informs ” his positions on issues. He has explained himself up and down to no end exactly what role his religion plays in his life. So I do apply the standard of non-compartmentalization to Romney as he does himself. Again the situation is not parallel and only serves to confuse the issue.

Lisa,

Mentioning Romney in the context of this discussion is classic Chris obfuscation (or ‘derailing’ if you like). The strategy being, if he muddies than waters enough around all of these various distinct discussions, then out of the confusion and murkiness will arise a vindicated Barack Obama, rising out of the ashes of the discussion like a phoenix.

I don’t blame him for trying though. This is a fairly desperate situation for the Obama campaign. And like you, I believe that the best evidence I can see explaining why it is I should believe that Obama doesn’t subscribe to the same worldview as his pastor is the fact that Chris vouches for him.

And in the end I still would prefer him to Hillary Clinton in the oval office I suppose. But that sentiment may be fading depending on how Obama plays this.


Chris:

Jaz, if I was half as smart as you think you are I sure wouldn’t be reading blogs. I’m not derailing anything. I can’t help the fact that your man Romney belongs to one of the most hate-filled churches in American history. If there is anyone who should have their pastors checked out it is Romney. Oh wait, Romney is a high priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood. Meaning he believes, by doctrine and rightful title, everything the mormon church has as doctrine. He is a pastor who has not once been asked to denounce the very doctrine he swore to his church he would protect. I’ve never even heard him referred to as a pastor/preacher, which he no doubt is. Talk about a free pass.

I said in my first reply that I agreed with Lisa on nearly every point she made. You were the one who said it was all about issues. And if that’s the case, then anyone who supports Mitt Romney should be very careful about wanting to make religion an issues test. There’s no derailing Jaz. It’s simply the fact that you argue against the very things you never want mentioned about your politics and your politicians. There hasn’t been a bigger free pass in all of presidential history as to what Big Love Mitt Romney has been given. But to you the situation is not parallel. I can’t help but think that if Barack Hussein Obama believed, like Romney does, that God lives on the planet Kolob and the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and one day Jesus will return to Missouri to build his New Kingdom, that you would be saying the situation is not parallel. Instead you would use that as a way to prove that Obama is not part of mainstream America and belongs to a wacko church with ulterior motives for this country. If the best you got is that I’m derailing then I don’t know why you wasted your time responding. I guess because it’s the best you got.

Jaz:

Is that a preview of the tone of BO’s speech tomorrow? First he’ll insult his audience than he’ll cite Mitt Romnney as somehow related to his situation?

I suppose this tactic of conflating the two situations is the best you got.

Lisa:

Gentlemen…tone down the personal stuff. I don’t care who started it, if you all can’t keep that under control, I’m going to close comments on this thread. I don’t want to shut anybody up, but I do expect that ya’ll keep it civil. Fair enough? :)

Chris:

Jaz, you are the one who said that ones personal religion is about issues. That it was “dismissive to attempt to separate” issues and “the philosophy behind what shapes” those issues. You even went so far as to say that so long as Obama remains part of Wright’s congregation, he is promoting that world view. You fail to mention that Wright no longer pastors Obama’s church, thus Obama no longer remains part of his congregation. You also fail to mention that Obama has denounced Wright’s remarks numerous times routinely stating that he does not agree with Wright. What else can he do?

If it’s so dismissive to separate issues, as you say it is, then the same is true for Mitt Romney. Those are your words. I agreed with Lisa from the start. You were the one saying oh no, religion is about issues and is the philosophy which guides the issues. Okay, that’s fine with me, but the same holds true for Republicans. Mitt Romney, who is a member of the only organized religion to ever take up arms against the American government, never once was asked what parts of the hate-filled speech of the mormon church he agreed with. He was never asked to denounce any of it. And if religion is the philosophy that guides issues, then Mitt Romney– who is actively pursuing the office of the VP– subscribes to the philosophy that God lives on planet Kolob and Jackson Co., Missouri is the Garden of Eden. That women only gain salvation through their husbands and Romney unequivacally believes that he himself is a prophet. What in the world would Sean Hannity have to say if Barack Hussein Obama believed himself to be an ordained prophet and was a member of the only organized religion to ever take up arms against the American governmnent? This is the very philosophy and world view that guides Mitt Romney’s issues, according to you that is.

There’s no derailing Jaz. You can’t just apply one set of rules to one person and not the other. I’ll happily agree that religion is the philosophy that guides issues as long as we can use it accordingly, but apparently not. If anyone is trying to conflate it’s you.

Lisa, sorry. I wasn’t trying to be uncivil. But I certainly wasn’t derailing anything either.

Jaz:

“…you are the one who said that ones personal religion is about issues.”

I assume that this incorrect statement refers to when I said that Obama’s affiliation with this pastor is about issues.

I’m not sure why it so unclear to you that I’m not suggesting that Obama must now answer for the doctrine of his church.

Many would argue that in fact the philosophy of Jeremiah Wright has nothing to do with any precepts of Christianity. Many of Wright’s teachings are decidedly un-Christian.

This discussion of Obama’s relationship with Jeremiah Wright is simply not about church doctrine.

The concerns are: What evidence do we have that proves that Obama does not believe in these things that Wright says? And, what does it say of Obama’s judgment to be commander in chief that he would choose to align with this man who he and the campaign had to have known could be potentially disastrous to any effort in courting the votes of what Wright vindictively calls “White America”?

I would never take Obama to task because many Christians believe that Moses parted the seas, that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or any other aspect of his religion that I might find wacky or unbelievable. This is the last time I’m going to explain that the two situations are separate discussions. You’ve attempted to twist what I said and then use it as some sort of defense for Obama’s political alliance with Jeremiah Wright. I’m not somehow applying a different standard to Romney as I would to Obama. So you can keep repeating all the aspects of Mormonism that don’t comport with mainstream religions all day, but they have no bearing on this discussion of Obama’s political alliance with Wright. Kolob, Kolob, Kolob. Now can we get back to discussing Obama?

I find it almost unbelievable almost that you are arguing that it has been Romney and not Obama that has been given a “free pass” when it comes to media scrutiny vis a vis religion. Did you not see the SNL skit Hillary loves to reference? The media has been so enamored of Obama that even fellow leftie comedy shows have taken to lampooning them.

It is only now that the media is finally starting to apply a level of scrutiny to Obama that is appropriate considering the fact that he is after the most important job in the entire world.

You can’t somehow blame Mitt Romney that Obama is struggling under this level of media scrutiny.

The bottom line is, and I think you and Obama know this but just can’t say it, that Obama had to align with Jeremiah Wright in order to solidify the black vote. This is a mega-church that Wright has preached from which represents possibly a very large voting bloc which is seen as critical to any Obama presidential bid. A parallel situation would be when a Republican candidate courts the mega churches of the evangelical right but doesn’t necessarily buy into all the things that are preached there.

You should be happy, I’m giving Obama the all important “pass” that you imagine Mitt Romney was somehow the beneficiary of.

After listening to Juan Williams and others lately I’m prepared to believe that Obama’s relationship with Wright was more political than it was religious or philosophical. I am prepared to agree with you that Obama does not subscribe to the same hate America world view that he had have known was held by Wright.

And I just don’t buy this argument that somehow Obama was never present during any of his pastor’s hate speech. I imagine an SNL type of skit lampooning this situation where the top people of the Obama campaign had to go in a conference room for 48 hours to brain storm what kind of argument to use to defend Obama’s relationship with Wright.

Some people, led by Michelle Obama, wanted to argue that there isn’t all that much wrong with what Wright preeches. Others advocated the “crazy uncle” defense. Some suggested that if some the wacky tenets of Mormonism are mentioned enough that somehow Obama will be excused from consorting with an America hating racist hate monger because Mormons believe god lives on Kolob.

The argument that the Obama people seem to have settled on is almost breathtakingly unbelievable, that somehow Obama was never present during these speeches and that he essentially had no idea as to the extent of Wright’s anti-American rhetoric.

The amalgamation of all these defenses that I’ve heard made by various surrogates sound like this:

“Well, what it is that Wright said that’s so bad? OK he said bad stuff, but he’s really more like Obama’s crazy uncle. Kolob, Kolob, Kolob… Obama was never present during any of these speeches.”

When we all now know that the real answer is political. Which makes sense, after all Obama is a politician, this is what he does. He makes alliances with various groups in order to consolidate support. I have no problem with that.

I only now wonder how it that Obama and his campaign staff, who have all performed pretty flawlessly so far, failed to foresee the potential trouble that this association with Wright could cause and is causing.

Olbermann Jumps the Shark

This guy is a complete and utter pseudo intellectual tool.

He's from the school of "the more quasi-big words I use, the smarter I sound".

Ugh.. he's so laughable. "Events insist" indeed. Events insist that you are a moron, Mr Olbermann for castigating so thoroughly Geraldine Ferraro for making benign comments when compared to the recently revealed teachings from the spiritual adviser of the candidate that you are so painfully obviously promoting while you masquerade as a journalist.

This is what passes for great thinking on the left.

meanwhile, I have been silenced on this matter when attempting to discuss it on this pro-Obama blog, that for some reason I'm being denied access to

who's ready?

I love it when Hillary Clinton attacks Obama with ads that highlight the fact that Democrats are ill equipped to protect us from our enemies. I guess the Obama people probably imagine that their candidate is being "swift boated" in this ad.

The below video is a funny spoof that lampoons Hillary but of course doesn't make the point that Obama is at all prepared to deal with any international crisis any more than she is. This whole argument should serve as a warning to voters that both Democratic candidates are unfit to be president.

the movie

would reagan endorse you?