On US radio's Garrison show today, I was asked for my reaction as a true born Englishman to President Obama's double insult - first the sending back of the Winston Churchill bust, then his snub to Gordon Brown. "Tough one. Really tough one," I said, torn - as most of surely are - between delight at seeing Brown roundly humiliated, and dismay at having the special relationship so peremptorily, cruelly and bafflingly ruptured.
Michelle Obama's dress sense may be impeccable, but what of her politics? (Photo: Getty)
Iain Martin is quite right here: no matter how utterly rubbish we have become as a nation in the Blair/Brown years, Britain's friendship is something Obama will come to regret having dispensed with so lightly. This was not the act of a global statesman, but of a hormonal teenager dismissing her bestest of best BFs for no other reason than that she felt like it and she can, so there.
What was the guy thinking? In researching my new book Welcome to Obamaland, I discovered that Obama's judgment is pretty dreadful - but this? My favourite theory so far - suggested by presenter Greg Garrison - was that it was a move calculated to please his Lady Macbeth. At the moment in Britain, we're still in the "Doesn't she look fabulous in a designer frock" stage of understanding of Michelle Obama. Gradually, though, we'll begin to realise that she is every bit the terrifying executive's wife that Hillary Clinton was. Or, shudder, Cherie Blair.
We may just LURVE Michelle's fashion sense. But Michelle doesn't reciprocate our affection, one bit. Her broad-brush view of history associates Brits with the wicked white global hegemony responsible for the slave trade. Never mind that a white, Tory Englishman - William Wilberforce - brought the slave trade to an end. Judging by her record, Michelle does not make room for such subtle nuance.
Consider her notorious statement that: "For the first time in my adult life I am really proud of my country." Consider her (till-recently suppressed) Princeton thesis, "Princeton Educated Blacks And The Black Community."
In it she writes: "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."
Here we see that she has mastered the authentic voice of grievance culture. She also - the thesis was written in 1985 - pre-empts the Macpherson report's ludicrous, catch-all definition of racism: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person." No matter how hard young Michelle's white undergraduate contemporaries try to be nice, it's not their behaviour that counts, but how Michelle feels.
More worrying, though, and dangerous, than young Michelle's desperate quest for validation through victimhood is the other strain within her thesis. "As I enter my final year at Princeton," she writes. "I find myself striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates - acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high paying position in a successful corporation. Thus, my goals at Princeton are not as clear as before."
"Yes, exactly, you silly girl" you want to shriek at young Michelle as you give her a good shake. "It's called 'opening your mind', 'broadening your experience', 'allowing youthful dogma to be shaped by reality.' It's why people go to university, don't you know?"
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Friday, March 6, 2009
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Obama's 57 States Of America
Patriotic Barack Obama lapel pins unveiled honoring all 57 states
Yesterday The Ticket broke the stunning news of America's acquisition of seven, maybe eight, new states, according to future president Barack Obama.
He was speaking at the start of a two-day swoop through Oregon, which is already a state.
In Beaverton, which is not a state yet, the Democrat let it slip that during this marathon 16-month party presidential nomination struggle against a bunch of dropouts and this female political zombie from New York who won't surrender short of a silver stake, he had already visited 57 states with one more to go.
That's not counting the existing states of Alaska and Hawaii, he said, which his staff decided aren't important enough to visit. Unless maybe you're Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich, who weren't very important either, come to think of it.
Here's the spoof-proof Obama video as evidence:
Has this aging freshman senator -- he'll be almost 60 in 13 years -- lost his bearings? Are the eight new states caucus or primary? And will Howard Dean bar them from the convention too?
Obama's gaffe caused a noticeable stir online during the day and even the respected Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic anticipated that the political media would kindly write the Democrat's mis-statement off to fatigue. But he wrote if, say, the Republican nominee-to-be had uttered the same silly fatigue flub, it would surely be added to eager suspicions of senility.
Besides trying to noodle out what the new states are, some clever campaign folks over at the phenomenal Suitab
ly Flip blog got to thinking right away.
And they've now unveiled a new patriotic lapel pin that anyone can wear with pride even, say, a Harvard-educated senator from Illinois who's been trying to make a point about opposing a war before it even started.
Here is the new pin replete with all 57 stars:
You'll probably want to order several for friends and family. And any Chablis-sipping senators you might know.
By Andrew Malcolm - LA Times
Of course if this had been George W. Bush he would be labeled as stupid and if John McCain had done this he would be labeled senile. What's Obama's excuse? Skipped American history classes, not a real issue concerning Americans, or trying to dumb down his elitist status. (Tim)
Yesterday The Ticket broke the stunning news of America's acquisition of seven, maybe eight, new states, according to future president Barack Obama.
He was speaking at the start of a two-day swoop through Oregon, which is already a state.
In Beaverton, which is not a state yet, the Democrat let it slip that during this marathon 16-month party presidential nomination struggle against a bunch of dropouts and this female political zombie from New York who won't surrender short of a silver stake, he had already visited 57 states with one more to go.
That's not counting the existing states of Alaska and Hawaii, he said, which his staff decided aren't important enough to visit. Unless maybe you're Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich, who weren't very important either, come to think of it.
Here's the spoof-proof Obama video as evidence:
Has this aging freshman senator -- he'll be almost 60 in 13 years -- lost his bearings? Are the eight new states caucus or primary? And will Howard Dean bar them from the convention too?
Obama's gaffe caused a noticeable stir online during the day and even the respected Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic anticipated that the political media would kindly write the Democrat's mis-statement off to fatigue. But he wrote if, say, the Republican nominee-to-be had uttered the same silly fatigue flub, it would surely be added to eager suspicions of senility.
Besides trying to noodle out what the new states are, some clever campaign folks over at the phenomenal Suitab
ly Flip blog got to thinking right away.And they've now unveiled a new patriotic lapel pin that anyone can wear with pride even, say, a Harvard-educated senator from Illinois who's been trying to make a point about opposing a war before it even started.
Here is the new pin replete with all 57 stars:
You'll probably want to order several for friends and family. And any Chablis-sipping senators you might know.
By Andrew Malcolm - LA Times
Of course if this had been George W. Bush he would be labeled as stupid and if John McCain had done this he would be labeled senile. What's Obama's excuse? Skipped American history classes, not a real issue concerning Americans, or trying to dumb down his elitist status. (Tim)
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Obama's Health Care Record
Obama's Health Care Record
By SCOTT GOTTLIEBMay 5, 2008
Laughing gas can be useful during complicated dental procedures, but should every health plan be required to cover it and should health insurance cost more because of it?
Barack Obama thinks so. As a state senator in Illinois, he voted to require that dental anesthesia be covered by every health plan for difficult medical cases. Today, the requirement is one of 43 mandates imposed by Illinois on health insurance, according to the Illinois Division of Insurance. Other mandates require coverage of infertility treatments, drug rehab, "personal injuries" incurred while intoxicated, and other forms of care.
By my count, during Mr. Obama's tenure in the state Senate, 18 different laws came up for a vote and passed that imposed new mandates on private health insurance. Mr. Obama voted for all of them.
As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama says people lack health insurance because "they can't afford it." He's right. But he is also partly responsible for why health insurance is too expensive. A long list of studies show that mandates like the ones Mr. Obama has championed drive up the cost of insurance for the very people priced out of coverage.
A 2008 study by an insurance-industry supported research organization, the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), estimates that mandates increase the cost of basic health coverage by 20% to 50%, depending on the state. Average policies in high-mandate New Jersey cost about $4,000 according to a 2004 insurance survey, much more than the $1,200 charged in low-mandate Wyoming.
CAHI estimates that there are 1,961 state-mandated benefits across the country. It's not just specific products and services that get mandated, but also whole categories of providers like chiropractors and psychologists. By one count, states have enacted about 500 laws mandating coverage for 25 different types of providers.
States also mandate new categories of eligibility that force small businesses to cover additional dependents. One popular measure is the "slacker mandate," which extends coverage to unmarried dependents under the age of 30.
Not all mandates are equally expensive. Drug rehab, for example, increases a plan's premiums by 9% on average, according to America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). Coverage for psychologists adds 12% to premiums. But in total, in some states mandates increase the cost of insurance from 10% to 20%, according to AHIP.
These increased costs aren't shared equally among all who have health insurance. People who are covered through self-insured employers (usually large corporations) are shielded from state mandates because of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which prevents states from enacting controls on plans that cross state lines.
The burden of paying for state mandates is usually borne by individuals who buy their own insurance, small employers and others not covered by ERISA. In total, about half of the people who have insurance bear the brunt of the cost of state mandates. And, as it turns out, individuals who do not work for large corporations are much more likely to be uninsured. AHIP calculates that between 20%-25% of uninsured Americans can't afford coverage because of the increased cost of providing mandated care.
It doesn't have to be that way. If insurers were allowed to offer "bare-bones" plans – which would be cheaper because they would cover just essential care – many consumers who are priced out of health insurance now would likely buy these plans instead of living without insurance.
State mandates even hurt those who have insurance because they prompt insurers to cut back on coverage for catastrophic illnesses. This undermines the purpose of insurance by turning policies into prepaid health care rather than security from the economic consequences of serious medical problems. And because many mandates define the duration and scope of specific benefits, they lock in treatment standards that grow outdated as knowledge advances. That can diminish incentives to find more effective ways of delivering medical care.
Why, then, do we have mandates?
For the simple reason that each mandate has a powerful constituency – be it chiropractors, dentists or other groups – who benefit when their services are included on the list of mandated care. These groups pressure lawmakers to expand the list of mandates and, over time, the list grows to be very long and expensive. Often the care that is being mandated is for minor medical problems because small, routine ailments are suffered by more people and therefore have broader political constituencies.
One way to make insurance more affordable is to extend the benefits of the ERISA exemption to people who buy insurance on their own, putting them on a level playing field with those who get coverage through large employers by freeing them from expensive state insurance laws.
Most insurance plans would still cover important health-care items such as prenatal HIV testing or routine colon cancer screening or bone density tests – three additional mandates Mr. Obama helped enact in Illinois. But without government mandates, plans would also have the flexibility to offer lower-priced insurance options.
Better still, Congress could pass legislation that has long languished in the House allowing people to purchase health plans across state lines. People could choose which state regulations to buy into, creating a market for the insurance mandates. This would give states more incentives to fix local problems that have helped make health insurance expensive in the first place. It's a fair bet that there would be an exodus of policyholders from higher-cost, higher-mandate states like New Jersey and even Illinois (which has more expensive mandates than about half of the other states).
Mr. Obama says people need more options to purchase insurance outside the workplace. He also says he can draw on his experience as a state legislator to lead a reform of the kinds of special interests that pursue these mandated benefits. Right now Mr. Obama's health-care proposal, like Hillary Clinton's plan, does the opposite by adding federal regulations on top of state laws.
"My plan emphasizes lowering costs," Mr. Obama says. If that is really what he wants to do, he can start by freeing consumers from forced subsidization of the pricey state mandates. Given a choice between the lower costs he promises and subsidized dental anesthesia he has delivered, some would opt for the affordable health insurance and make do with some extra Novocain.
Dr. Gottlieb is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
By SCOTT GOTTLIEBMay 5, 2008
Laughing gas can be useful during complicated dental procedures, but should every health plan be required to cover it and should health insurance cost more because of it?
Barack Obama thinks so. As a state senator in Illinois, he voted to require that dental anesthesia be covered by every health plan for difficult medical cases. Today, the requirement is one of 43 mandates imposed by Illinois on health insurance, according to the Illinois Division of Insurance. Other mandates require coverage of infertility treatments, drug rehab, "personal injuries" incurred while intoxicated, and other forms of care.
By my count, during Mr. Obama's tenure in the state Senate, 18 different laws came up for a vote and passed that imposed new mandates on private health insurance. Mr. Obama voted for all of them.
As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama says people lack health insurance because "they can't afford it." He's right. But he is also partly responsible for why health insurance is too expensive. A long list of studies show that mandates like the ones Mr. Obama has championed drive up the cost of insurance for the very people priced out of coverage.
A 2008 study by an insurance-industry supported research organization, the Council for Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), estimates that mandates increase the cost of basic health coverage by 20% to 50%, depending on the state. Average policies in high-mandate New Jersey cost about $4,000 according to a 2004 insurance survey, much more than the $1,200 charged in low-mandate Wyoming.
CAHI estimates that there are 1,961 state-mandated benefits across the country. It's not just specific products and services that get mandated, but also whole categories of providers like chiropractors and psychologists. By one count, states have enacted about 500 laws mandating coverage for 25 different types of providers.
States also mandate new categories of eligibility that force small businesses to cover additional dependents. One popular measure is the "slacker mandate," which extends coverage to unmarried dependents under the age of 30.
Not all mandates are equally expensive. Drug rehab, for example, increases a plan's premiums by 9% on average, according to America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). Coverage for psychologists adds 12% to premiums. But in total, in some states mandates increase the cost of insurance from 10% to 20%, according to AHIP.
These increased costs aren't shared equally among all who have health insurance. People who are covered through self-insured employers (usually large corporations) are shielded from state mandates because of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which prevents states from enacting controls on plans that cross state lines.
The burden of paying for state mandates is usually borne by individuals who buy their own insurance, small employers and others not covered by ERISA. In total, about half of the people who have insurance bear the brunt of the cost of state mandates. And, as it turns out, individuals who do not work for large corporations are much more likely to be uninsured. AHIP calculates that between 20%-25% of uninsured Americans can't afford coverage because of the increased cost of providing mandated care.
It doesn't have to be that way. If insurers were allowed to offer "bare-bones" plans – which would be cheaper because they would cover just essential care – many consumers who are priced out of health insurance now would likely buy these plans instead of living without insurance.
State mandates even hurt those who have insurance because they prompt insurers to cut back on coverage for catastrophic illnesses. This undermines the purpose of insurance by turning policies into prepaid health care rather than security from the economic consequences of serious medical problems. And because many mandates define the duration and scope of specific benefits, they lock in treatment standards that grow outdated as knowledge advances. That can diminish incentives to find more effective ways of delivering medical care.
Why, then, do we have mandates?
For the simple reason that each mandate has a powerful constituency – be it chiropractors, dentists or other groups – who benefit when their services are included on the list of mandated care. These groups pressure lawmakers to expand the list of mandates and, over time, the list grows to be very long and expensive. Often the care that is being mandated is for minor medical problems because small, routine ailments are suffered by more people and therefore have broader political constituencies.
One way to make insurance more affordable is to extend the benefits of the ERISA exemption to people who buy insurance on their own, putting them on a level playing field with those who get coverage through large employers by freeing them from expensive state insurance laws.
Most insurance plans would still cover important health-care items such as prenatal HIV testing or routine colon cancer screening or bone density tests – three additional mandates Mr. Obama helped enact in Illinois. But without government mandates, plans would also have the flexibility to offer lower-priced insurance options.
Better still, Congress could pass legislation that has long languished in the House allowing people to purchase health plans across state lines. People could choose which state regulations to buy into, creating a market for the insurance mandates. This would give states more incentives to fix local problems that have helped make health insurance expensive in the first place. It's a fair bet that there would be an exodus of policyholders from higher-cost, higher-mandate states like New Jersey and even Illinois (which has more expensive mandates than about half of the other states).
Mr. Obama says people need more options to purchase insurance outside the workplace. He also says he can draw on his experience as a state legislator to lead a reform of the kinds of special interests that pursue these mandated benefits. Right now Mr. Obama's health-care proposal, like Hillary Clinton's plan, does the opposite by adding federal regulations on top of state laws.
"My plan emphasizes lowering costs," Mr. Obama says. If that is really what he wants to do, he can start by freeing consumers from forced subsidization of the pricey state mandates. Given a choice between the lower costs he promises and subsidized dental anesthesia he has delivered, some would opt for the affordable health insurance and make do with some extra Novocain.
Dr. Gottlieb is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Obama's Elitist Foot In Mouth Disease
Sunday meditation: Obama and the punishment of unborn life
By Michelle Malkin • March 30, 2008 11:24 AM
I wonder how pro-life Catholic Democrats will react to Barack Obama’s pregnancy-as-punitive and pregnancy-as-inconvenience-on-par-with STDs rhetoric? There’s a careless callousness in Obama’s phrasing yesterday that’s definitely not going to sit well with the staunch Pennsylvania pro-life voting bloc. What do you think?
Out in western Pennsylvania, the issue of abortion can strike a nerve. Democrats there often describe themselves economic liberals and social conservatives who favor gun rights and oppose abortion rights.
So, it was not unusual to see a woman stand near the end of Barack Obama’s town hall meeting in Johnstown, Penn., and offer a hurried, passionate plea for him to “stop these abortions.”
…The exchange appeared to be prompted by Obama’s earlier comments that he does not favor abstinence-only education, but rather comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control.
Obama's Quote
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
Comment 1
Huh? Who thinks of babies as “punishment”?
Better yet, what kind of father would describe babies as “punishment”? As a father of six children (three of them teenagers), I was dumbfounded by Obama’s use of this phrase. Of course, this being a Democratic primary, there’s really no difference between Obama and Hillary on the abortion issue, but Obama’s bizarre phrasing is still remarkable.
Comment 2
Regardless of your feelings on sexual education, this statement oozes with animosity. It also reveals the true heart of Barack Obama. Despite his so-called “understanding” of both sides of the abortion issue, any person that could utter such cold, abhorrence when discussing a fellow human being has no intention of displaying any goodwill to pro-lifers.
By Michelle Malkin • March 30, 2008 11:24 AM
I wonder how pro-life Catholic Democrats will react to Barack Obama’s pregnancy-as-punitive and pregnancy-as-inconvenience-on-par-with STDs rhetoric? There’s a careless callousness in Obama’s phrasing yesterday that’s definitely not going to sit well with the staunch Pennsylvania pro-life voting bloc. What do you think?
Out in western Pennsylvania, the issue of abortion can strike a nerve. Democrats there often describe themselves economic liberals and social conservatives who favor gun rights and oppose abortion rights.
So, it was not unusual to see a woman stand near the end of Barack Obama’s town hall meeting in Johnstown, Penn., and offer a hurried, passionate plea for him to “stop these abortions.”
…The exchange appeared to be prompted by Obama’s earlier comments that he does not favor abstinence-only education, but rather comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control.
Obama's Quote
“Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”
Comment 1
Huh? Who thinks of babies as “punishment”?
Better yet, what kind of father would describe babies as “punishment”? As a father of six children (three of them teenagers), I was dumbfounded by Obama’s use of this phrase. Of course, this being a Democratic primary, there’s really no difference between Obama and Hillary on the abortion issue, but Obama’s bizarre phrasing is still remarkable.
Comment 2
Regardless of your feelings on sexual education, this statement oozes with animosity. It also reveals the true heart of Barack Obama. Despite his so-called “understanding” of both sides of the abortion issue, any person that could utter such cold, abhorrence when discussing a fellow human being has no intention of displaying any goodwill to pro-lifers.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Obama's Out Of Touch With Real Americans
Mike Allen Sat Apr 12, 6:04 PM ET
A Clinton comeback was looking far-fetched. But operatives in both parties were buzzing about that possibility Saturday following the revelation that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told wealthy San Franciscans that small-town Pennsylvanians and Midwesterners “cling to guns or religion” because they are “bitter” about their economic status.
Obama at first dug in on that contention Friday after audio of the private fundraiser was posted by The Huffington Post. Altering course, on Saturday in Muncie, Ind., he conceded that he “didn’t say it as well as I should have.” And he told the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal that “obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that. ... The underlying truth of what I said remains, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so."
Here is what he said April 6, referring to people living in areas hit by job losses: “[I]t’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
The Obama campaign contends that coverage of the San Francisco remarks is overheated and distorted. One aide said that “any logical analysis” would make it obvious that the brouhaha will not “change the pledged delegate count” — the key to the Democratic presidential nomination.
In fact, this is a potential turning point for Obama’s campaign — an episode that could be even more damaging than the attention to remarks by his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, since this time the controversial words came out of his own mouth.
Here are a dozen reasons why:
1. It lets Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) off the mat at a time when even some of her top supporters had begun to despair about her prospects. Clinton hit back hard on the campaign trail Saturday. And her campaign held a conference call where former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Pittsburgh native, described Obama’s remarks as “condescending and disappointing” and “undercutting his message of hope.”
2. If you are going to say something that makes you sound like a clueless liberal, don’t say it in San Francisco. Obama’s views might have been received very differently if he had expressed them in public to Pennsylvania voters, saying he understood and could alleviate their frustrations.
3. Some people actually use guns to hunt — not to compensate for a salary that’s less than a U.S. senator’s.
4. Some people cling to religion not because they are bitter but because they believe it, and because faith in God gives them purpose and comfort.
5. Some hard-working Americans find it insulting when rich elites explain away things dear to their hearts as desperation. It would be like a white politician telling blacks they cling to charismatic churches to compensate for their plight. And it vindicates centrist Democrats who have been arguing for a decade that their party has allowed itself to look culturally out of touch with the American mainstream.
6. It provides a handy excuse for people who were looking for a reason not to vote for Obama but don’t want to think of themselves as bigoted. It hurts Obama especially with the former Reagan Democrats, the culturally conservative, blue-collar workers who could be a promising voter group for him. It also antagonizes people who were concerned about his minister but might have given him the benefit of the doubt after his eloquent speech on race.
7. It gives the Clinton campaign new arguments for trying to recruit superdelegates, the Democratic elected officials and other insiders who get a vote on the nomination. A moderate politician from a swing district, for example, might not want to have to explain support for a candidate who is being hammered as a liberal. And Clinton’s agents can claim that for all the talk of her being divisive, Obama has provided plenty of fodder to energize Republicans.
8. It helps Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) frame a potential race against Obama, even though both of them have found support among independents. Now Republicans have a simple, easily repeated line of attack to use against Obama as an out-of-touch snob, as they had with Sen. John F. Kerry after he blundered by commenting about military funding, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
9. The comments play directly into an already-established narrative about his candidacy. Clinton supporters have been arguing that Obama has limited appeal beyond upscale Democrats — the so-called latte liberals. You can’t win red states if people there don’t like you. “Elites need to understand that middle-class Americans view values and culture as more important than mere trickery,” said Paul Begala, a Clinton backer. “Democrats have to respect their values and reflect their values, not condescend to them as if they were children who’ve been bamboozled.”
10. The timing is terrible. With the Pennsylvania primary nine days off, late-deciding voters are starting to tune in. Obama and Clinton are scheduled to appear separately on CNN on Sunday for a forum on, of all topics, faith and values. And ABC News is staging a Clinton-Obama debate in Philadelphia on Wednesday. So Clinton has the maximum opportunity to keep a spotlight on the issue. Besides sex, little drives the news and opinion industry more than race, religion, culture and class. So as far as chances the chattering-class will perpetuate the issue, Obama has hit the jackpot.
11. The story did not have its roots in right-wing or conservative circles. It was published — and aggressively promoted — by The Huffington Post, a liberally oriented organization that was Obama’s outlet of choice when he wanted to release a personal statement distancing himself from some comments by the Rev. Wright.
12. It undermines Democratic congressional candidates who had thought that Obama would make a stronger top for the ticket than Clinton. Already, Republican House candidates are challenging their Democratic opponents to renounce or embrace Obama’s remarks. Ken Spain, press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said: “There is a myth being perpetuated by Democrats and even some in the media that an Obama candidacy would somehow be better for their chances down ballot. But we don’t believe that is the case.”
Politico's Jonathan Martin, Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris contributed to this story.
A Clinton comeback was looking far-fetched. But operatives in both parties were buzzing about that possibility Saturday following the revelation that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told wealthy San Franciscans that small-town Pennsylvanians and Midwesterners “cling to guns or religion” because they are “bitter” about their economic status.
Obama at first dug in on that contention Friday after audio of the private fundraiser was posted by The Huffington Post. Altering course, on Saturday in Muncie, Ind., he conceded that he “didn’t say it as well as I should have.” And he told the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal that “obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that. ... The underlying truth of what I said remains, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so."
Here is what he said April 6, referring to people living in areas hit by job losses: “[I]t’s not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
The Obama campaign contends that coverage of the San Francisco remarks is overheated and distorted. One aide said that “any logical analysis” would make it obvious that the brouhaha will not “change the pledged delegate count” — the key to the Democratic presidential nomination.
In fact, this is a potential turning point for Obama’s campaign — an episode that could be even more damaging than the attention to remarks by his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, since this time the controversial words came out of his own mouth.
Here are a dozen reasons why:
1. It lets Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) off the mat at a time when even some of her top supporters had begun to despair about her prospects. Clinton hit back hard on the campaign trail Saturday. And her campaign held a conference call where former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Pittsburgh native, described Obama’s remarks as “condescending and disappointing” and “undercutting his message of hope.”
2. If you are going to say something that makes you sound like a clueless liberal, don’t say it in San Francisco. Obama’s views might have been received very differently if he had expressed them in public to Pennsylvania voters, saying he understood and could alleviate their frustrations.
3. Some people actually use guns to hunt — not to compensate for a salary that’s less than a U.S. senator’s.
4. Some people cling to religion not because they are bitter but because they believe it, and because faith in God gives them purpose and comfort.
5. Some hard-working Americans find it insulting when rich elites explain away things dear to their hearts as desperation. It would be like a white politician telling blacks they cling to charismatic churches to compensate for their plight. And it vindicates centrist Democrats who have been arguing for a decade that their party has allowed itself to look culturally out of touch with the American mainstream.
6. It provides a handy excuse for people who were looking for a reason not to vote for Obama but don’t want to think of themselves as bigoted. It hurts Obama especially with the former Reagan Democrats, the culturally conservative, blue-collar workers who could be a promising voter group for him. It also antagonizes people who were concerned about his minister but might have given him the benefit of the doubt after his eloquent speech on race.
7. It gives the Clinton campaign new arguments for trying to recruit superdelegates, the Democratic elected officials and other insiders who get a vote on the nomination. A moderate politician from a swing district, for example, might not want to have to explain support for a candidate who is being hammered as a liberal. And Clinton’s agents can claim that for all the talk of her being divisive, Obama has provided plenty of fodder to energize Republicans.
8. It helps Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) frame a potential race against Obama, even though both of them have found support among independents. Now Republicans have a simple, easily repeated line of attack to use against Obama as an out-of-touch snob, as they had with Sen. John F. Kerry after he blundered by commenting about military funding, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
9. The comments play directly into an already-established narrative about his candidacy. Clinton supporters have been arguing that Obama has limited appeal beyond upscale Democrats — the so-called latte liberals. You can’t win red states if people there don’t like you. “Elites need to understand that middle-class Americans view values and culture as more important than mere trickery,” said Paul Begala, a Clinton backer. “Democrats have to respect their values and reflect their values, not condescend to them as if they were children who’ve been bamboozled.”
10. The timing is terrible. With the Pennsylvania primary nine days off, late-deciding voters are starting to tune in. Obama and Clinton are scheduled to appear separately on CNN on Sunday for a forum on, of all topics, faith and values. And ABC News is staging a Clinton-Obama debate in Philadelphia on Wednesday. So Clinton has the maximum opportunity to keep a spotlight on the issue. Besides sex, little drives the news and opinion industry more than race, religion, culture and class. So as far as chances the chattering-class will perpetuate the issue, Obama has hit the jackpot.
11. The story did not have its roots in right-wing or conservative circles. It was published — and aggressively promoted — by The Huffington Post, a liberally oriented organization that was Obama’s outlet of choice when he wanted to release a personal statement distancing himself from some comments by the Rev. Wright.
12. It undermines Democratic congressional candidates who had thought that Obama would make a stronger top for the ticket than Clinton. Already, Republican House candidates are challenging their Democratic opponents to renounce or embrace Obama’s remarks. Ken Spain, press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said: “There is a myth being perpetuated by Democrats and even some in the media that an Obama candidacy would somehow be better for their chances down ballot. But we don’t believe that is the case.”
Politico's Jonathan Martin, Jim VandeHei and John F. Harris contributed to this story.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Lock and Load
Barack and Load
By Robert VerBruggen
Published 4/8/2008 12:08:52 AM
Much has been made of Barack Obama's audacious embrace of Second Amendment rights for rural Pennsylvanians. Since entering the national scene, the Illinois senator has kept mum about his undeniably anti-gun voting record. Now he's actively courting firearm-rights supporters.
According to the Politico Obama is "highlighting his background in constitutional law," "downplaying his voting record," and assembling a set of pro-gun Democrats' endorsements. He's even sent an e-mail to a sportsmen's group asking for their support.
There are several overlapping phenomena at work here, none of which should encourage -- or really surprise -- supporters of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
One, he's not courting pro-gun voters per se but pro-gun Democratic primary voters, a demographic that will likely recede to insignificance before the general election. Two, even if these voters aren't convinced just yet, this outreach can garner endorsements from figures the demographic does trust. Three, Obama's efforts are a change in tone, not direction, from his life of anti-gun advocacy. This is politics as usual.
The briefest glance at the road ahead reveals why Obama and Clinton have become gun-totin', NAFTA-hatin' small-town folks of late. The two are (red)neck-and-neck in the delegate count. While the superdelegates could turn down the voters' pick, the two remain locked in a fierce competition for every last ballot.
The states that haven't voted yet? Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. Plus Guam and Puerto Rico, for what they're worth.
It's not hard to see why a battle rages for the working-class white vote, and how a little gun love could pay off in the months ahead. Come November, though, Obama will need to focus on independents and disgruntled Republicans, which will require dropping the gun issue or at least presenting it through a whole new prism of deception.
After all, it's easier to run to Hillary's right than John McCain's -- on guns, at least.
IN THE SHORT TERM, will pro-gun Democrats fall for the ruse? Quite possibly. In a race with virtually no political differences between the candidates, voters have to use whatever criteria they can drum up.
Mild gestures toward a voter's values can serve as a place to hang one's hat, as can endorsements from trusted figures. Obama already has the support of Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr. and state representative Dan Surra -- pro-gun Democrats both.
And mild gestures these are. A serious effort to court the general pro-gun vote would require some outright flip-flops from Obama -- who, in the Politico's summary, "long backed gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. He has declined to take a stance on the legality of the handgun prohibition in Washington, D.C., which the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing..."
Obama can refuse to "take a stance" on the DC ban all he wants, but he had to choose sides regarding Illinois senate bill 2165, which related to similar laws in his home state. The legislation came about in response to the case of Hale DeMar, who shot a home invader, only to find himself with a $750 fine from the Village of Wilmette for owning a handgun.
The bill allowed self-defense as a legal defense against local firearms charges. Obama voted against it. In 1996 he (or maybe "a campaign aide") also indicated on an interest-group survey that he supports handgun bans. Obama has yet to change his mind about any of this publicly, or even in e-mails to sportsmen's groups.
The bottom line is that if Obama manages to dupe anyone, he'll simply take votes from another anti-gun candidate in a primary between two anti-gun candidates. Only as November approaches are non-Democrat Second Amendment supporters likely pay any attention, because only the Republican candidate has made any serious effort to earn their votes.
Unsolicited advice for Second Amendment supporting Democrats in states that have yet to hold primaries: Don't let him fool you. Flip a coin.
By Robert VerBruggen
Published 4/8/2008 12:08:52 AM
Much has been made of Barack Obama's audacious embrace of Second Amendment rights for rural Pennsylvanians. Since entering the national scene, the Illinois senator has kept mum about his undeniably anti-gun voting record. Now he's actively courting firearm-rights supporters.
According to the Politico Obama is "highlighting his background in constitutional law," "downplaying his voting record," and assembling a set of pro-gun Democrats' endorsements. He's even sent an e-mail to a sportsmen's group asking for their support.
There are several overlapping phenomena at work here, none of which should encourage -- or really surprise -- supporters of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
One, he's not courting pro-gun voters per se but pro-gun Democratic primary voters, a demographic that will likely recede to insignificance before the general election. Two, even if these voters aren't convinced just yet, this outreach can garner endorsements from figures the demographic does trust. Three, Obama's efforts are a change in tone, not direction, from his life of anti-gun advocacy. This is politics as usual.
The briefest glance at the road ahead reveals why Obama and Clinton have become gun-totin', NAFTA-hatin' small-town folks of late. The two are (red)neck-and-neck in the delegate count. While the superdelegates could turn down the voters' pick, the two remain locked in a fierce competition for every last ballot.
The states that haven't voted yet? Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota. Plus Guam and Puerto Rico, for what they're worth.
It's not hard to see why a battle rages for the working-class white vote, and how a little gun love could pay off in the months ahead. Come November, though, Obama will need to focus on independents and disgruntled Republicans, which will require dropping the gun issue or at least presenting it through a whole new prism of deception.
After all, it's easier to run to Hillary's right than John McCain's -- on guns, at least.
IN THE SHORT TERM, will pro-gun Democrats fall for the ruse? Quite possibly. In a race with virtually no political differences between the candidates, voters have to use whatever criteria they can drum up.
Mild gestures toward a voter's values can serve as a place to hang one's hat, as can endorsements from trusted figures. Obama already has the support of Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr. and state representative Dan Surra -- pro-gun Democrats both.
And mild gestures these are. A serious effort to court the general pro-gun vote would require some outright flip-flops from Obama -- who, in the Politico's summary, "long backed gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. He has declined to take a stance on the legality of the handgun prohibition in Washington, D.C., which the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing..."
Obama can refuse to "take a stance" on the DC ban all he wants, but he had to choose sides regarding Illinois senate bill 2165, which related to similar laws in his home state. The legislation came about in response to the case of Hale DeMar, who shot a home invader, only to find himself with a $750 fine from the Village of Wilmette for owning a handgun.
The bill allowed self-defense as a legal defense against local firearms charges. Obama voted against it. In 1996 he (or maybe "a campaign aide") also indicated on an interest-group survey that he supports handgun bans. Obama has yet to change his mind about any of this publicly, or even in e-mails to sportsmen's groups.
The bottom line is that if Obama manages to dupe anyone, he'll simply take votes from another anti-gun candidate in a primary between two anti-gun candidates. Only as November approaches are non-Democrat Second Amendment supporters likely pay any attention, because only the Republican candidate has made any serious effort to earn their votes.
Unsolicited advice for Second Amendment supporting Democrats in states that have yet to hold primaries: Don't let him fool you. Flip a coin.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Obama's Pandering
Is this more pandering by Obama and the Democrats or does he really believe the stuff he says? (Tim)
Obama tries to pump up Pennsylvania
Fortune writer-reporter Jia Lynn Yang writes:
Barack Obama may not pump gas for his own motorcade. But he wants Pennsylvania to know that he too has noticed the rising prices.
“We are paying record prices,” Obama told a capacity crowd at the Dunmore Community Center Gymansium in Scranton last week. “I don’t have to tell you: $3.50 a gallon?” The crowd starts shouting back numbers: “$3.25! $3.55!” until the whole gym sounds like a cattle auction.
Obama stands in the middle listening, allowing the crowd to vent. He pauses. “A lot,” he says, to laughs. “Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil (XOM) made $11 billion last quarter.” Cue loud booing.
Throughout Pennsylvania, especially in economically depressed former mining towns such as Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, Obama has been sounding some John Edwards-like notes about the contrast between Americans who work hard and struggle to pay for gas, and the corporate titans who make millions in bonuses.
It’s a traditional message for Democrats - Hillary Clinton’s been using it for months - but Obama’s ratcheted up the volume lately, in part because of his audience. He has to connect withworking-class voters in order to beat Clinton, not just in the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania but in Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana, Oregon, and South Dakota, all states that are coming up between now and June 3. (Maybe not so much in Guam.)
So Obama has begun to weave lines like, “A CEO makes more money in 10 minutes than a worker makes in a whole year” into his stump speech. And Countrywide Financial Corp. (CFC) usually gets a mention too for awarding its CEO and president $19 million in bonuses after the mortgage lender’s sale to Bank of America.
Is the extra populist juice working? The latest polls in Pennsylvania, where Obama spent much of last week, show some gains. Quinnipiac shows Obama getting closer but still 9 points behind Clinton. Public Policy Polling has Obama creeping ahead of Clinton, though only by 2 points. Other polls have yet to come out corroborating his new lead.
As for what Obama will do exactly about gas prices, he does go out of his way to say that as president he won’t wave a magic wand that will instantly lower the cost. At a press conference staged at a gas station in Manheim, Pa., last week, he promised a three-pronged approach.
In the long term, Obama favors investing in fuel-efficient car technology and developing more alternative energy sources like cellulosic ethanol. In the short term, he wants to cut to the payroll tax for the working class, which he says will translate into $1,000 back per family.
And Exxon? You’ve been warned. Says Obama: “I think we can look at going after windfall profits in a serious way.”
Obama tries to pump up Pennsylvania
Fortune writer-reporter Jia Lynn Yang writes:
Barack Obama may not pump gas for his own motorcade. But he wants Pennsylvania to know that he too has noticed the rising prices.
“We are paying record prices,” Obama told a capacity crowd at the Dunmore Community Center Gymansium in Scranton last week. “I don’t have to tell you: $3.50 a gallon?” The crowd starts shouting back numbers: “$3.25! $3.55!” until the whole gym sounds like a cattle auction.
Obama stands in the middle listening, allowing the crowd to vent. He pauses. “A lot,” he says, to laughs. “Meanwhile, Exxon Mobil (XOM) made $11 billion last quarter.” Cue loud booing.
Throughout Pennsylvania, especially in economically depressed former mining towns such as Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, Obama has been sounding some John Edwards-like notes about the contrast between Americans who work hard and struggle to pay for gas, and the corporate titans who make millions in bonuses.
It’s a traditional message for Democrats - Hillary Clinton’s been using it for months - but Obama’s ratcheted up the volume lately, in part because of his audience. He has to connect withworking-class voters in order to beat Clinton, not just in the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania but in Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana, Oregon, and South Dakota, all states that are coming up between now and June 3. (Maybe not so much in Guam.)
So Obama has begun to weave lines like, “A CEO makes more money in 10 minutes than a worker makes in a whole year” into his stump speech. And Countrywide Financial Corp. (CFC) usually gets a mention too for awarding its CEO and president $19 million in bonuses after the mortgage lender’s sale to Bank of America.
Is the extra populist juice working? The latest polls in Pennsylvania, where Obama spent much of last week, show some gains. Quinnipiac shows Obama getting closer but still 9 points behind Clinton. Public Policy Polling has Obama creeping ahead of Clinton, though only by 2 points. Other polls have yet to come out corroborating his new lead.
As for what Obama will do exactly about gas prices, he does go out of his way to say that as president he won’t wave a magic wand that will instantly lower the cost. At a press conference staged at a gas station in Manheim, Pa., last week, he promised a three-pronged approach.
In the long term, Obama favors investing in fuel-efficient car technology and developing more alternative energy sources like cellulosic ethanol. In the short term, he wants to cut to the payroll tax for the working class, which he says will translate into $1,000 back per family.
And Exxon? You’ve been warned. Says Obama: “I think we can look at going after windfall profits in a serious way.”
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Obama, Obama, Where Art Thou Obama?
Barack Obama Is Just Another Liberal
by Amanda B. Carpenter
As Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) gathers increasing attention as a potential rival to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, remarkably little attention has been paid to his record, which reveals him to be at least as liberal as Hillary.While Obama has a knack for portraying himself as an even-handed politician, who is inspired by traditional religious values, he has earned 100% ratings from Americans for Democratic Action, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Organization of Women, the NAACP and the NEA.
To drum up support for his Senate bid in 2004, Obama wrote a letter to the Windy City Times, a publication targeted to Chicago’s gay community. “I opposed DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996. It should be repealed, and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor,” he vowed. “I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying” (see page 3).Obama told the paper that constitutional marriage amendment proposals were merely “an effort to demonize people for political advantage.” At the same time, he pledged to work to “expand adoption rights” for same-sex couples.In 2006, he followed through by voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment. “Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said, as he voted against defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Obama has similarly hedged his pro-choice rhetoric, while consistently supporting the pro-choice cause. As a state senator in Illinois he twice voted “present” on an Illinois ban on partial-birth abortion and was “absent” on a third vote. In 2001, he voted “present” on a parental notification bill for minors and in 2002 he voted against a bill to protect babies that survived failed abortions. In his 2004 race Senate, Obama accepted $41,750 in campaign contributions from pro-choice interest groups.
As an Illinois state legislator, Obama also supported raising taxes on insurance premiums and on casino patrons, retaining the state death tax and levying a new tax on businesses. He voted against a bill that would add penalties for crimes committed as a part of gang activity and against a bill that would make it a criminal offense for accused gang members, free on bond or probation, to associate with other gang members. In 1999, he was the only state senator to oppose a bill that prohibited early prison release for criminal sexual offenders. In 2001, he voted “present” on a measure to keep pornographic books and video stores 1,000 feet away from schools and churches, and in 1999, he voted against a requirement to make schools filter internet pornography from school computers.
Obama's is just a radical liberal in sheep's (moderate) clothing. (Tim)
by Amanda B. Carpenter
As Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) gathers increasing attention as a potential rival to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, remarkably little attention has been paid to his record, which reveals him to be at least as liberal as Hillary.While Obama has a knack for portraying himself as an even-handed politician, who is inspired by traditional religious values, he has earned 100% ratings from Americans for Democratic Action, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Organization of Women, the NAACP and the NEA.
To drum up support for his Senate bid in 2004, Obama wrote a letter to the Windy City Times, a publication targeted to Chicago’s gay community. “I opposed DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996. It should be repealed, and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor,” he vowed. “I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying” (see page 3).Obama told the paper that constitutional marriage amendment proposals were merely “an effort to demonize people for political advantage.” At the same time, he pledged to work to “expand adoption rights” for same-sex couples.In 2006, he followed through by voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment. “Personally, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman,” he said, as he voted against defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Obama has similarly hedged his pro-choice rhetoric, while consistently supporting the pro-choice cause. As a state senator in Illinois he twice voted “present” on an Illinois ban on partial-birth abortion and was “absent” on a third vote. In 2001, he voted “present” on a parental notification bill for minors and in 2002 he voted against a bill to protect babies that survived failed abortions. In his 2004 race Senate, Obama accepted $41,750 in campaign contributions from pro-choice interest groups.
As an Illinois state legislator, Obama also supported raising taxes on insurance premiums and on casino patrons, retaining the state death tax and levying a new tax on businesses. He voted against a bill that would add penalties for crimes committed as a part of gang activity and against a bill that would make it a criminal offense for accused gang members, free on bond or probation, to associate with other gang members. In 1999, he was the only state senator to oppose a bill that prohibited early prison release for criminal sexual offenders. In 2001, he voted “present” on a measure to keep pornographic books and video stores 1,000 feet away from schools and churches, and in 1999, he voted against a requirement to make schools filter internet pornography from school computers.
Obama's is just a radical liberal in sheep's (moderate) clothing. (Tim)
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Jeremiah Wright's Heaven On Earth Home
By Jeff Goldblatt
This was supposed to be the week that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. returned to the pulpit to preach for the first time since his anti-American sermons generated nationwide outrage and drew condemnation from his longtime parishioner, Barack Obama.
But, citing security concerns, Wright canceled his speaking engagements in Florida and Texas. A spokeswoman at his former church in Chicago said his schedule is pending.
A two-week FOX News investigation, however, has uncovered where Wright will be spending a good deal of his time in retirement, and it is a far cry from the impoverished Chicago streets where the preacher led his ministry for 36 years.
FOX News has uncovered documents that indicate Wright is about to move to a 10,340-square-foot, four-bedroom home in suburban Chicago, currently under construction in a gated community.
While it is not uncommon for an accomplished clergyman to live in luxury, Wright’s retirement residence is raising some questions.
“Some people think deals like this are hypocritical. Jeremiah Wright himself criticizes people from the pulpit for middle classism, for too much materialism,” said Andrew Walsh, Associate Director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life with Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.
“So he’s entitled to be tweaked here. So the question really is, how unusual is this? Somewhat unusual,” he said.
According to documents obtained from the Cook County Register of Deeds, Wright purchased two empty lots in Tinley Park, Ill., from Chicago restaurant chain owner Kenny Lewis for $345,000 in 2004.
Documents show Wright sold the property to his church, Trinity United, in December 2006, with the proceeds going to a living trust shared with his wife, Ramah.
The sale price for the land was just under $308,000, about $40,000 less than Wright’s original purchase two years earlier.
Public records of the sale show Trinity initially obtained a $10 million bank loan to purchase the property and build a new house on the land.
But further investigation with tax and real estate attorneys showed that the church had actually secured a $1.6 million mortgage for the home purchase, and attached a $10 million line of credit, for reasons unspecified in the paperwork.
There is apparently nothing wrong with that, according to non-profit tax expert Jack Siegel of Charity Governance Consulting, who examined public documents FOX News obtained from the Cook County Register of Deeds and the Village of Tinley Park.
“At least looking at it from a public document standpoint, there’s clearly not a problem that jumps out or some sort of wrongdoing,” Siegel said.
Siegel characterizes the transaction as unusual, however, because of the way Wright sold the property to Trinity and the way the deal was financed, with the attached $10 million line of credit.
Because churches are classified as private businesses, Trinity isn’t required to reveal its intended use for the line of credit. Nor, because it’s a non-profit entity, is it required to provide that information to the IRS.
A spokesman for ShoreBank, the Chicago-based financial institution that secured mortgages for the loans, said the deals were aboveboard.
Wright did not respond to repeated calls for comment, and Trinity United refused to discuss the specifics of the home it is building for him and the way the deal was financed.
The church referred FOX News to its denominational headquarters in Cleveland, which provided a statement of support:
“It is customary and appropriate in many Christian denominations, including the United Church of Christ, for local churches to offer housing provisions for retiring clergy, especially in cases where pastors have served long-term pastorates. We support efforts by our 5,700 local churches to ensure that retiring pastors and spouses have continuing housing, adequate pension and health care, as an expression of our continuing appreciation for their years of service. Each local UCC congregation is free to honor a retiring pastor in ways it feels most appropriate to address the needs of that clergyperson’s circumstances,” wrote the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, spokesman for UCC’s national office.
“This is about how these kinds of churches work,” notes Walsh. “These pastors who made big successful churches are real valuable commodities. Is it morally wrong? Well, Protestants don’t have the idea that their religious leaders should live modestly or aesthetically. We’re not talking Buddhist monks or Catholic priests here. There’s no tradition that says they have to live poor.”
Tradition at Trinity United centers on a congregation that’s unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian, according to the church’s website. There are also no apologies from the church for the home it’s building for its former senior pastor, who nurtured a religious empire that grew to have more than 8,000 congregants.
I don't care if my pastor was the next coming of Billy Graham, no way, no how would I ever approve of a $1.6m retirement home. I wonder what his pension and allowance is? A church should pay a pastor a salary that would enable him or her to retire into a decent home but surely $1.6m is going overboard. Once again Barack Obama and other parishioners should quit or hold the board accountable for this decision - Tim.
This was supposed to be the week that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. returned to the pulpit to preach for the first time since his anti-American sermons generated nationwide outrage and drew condemnation from his longtime parishioner, Barack Obama.
But, citing security concerns, Wright canceled his speaking engagements in Florida and Texas. A spokeswoman at his former church in Chicago said his schedule is pending.
A two-week FOX News investigation, however, has uncovered where Wright will be spending a good deal of his time in retirement, and it is a far cry from the impoverished Chicago streets where the preacher led his ministry for 36 years.
FOX News has uncovered documents that indicate Wright is about to move to a 10,340-square-foot, four-bedroom home in suburban Chicago, currently under construction in a gated community.
While it is not uncommon for an accomplished clergyman to live in luxury, Wright’s retirement residence is raising some questions.
“Some people think deals like this are hypocritical. Jeremiah Wright himself criticizes people from the pulpit for middle classism, for too much materialism,” said Andrew Walsh, Associate Director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life with Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.
“So he’s entitled to be tweaked here. So the question really is, how unusual is this? Somewhat unusual,” he said.
According to documents obtained from the Cook County Register of Deeds, Wright purchased two empty lots in Tinley Park, Ill., from Chicago restaurant chain owner Kenny Lewis for $345,000 in 2004.
Documents show Wright sold the property to his church, Trinity United, in December 2006, with the proceeds going to a living trust shared with his wife, Ramah.
The sale price for the land was just under $308,000, about $40,000 less than Wright’s original purchase two years earlier.
Public records of the sale show Trinity initially obtained a $10 million bank loan to purchase the property and build a new house on the land.
But further investigation with tax and real estate attorneys showed that the church had actually secured a $1.6 million mortgage for the home purchase, and attached a $10 million line of credit, for reasons unspecified in the paperwork.
There is apparently nothing wrong with that, according to non-profit tax expert Jack Siegel of Charity Governance Consulting, who examined public documents FOX News obtained from the Cook County Register of Deeds and the Village of Tinley Park.
“At least looking at it from a public document standpoint, there’s clearly not a problem that jumps out or some sort of wrongdoing,” Siegel said.
Siegel characterizes the transaction as unusual, however, because of the way Wright sold the property to Trinity and the way the deal was financed, with the attached $10 million line of credit.
Because churches are classified as private businesses, Trinity isn’t required to reveal its intended use for the line of credit. Nor, because it’s a non-profit entity, is it required to provide that information to the IRS.
A spokesman for ShoreBank, the Chicago-based financial institution that secured mortgages for the loans, said the deals were aboveboard.
Wright did not respond to repeated calls for comment, and Trinity United refused to discuss the specifics of the home it is building for him and the way the deal was financed.
The church referred FOX News to its denominational headquarters in Cleveland, which provided a statement of support:
“It is customary and appropriate in many Christian denominations, including the United Church of Christ, for local churches to offer housing provisions for retiring clergy, especially in cases where pastors have served long-term pastorates. We support efforts by our 5,700 local churches to ensure that retiring pastors and spouses have continuing housing, adequate pension and health care, as an expression of our continuing appreciation for their years of service. Each local UCC congregation is free to honor a retiring pastor in ways it feels most appropriate to address the needs of that clergyperson’s circumstances,” wrote the Rev. J. Bennett Guess, spokesman for UCC’s national office.
“This is about how these kinds of churches work,” notes Walsh. “These pastors who made big successful churches are real valuable commodities. Is it morally wrong? Well, Protestants don’t have the idea that their religious leaders should live modestly or aesthetically. We’re not talking Buddhist monks or Catholic priests here. There’s no tradition that says they have to live poor.”
Tradition at Trinity United centers on a congregation that’s unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian, according to the church’s website. There are also no apologies from the church for the home it’s building for its former senior pastor, who nurtured a religious empire that grew to have more than 8,000 congregants.
I don't care if my pastor was the next coming of Billy Graham, no way, no how would I ever approve of a $1.6m retirement home. I wonder what his pension and allowance is? A church should pay a pastor a salary that would enable him or her to retire into a decent home but surely $1.6m is going overboard. Once again Barack Obama and other parishioners should quit or hold the board accountable for this decision - Tim.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Jeremiah Wright's Earthly Mansion
Wright Moves On Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, March 31, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Barack Obama had hoped the retirement of his fire-breathing pastor would put the controversy to rest. But the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is retiring in luxury — with all the trappings of the white "middleclassness" he warns his flock to avoid.
Wright is forsaking South Side Chicago and the black ghetto for a gated golf club community in Tinley Park, an affluent suburb. The area has seen a boom in growth from mostly non-Hispanic whites buying upscale homes in new subdivisions like Wright's adopted Odyssey Club neighborhood, which boasts some of Tinley Park's largest homes and a mix of townhomes. It adjoins the Odyssey Country Club and golf course.
"It's really suburban sprawl," said Michael Mertens, Tinley Park's economic development director. "It's a lot of people wanting their own homes and more space."
Nothing wrong with that; it's the American dream. Except that Wright has condemned that dream (along with America) in sermons he's delivered to the 8,000 mostly black congregants of Trinity United Church of Christ. He says it's all part of a white conspiracy to get blacks hooked on middle-class materialism and separate them from the inner-city and their African roots.
He also preaches the gospel of "Black Liberation Theology," a false Christian doctrine promulgated by Marxist-leaning black writers of the 1960s that espouses "economic parity" and other collectivist claptrap.
The concept of practicing what you preach is apparently lost on Wright.
After decades of lecturing blacks to remain loyal to the black ghetto and eschew the white suburbs, he's now building a 10,340-square-foot mansion in the white suburbs. Among its amenities: an elevator, a rubberized exercise room and room for a future theater and indoor swimming pool.
Wright has made a lucrative career of convincing other blacks they can't succeed on their own. For decades, he's collected their alms in exchange for a steady diet of bitterness and resentment.
Shouting "God damn America" for its treatment of blacks, Wright got his parishioners hooked on misplaced anger in the South Side so he could cash out in Tinley Park.
Perhaps this is "sharing in the prosperity," as Obama has so eloquently rephrased redistribution of income. Funny how those who demand economic parity end up taking the biggest share.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, March 31, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Barack Obama had hoped the retirement of his fire-breathing pastor would put the controversy to rest. But the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is retiring in luxury — with all the trappings of the white "middleclassness" he warns his flock to avoid.
Wright is forsaking South Side Chicago and the black ghetto for a gated golf club community in Tinley Park, an affluent suburb. The area has seen a boom in growth from mostly non-Hispanic whites buying upscale homes in new subdivisions like Wright's adopted Odyssey Club neighborhood, which boasts some of Tinley Park's largest homes and a mix of townhomes. It adjoins the Odyssey Country Club and golf course.
"It's really suburban sprawl," said Michael Mertens, Tinley Park's economic development director. "It's a lot of people wanting their own homes and more space."
Nothing wrong with that; it's the American dream. Except that Wright has condemned that dream (along with America) in sermons he's delivered to the 8,000 mostly black congregants of Trinity United Church of Christ. He says it's all part of a white conspiracy to get blacks hooked on middle-class materialism and separate them from the inner-city and their African roots.
He also preaches the gospel of "Black Liberation Theology," a false Christian doctrine promulgated by Marxist-leaning black writers of the 1960s that espouses "economic parity" and other collectivist claptrap.
The concept of practicing what you preach is apparently lost on Wright.
After decades of lecturing blacks to remain loyal to the black ghetto and eschew the white suburbs, he's now building a 10,340-square-foot mansion in the white suburbs. Among its amenities: an elevator, a rubberized exercise room and room for a future theater and indoor swimming pool.
Wright has made a lucrative career of convincing other blacks they can't succeed on their own. For decades, he's collected their alms in exchange for a steady diet of bitterness and resentment.
Shouting "God damn America" for its treatment of blacks, Wright got his parishioners hooked on misplaced anger in the South Side so he could cash out in Tinley Park.
Perhaps this is "sharing in the prosperity," as Obama has so eloquently rephrased redistribution of income. Funny how those who demand economic parity end up taking the biggest share.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Obama's Credibility At Issue
From Dick Polman - Philadelphia Inquirer
Millions of Americans, and certainly the media commentariat, were bedazzled by Barack Obama's eloquent and gutsy plea for racial reconciliation. Forty-eight hours later, however, it's time to return to the nuts and bolts world of practical politics - as distasteful as this exercise may be - and ask whether his speech has erased the questions voters might have concerning his relationship with the Rev. Jerimiah Wright. Is he in the clear, or not?
Not. Ideally, from Obama's perspective, his speech would be read in its entirety by one and all, thereby magically transforming our civic dialogue and human nature itself. Americans of all racial and ideological persuasions would suddenly rise above their basest petty suspicions and march together on the high road. Our politicians would travel that path as well, aiming their messages at the intellect, not the gut. But here in the real world, where the 17th-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes once ruminated about the "nasty, brutish" nature of our species; a world where journalists are expected to probe rather than swoon; a world where many voters will always be guided by their visceral instincts, certain nagging questions about the Obama-Wright connection still remain:
1. Why did Obama wait until his speech to admit that, yes, he had indeed heard Wright utter incendiary remarks during church sermons - after previously claiming that he had not heard anything of the sort? Why is he now characterizing certain Wright remarks as inflammatory and even ignorant, whereas, in Ohio earlier this month, he said that "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial"? These questions go to the issue of credibility.
2. What specific incendiary remarks did he personally listen to, and did he ever make it clear to Wright or other church leaders that those remarks were inappropriate or worse? What provocative comments, uttered when he was not in attendance, did he nevertheless learn about, and did he lodge any private protests against them? As an influential Illinois political leader, did he ever share any concerns with fellow congregants?
These questions go to the issues of character, judgment, and leadership. Obama did explain, at some length in his speech the other day, that Wright's rhetorical excesses should be viewed in a broader context, as the bitter utterances of an African American who grew to manhood at a time when whites were systematically relegating blacks to second-class status. It was a worthy argument. However, a lot of white working-class voters will not embrace that argument; fairly or not, a lot of them don't want to hear anymore about how blacks were suppressed in the past.
Obama's argument may play well with highly-educated white liberals in the Philadelphia suburbs - but not with lunch-bucket whites in northeast Philadelphia and in the downtrodden towns that are the swing battlegrounds in the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. That's just reality. His full speech text was an appeal to the intellect, but the short-hand version of this affair packs a visceral punch. Some voters will simply reduce it all to a few sentences:
Why didn't Obama, upon hearing something vile or hateful, simply get up and walk out? How could Obama stick by a reverend who stands in the pulpit and says "God damn America?"(Dick Morris, the ex-Clinton pollster, suggested the other day that Obama stuck with Wright for old fashioned earthbound political reasons: "Because he's a black Chicago politician who comes from a mixed marriage and went to Columbia and Harvard. Suspected of not being black enough or sufficiently tied to the minority community, he needed the networking opportunities Wright afforded him in his church to get elected. If he had not risen to the top of Chicago black politics, we would never have heard of him. But obviously, he can't say that.") Anyway, I suspect that these questions will also be a concern for many Jewish voters, particularly those who are strong supporters of Israel and who are now aware that Wright once accused Israel of practicing "state terrorism against the Palestianians." Jewish voters may not be particularly numerous - just three or four percent of the national electorate - but they are highly concentrated in the big electoral states, and they are loyal Democratic donors. They will also vote heavily in Philadelphia and its suburbs on April 22 - the region where Obama needs overwhelming support. Obviously, they're not all obsessed with Israel. My point is that, if Obama has any hopes of winning Pennsylvania, or blunting Hillary Clinton's victory margin, he can ill afford any erosion in the populous southeastern corner of the state. And it's worth noting that, according to the exit polls thus far, Clinton has bested Obama among Jewish voters, 52 to 46 percent.
William Galston, a longtime Democratic activist/scholar who likes Obama, nevertheless addressed Jewish concerns in an online commentary the other day: "I attend a small synagogue in Washington D.C. When my rabbi says something controversial, the entire congregation quickly learns about it. Members who are offended do not remain silent. They often reprove him. Some threaten to leave unless he apologizes and changes course. A few have left to join other congregations...Successful leaders must know when to draw lines and say no. They must accept that, as they do so, they will leave some people out and make enemies...I do not believe Senator Obama yet understands how questionable (his refusal to reject Wright) appears to many Americans..."All told, Galston wrote, these nagging concerns "present a window on his character and help us judge what kind of president he would be." And the problem for Obama is that there are few other windows available. He is so new to the national scene, and still such a blank slate to so many low-information voters, that an issue this visceral becomes all the more magnified. His words on Tuesday were magnificient, but one speech can't remake the world.
Millions of Americans, and certainly the media commentariat, were bedazzled by Barack Obama's eloquent and gutsy plea for racial reconciliation. Forty-eight hours later, however, it's time to return to the nuts and bolts world of practical politics - as distasteful as this exercise may be - and ask whether his speech has erased the questions voters might have concerning his relationship with the Rev. Jerimiah Wright. Is he in the clear, or not?
Not. Ideally, from Obama's perspective, his speech would be read in its entirety by one and all, thereby magically transforming our civic dialogue and human nature itself. Americans of all racial and ideological persuasions would suddenly rise above their basest petty suspicions and march together on the high road. Our politicians would travel that path as well, aiming their messages at the intellect, not the gut. But here in the real world, where the 17th-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes once ruminated about the "nasty, brutish" nature of our species; a world where journalists are expected to probe rather than swoon; a world where many voters will always be guided by their visceral instincts, certain nagging questions about the Obama-Wright connection still remain:
1. Why did Obama wait until his speech to admit that, yes, he had indeed heard Wright utter incendiary remarks during church sermons - after previously claiming that he had not heard anything of the sort? Why is he now characterizing certain Wright remarks as inflammatory and even ignorant, whereas, in Ohio earlier this month, he said that "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial"? These questions go to the issue of credibility.
2. What specific incendiary remarks did he personally listen to, and did he ever make it clear to Wright or other church leaders that those remarks were inappropriate or worse? What provocative comments, uttered when he was not in attendance, did he nevertheless learn about, and did he lodge any private protests against them? As an influential Illinois political leader, did he ever share any concerns with fellow congregants?
These questions go to the issues of character, judgment, and leadership. Obama did explain, at some length in his speech the other day, that Wright's rhetorical excesses should be viewed in a broader context, as the bitter utterances of an African American who grew to manhood at a time when whites were systematically relegating blacks to second-class status. It was a worthy argument. However, a lot of white working-class voters will not embrace that argument; fairly or not, a lot of them don't want to hear anymore about how blacks were suppressed in the past.
Obama's argument may play well with highly-educated white liberals in the Philadelphia suburbs - but not with lunch-bucket whites in northeast Philadelphia and in the downtrodden towns that are the swing battlegrounds in the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. That's just reality. His full speech text was an appeal to the intellect, but the short-hand version of this affair packs a visceral punch. Some voters will simply reduce it all to a few sentences:
Why didn't Obama, upon hearing something vile or hateful, simply get up and walk out? How could Obama stick by a reverend who stands in the pulpit and says "God damn America?"(Dick Morris, the ex-Clinton pollster, suggested the other day that Obama stuck with Wright for old fashioned earthbound political reasons: "Because he's a black Chicago politician who comes from a mixed marriage and went to Columbia and Harvard. Suspected of not being black enough or sufficiently tied to the minority community, he needed the networking opportunities Wright afforded him in his church to get elected. If he had not risen to the top of Chicago black politics, we would never have heard of him. But obviously, he can't say that.") Anyway, I suspect that these questions will also be a concern for many Jewish voters, particularly those who are strong supporters of Israel and who are now aware that Wright once accused Israel of practicing "state terrorism against the Palestianians." Jewish voters may not be particularly numerous - just three or four percent of the national electorate - but they are highly concentrated in the big electoral states, and they are loyal Democratic donors. They will also vote heavily in Philadelphia and its suburbs on April 22 - the region where Obama needs overwhelming support. Obviously, they're not all obsessed with Israel. My point is that, if Obama has any hopes of winning Pennsylvania, or blunting Hillary Clinton's victory margin, he can ill afford any erosion in the populous southeastern corner of the state. And it's worth noting that, according to the exit polls thus far, Clinton has bested Obama among Jewish voters, 52 to 46 percent.
William Galston, a longtime Democratic activist/scholar who likes Obama, nevertheless addressed Jewish concerns in an online commentary the other day: "I attend a small synagogue in Washington D.C. When my rabbi says something controversial, the entire congregation quickly learns about it. Members who are offended do not remain silent. They often reprove him. Some threaten to leave unless he apologizes and changes course. A few have left to join other congregations...Successful leaders must know when to draw lines and say no. They must accept that, as they do so, they will leave some people out and make enemies...I do not believe Senator Obama yet understands how questionable (his refusal to reject Wright) appears to many Americans..."All told, Galston wrote, these nagging concerns "present a window on his character and help us judge what kind of president he would be." And the problem for Obama is that there are few other windows available. He is so new to the national scene, and still such a blank slate to so many low-information voters, that an issue this visceral becomes all the more magnified. His words on Tuesday were magnificient, but one speech can't remake the world.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Obama's Attempt to Put Race To Bed
March 20, 2008
Is the Race Discussion Over?By Susan Estrich
LOS ANGELES — Did he do it?
That was the question my friend, herself an old friend of Barack and Michelle Obama, asked me in the wake of the Illinois Senator’s powerful and eloquent speech on race this this week.
Did he put the issue of race to rest?
The short answer is no.
The long version is more complicated, like the race question itself, like Barack Obama the candidate. Complicated and sometimes contradictory.
It’s clear, reading the coverage of the speech, that if you were an Obama supporter going in, you were even more convinced coming out.
I know many Obama supporters who were deeply troubled by what they’ve been reading and seeing of the rants of his former pastor. It’s ugly stuff.
The pictures of the pastor and Minister Farrakhan, making nice with people who aren’t, are already showing up, and there will be more. It’s the kind of stuff that you know is out there, but you’d like to think of as being at the fringe, outside the realm of where decent people travel, confined to the margins of the blogosphere instead of the pulpit of a large and powerful Chicago church.
Obama did what he had to do to reassure those folks, the people who started as his supporters and wanted to be reassured that supporting Obama didn’t mean supporting the divisive message of his former pastor.
Don’t ask them if they’d feel the same way about a white candidate who compared his grandmother to a member of the Klu Klux Klan. That’s not how they see it.
What they heard Obama say is that he doesn’t buy the divisive message, that his campaign is not about mining the racial divide but about transcending it, that he isn’t choosing black against white in a zero sum fight for the crumbs of a shrinking pie.
Obama supporters describe themselves as being moved and touched, and their candidate as being brave and nuanced and forthright. They breathed a sigh of relief this week, convinced, more than ever, that America needs Barack Obama to be President.
Talk to Obama critics and you wonder, for a minute, if they heard the same speech. It reminds me of nothing so much as the days of the O.J. Simpson trial, when we – black and white parents, who were sending our children to school together - discovered we simply couldn’t talk about the case, so different was what we saw and heard as to leave all of us shaking our heads in wonder and disbelief that our friends, with whom we agreed on so many things, could see this thing so differently.
What the critics are saying, sometimes out loud but also in quiet whispers, is that they don’t understand how a man who gives speeches about moving past the racial divide would choose a racist minister to be a member of his family, about why, with all the churches in Chicago, Obama not only picked this one but remained true to it, about how he could not have known what others knew, could not have heard what others did.
The critics will tell you that blaming white America for spreading AIDS to blacks is not the same as an elderly white woman admitting that she is afraid of black men, and that there is a difference between standing by the grandmother who raised you and standing by a religious leader who preaches hate.
Even Jesse Jackson admitted a few years ago to the sad truth that he was afraid of young black men. Most young black men don’t commit crime, but a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by the minority who do.
Being afraid of black men is, unfortunately, rational even if it is also racist, in the sense that it involves judging people negatively for no reason other than the color of their skin. Blaming white America for spreading AIDS to the black community is not only racist, but hateful, precisely because it lacks any rational basis.
It’s because he doesn’t want to lose the black vote, one longtime Democrat told me this morning, explaining that Obama’s speech had convinced her to vote for McCain if Hillary Clinton is not the nominee.
Has the candidate who only months ago was being judged by some as “not black enough” become “too black” even for some longtime Democrats, who worry about a double standard that they ascribe to Obama’s unwillingness to risk offending the black voters who have become his most loyal supporters?
Would they abandon him if he denounced his preacher, I wonder out loud. And if they would, is that because such hate is more widespread than we white Americans would like to believe, because the racial divide really is much bigger, and much angrier, than we would ever admit? And is that, ultimately, an argument against Obama, or for him?
I’ve been accused of being a racist more times during this campaign than in all the rest of my political life, combined. I wrote a book supporting Hillary Clinton for President long before Obama got in the race, and count the Clintons as longtime friends.
I have tried, not always perfectly I am sure, to be fair and respectful towards Barack Obama. I have tried to keep my focus on issues and qualifications. You can say I’m wrong – I’m certainly used to saying that - but racist?
I believe that Barack Obama, in running for President, really is trying to transcend the racial divide. He may or may not succeed.
But what his candidacy, particuarly this week, has revealed, yet again, is just how wide and powerful that divide still is, even if this time it is defined more by the candidate that you support than by the color of your skin.
Is the race discussion over? Clearly not. It has just begun.
The more honest everyone can be, the more we can resist calling each other names instead of engaging each other on the merits, the better it will go.
Is the Race Discussion Over?By Susan Estrich
LOS ANGELES — Did he do it?
That was the question my friend, herself an old friend of Barack and Michelle Obama, asked me in the wake of the Illinois Senator’s powerful and eloquent speech on race this this week.
Did he put the issue of race to rest?
The short answer is no.
The long version is more complicated, like the race question itself, like Barack Obama the candidate. Complicated and sometimes contradictory.
It’s clear, reading the coverage of the speech, that if you were an Obama supporter going in, you were even more convinced coming out.
I know many Obama supporters who were deeply troubled by what they’ve been reading and seeing of the rants of his former pastor. It’s ugly stuff.
The pictures of the pastor and Minister Farrakhan, making nice with people who aren’t, are already showing up, and there will be more. It’s the kind of stuff that you know is out there, but you’d like to think of as being at the fringe, outside the realm of where decent people travel, confined to the margins of the blogosphere instead of the pulpit of a large and powerful Chicago church.
Obama did what he had to do to reassure those folks, the people who started as his supporters and wanted to be reassured that supporting Obama didn’t mean supporting the divisive message of his former pastor.
Don’t ask them if they’d feel the same way about a white candidate who compared his grandmother to a member of the Klu Klux Klan. That’s not how they see it.
What they heard Obama say is that he doesn’t buy the divisive message, that his campaign is not about mining the racial divide but about transcending it, that he isn’t choosing black against white in a zero sum fight for the crumbs of a shrinking pie.
Obama supporters describe themselves as being moved and touched, and their candidate as being brave and nuanced and forthright. They breathed a sigh of relief this week, convinced, more than ever, that America needs Barack Obama to be President.
Talk to Obama critics and you wonder, for a minute, if they heard the same speech. It reminds me of nothing so much as the days of the O.J. Simpson trial, when we – black and white parents, who were sending our children to school together - discovered we simply couldn’t talk about the case, so different was what we saw and heard as to leave all of us shaking our heads in wonder and disbelief that our friends, with whom we agreed on so many things, could see this thing so differently.
What the critics are saying, sometimes out loud but also in quiet whispers, is that they don’t understand how a man who gives speeches about moving past the racial divide would choose a racist minister to be a member of his family, about why, with all the churches in Chicago, Obama not only picked this one but remained true to it, about how he could not have known what others knew, could not have heard what others did.
The critics will tell you that blaming white America for spreading AIDS to blacks is not the same as an elderly white woman admitting that she is afraid of black men, and that there is a difference between standing by the grandmother who raised you and standing by a religious leader who preaches hate.
Even Jesse Jackson admitted a few years ago to the sad truth that he was afraid of young black men. Most young black men don’t commit crime, but a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by the minority who do.
Being afraid of black men is, unfortunately, rational even if it is also racist, in the sense that it involves judging people negatively for no reason other than the color of their skin. Blaming white America for spreading AIDS to the black community is not only racist, but hateful, precisely because it lacks any rational basis.
It’s because he doesn’t want to lose the black vote, one longtime Democrat told me this morning, explaining that Obama’s speech had convinced her to vote for McCain if Hillary Clinton is not the nominee.
Has the candidate who only months ago was being judged by some as “not black enough” become “too black” even for some longtime Democrats, who worry about a double standard that they ascribe to Obama’s unwillingness to risk offending the black voters who have become his most loyal supporters?
Would they abandon him if he denounced his preacher, I wonder out loud. And if they would, is that because such hate is more widespread than we white Americans would like to believe, because the racial divide really is much bigger, and much angrier, than we would ever admit? And is that, ultimately, an argument against Obama, or for him?
I’ve been accused of being a racist more times during this campaign than in all the rest of my political life, combined. I wrote a book supporting Hillary Clinton for President long before Obama got in the race, and count the Clintons as longtime friends.
I have tried, not always perfectly I am sure, to be fair and respectful towards Barack Obama. I have tried to keep my focus on issues and qualifications. You can say I’m wrong – I’m certainly used to saying that - but racist?
I believe that Barack Obama, in running for President, really is trying to transcend the racial divide. He may or may not succeed.
But what his candidacy, particuarly this week, has revealed, yet again, is just how wide and powerful that divide still is, even if this time it is defined more by the candidate that you support than by the color of your skin.
Is the race discussion over? Clearly not. It has just begun.
The more honest everyone can be, the more we can resist calling each other names instead of engaging each other on the merits, the better it will go.
Obama On Pastor Wright
The following is an excerpt from Barack Obama's speech on March 18, 2008
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
It was a fine speech but I have a problem with the above comments. My most recent pastor, my pastor of seven years had strong social views which I disagreed with. Those views centered around liberal politics and his liberal, tolerant views on homosexuality. But he never uttered those things from the pulpit. If he had I would have not returned and I know many of the parishioners would have left the congregation. There are some things that you just keep out of the pulpit. There are some things you just don't tolerate from your pastor. Obama should have left the congregation and worshipped at another church.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
It was a fine speech but I have a problem with the above comments. My most recent pastor, my pastor of seven years had strong social views which I disagreed with. Those views centered around liberal politics and his liberal, tolerant views on homosexuality. But he never uttered those things from the pulpit. If he had I would have not returned and I know many of the parishioners would have left the congregation. There are some things that you just keep out of the pulpit. There are some things you just don't tolerate from your pastor. Obama should have left the congregation and worshipped at another church.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
The Cult Of Obama
COSTELLO: Many political observers say they’ve never seen anything like it. Thousands wait in line to see him, and it seems with every speech, they always latch onto Obama’s three favorite words.
OBAMA: Yes, we can.
COSTELLO: Obama supporters wildly respond, chanting enthusiastically along with their candidate. But it’s a scene some increasingly find not inspirational but “creepy.”
L.A. Times columnist Joel Stein is cited, calling it “Obamaphilia. Then two of the very serious people sect have their opinions presented, Conservative columnist David Brooks in the NY Times, through his alter-ego Dr. Retail:
Meanwhile, Obama’s people are so taken with their messiah that soon they’ll be selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings. There’s a “Yes We Can” video floating around YouTube in which a bunch of celebrities like Scarlett Johansson and the guy from the Black Eyed Peas are singing the words to an Obama speech in escalating states of righteousness and ecstasy. If that video doesn’t creep out normal working-class voters, then nothing will.
Or Joe Klein in Time magazine, in a piece called Inspiration vs Substance. None too subtle is Joe. Klein also introduced the descriptor “creepy” to Obama-mania.
“There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism … [T]he message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.
And although not mentioned in the CNN piece, the truly creepy conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer gets into the act yesterday with this Washington Post column The Audacity of Selling Hope.
Interestingly, Obama has been able to win these electoral victories and dazzle crowds in one new jurisdiction after another, even as his mesmeric power has begun to arouse skepticism and misgivings among the mainstream media.
ABC’s Jake Tapper notes the “Helter-Skelter cultish qualities” of “Obama worshipers,” what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls “the Cult of Obama.” Obama’s Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience — to such rhetorical nonsense as “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek.”
Krauthammer compares it to what he experienced as a young man growing up in Montreal, in what became known as Trudeaumania. The more obvious example to many Americans who remember the spring of 1968 is with Robert Kennedy. It would seem the traditional media’s reaction to inspirational political figures has not improved in the intervening 40 years. If anything it’s only gotten worse.
Or as Will Bunch succinctly put it:
But the real takeaway here is that passion + politics = cult.
God — the real one — save our political discourse.
OBAMA: Yes, we can.
COSTELLO: Obama supporters wildly respond, chanting enthusiastically along with their candidate. But it’s a scene some increasingly find not inspirational but “creepy.”
L.A. Times columnist Joel Stein is cited, calling it “Obamaphilia. Then two of the very serious people sect have their opinions presented, Conservative columnist David Brooks in the NY Times, through his alter-ego Dr. Retail:
Meanwhile, Obama’s people are so taken with their messiah that soon they’ll be selling flowers at airports and arranging mass weddings. There’s a “Yes We Can” video floating around YouTube in which a bunch of celebrities like Scarlett Johansson and the guy from the Black Eyed Peas are singing the words to an Obama speech in escalating states of righteousness and ecstasy. If that video doesn’t creep out normal working-class voters, then nothing will.
Or Joe Klein in Time magazine, in a piece called Inspiration vs Substance. None too subtle is Joe. Klein also introduced the descriptor “creepy” to Obama-mania.
“There was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism … [T]he message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.
And although not mentioned in the CNN piece, the truly creepy conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer gets into the act yesterday with this Washington Post column The Audacity of Selling Hope.
Interestingly, Obama has been able to win these electoral victories and dazzle crowds in one new jurisdiction after another, even as his mesmeric power has begun to arouse skepticism and misgivings among the mainstream media.
ABC’s Jake Tapper notes the “Helter-Skelter cultish qualities” of “Obama worshipers,” what Joel Stein of the Los Angeles Times calls “the Cult of Obama.” Obama’s Super Tuesday victory speech was a classic of the genre. Its effect was electric, eliciting a rhythmic fervor in the audience — to such rhetorical nonsense as “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. (Cheers, applause.) We are the change that we seek.”
Krauthammer compares it to what he experienced as a young man growing up in Montreal, in what became known as Trudeaumania. The more obvious example to many Americans who remember the spring of 1968 is with Robert Kennedy. It would seem the traditional media’s reaction to inspirational political figures has not improved in the intervening 40 years. If anything it’s only gotten worse.
Or as Will Bunch succinctly put it:
But the real takeaway here is that passion + politics = cult.
God — the real one — save our political discourse.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Obama's Radical Pastor
Obama's Jeremiad
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, March 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election 2008: Imagine the uproar if John McCain's pastor used the "N"-word and asked God to "damn" blacks. Yet Barack Obama's pastor condemns whites, and liberal pundits bite their lip.
This newspaper was the first to draw attention to Obama's hate-mongering preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, and his black segregationist church in Chicago.
Our January 2007 editorial, "Obama's Real Faith," exposed their preaching of a militantly anti-white and socialist doctrine called the "Black Value System," triggering a major story in the Chicago Tribune, which led to other stories.
Now comes the leaking of recently videotaped sermons by Wright angrily condemning whites as racists and America as evil. If you close your eyes, you'd swear you were listening to the hateful rantings of uber-bigot Louis Farrakhan.
Like the Nation of Islam minister, Wright feeds his 8,500-member flock, including Obama and his family, legends about whites keeping blacks down by getting them hooked on crack and then locking them up. He even claims whites invented AIDS to destroy blacks.
Obama is not immune to such myths. Until recently, when he was informed it wasn't true, he repeated a favorite Wright line that "we've got more black men in prison than there are in college."
"The government gives (black men) drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," Wright thundered in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
Locked in a Jim Crow time warp, he claims America — which he affectionately calls "the US-KKK-A" — is "controlled by and run by rich white people." Never mind that institutionalized racism is a distant memory. Or that the most popular candidate in the country right now, according to some polls, is his top acolyte.
In 2006, Wright said from the pulpit: "Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. And. And-and! God! Has got! To be sick! Of this sh*t!"
Wright believes all white men are responsible for the oppression of the past, and until they make atonement, there will be no forgiveness. He takes a sick joy in 9/11 as a much-deserved punishment for America supporting Israel, which he thinks should be targeted for a divestment campaign.
In a sermon to his congregation just five days after the attacks, Wright bellowed: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Lest anyone mistake who he felt was to blame for 9/11 and deserved punishment, Wright elaborated in 2005: "White America got a wake-up call after 9/11. White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just disappeared as the great white West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns."
That Obama's preacher would sound like Farrakhan is no coincidence. The two are old pals. In the '80s they traveled to Libya together to pay homage to terrorist Muammar Qaddafi. Last November, Wright honored Farrakhan with a "lifetime achievement" award and featured him on the cover of his church magazine, Trumpet.
Obama has never directly repudiated his pastor's praise for Farrakhan: "I assume that Trumpet magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders."
This is disingenuous by half. The magazine is produced by Wright's church and published by his daughters. Second, the article never mentions Farrakhan's work with ex-cons.
Obama's campaign also issued a lukewarm denunciation of Wright's leaked sermons, saying only that "there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees." Like what? We don't know. Has he ever walked out of a sermon in disgust? We don't know. But we need to know, and voters deserve to know. Now.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, March 14, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Election 2008: Imagine the uproar if John McCain's pastor used the "N"-word and asked God to "damn" blacks. Yet Barack Obama's pastor condemns whites, and liberal pundits bite their lip.
This newspaper was the first to draw attention to Obama's hate-mongering preacher, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, and his black segregationist church in Chicago.
Our January 2007 editorial, "Obama's Real Faith," exposed their preaching of a militantly anti-white and socialist doctrine called the "Black Value System," triggering a major story in the Chicago Tribune, which led to other stories.
Now comes the leaking of recently videotaped sermons by Wright angrily condemning whites as racists and America as evil. If you close your eyes, you'd swear you were listening to the hateful rantings of uber-bigot Louis Farrakhan.
Like the Nation of Islam minister, Wright feeds his 8,500-member flock, including Obama and his family, legends about whites keeping blacks down by getting them hooked on crack and then locking them up. He even claims whites invented AIDS to destroy blacks.
Obama is not immune to such myths. Until recently, when he was informed it wasn't true, he repeated a favorite Wright line that "we've got more black men in prison than there are in college."
"The government gives (black men) drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," Wright thundered in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
Locked in a Jim Crow time warp, he claims America — which he affectionately calls "the US-KKK-A" — is "controlled by and run by rich white people." Never mind that institutionalized racism is a distant memory. Or that the most popular candidate in the country right now, according to some polls, is his top acolyte.
In 2006, Wright said from the pulpit: "Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. And. And-and! God! Has got! To be sick! Of this sh*t!"
Wright believes all white men are responsible for the oppression of the past, and until they make atonement, there will be no forgiveness. He takes a sick joy in 9/11 as a much-deserved punishment for America supporting Israel, which he thinks should be targeted for a divestment campaign.
In a sermon to his congregation just five days after the attacks, Wright bellowed: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Lest anyone mistake who he felt was to blame for 9/11 and deserved punishment, Wright elaborated in 2005: "White America got a wake-up call after 9/11. White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just disappeared as the great white West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns."
That Obama's preacher would sound like Farrakhan is no coincidence. The two are old pals. In the '80s they traveled to Libya together to pay homage to terrorist Muammar Qaddafi. Last November, Wright honored Farrakhan with a "lifetime achievement" award and featured him on the cover of his church magazine, Trumpet.
Obama has never directly repudiated his pastor's praise for Farrakhan: "I assume that Trumpet magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders."
This is disingenuous by half. The magazine is produced by Wright's church and published by his daughters. Second, the article never mentions Farrakhan's work with ex-cons.
Obama's campaign also issued a lukewarm denunciation of Wright's leaked sermons, saying only that "there are things he says with which Sen. Obama deeply disagrees." Like what? We don't know. Has he ever walked out of a sermon in disgust? We don't know. But we need to know, and voters deserve to know. Now.
Larry Elder On Obama
Can Obama bring us together? Yes, he can!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 13, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
Critics dismiss Barack Obama's plans to bring the "two Americas" together. But, his plans may just work.
Taxes: Barack Obama's America blasts the Bush tax cuts for "unfairly" benefiting the rich. They intend to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, with resulting higher taxes on income, capital gains and dividends.
The other America believes in limited government, low taxes, fewer regulations. They believe that individuals, rather than government, know how best to spend, save or invest their own money. This part of America feels that the Kennedy, Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts actually benefited the economy by placing more capital in the hands of private actors, resulting in more jobs, greater productivity and higher net worth.
Obama's solution: Shared sacrifice. If your last name begins with A through E, Obama will continue the Bush tax cuts. If your last name begins with F through L, Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. If your last name begins with M through Z, Obama will raise your taxes. Now the following fiscal year, those with last names beginning A through E face a tax increase. The F through L's get the Bush tax cuts. And the L through Z's will have their tax cuts expire. The next fiscal year, Obama will rearrange the cuts, depending, of course, on your last name, and will continue this rotation every year of his administration.
The Iraq war: Obama's America considers the war a failure, a war that "never should have been authorized, and never should have been waged." They feel the Iraq war makes Americans less safe, causes us to take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, infuriates our allies and uses funds better spent elsewhere.
The other America feels that, however we got into Iraq, leaving precipitously emboldens our enemies, creates a safe haven for terrorism and gives Iran – an avowed enemy of America and a country pursuing nuclear weapons – a dangerous and destabilizing influence over oil-rich Iraq. This part of America believes we cannot in good conscience leave without ensuring Iraq's stability because that would endanger our own. This part of America agrees with former Secretary of State James Baker, "[I]f we picked up and left right now, you would see the biggest civil war you've ever seen. Every neighboring country would be involved in there, doing its own thing, Turkey, Iran, Syria, you name it, and even our friends in the Gulf."
Obama's solution: Withdraw all troops by the year 2009. Then send them back in 2010, followed by their return to America in 2011, with another redeployment to Iraq in 2012. These on/off, every-other-year rotations would continue throughout his presidency. This satisfies those who want the troops home immediately. But it also appeases those who consider our national security dependent upon a military presence in Iraq. This policy also confuses our enemy, since they never know whether we are coming or going.
Health care: Obama's America considers health care a right, not a privilege. They want a government-run universal health care system. They consider it a national disgrace that 47 million people (many here illegally) live in a country without health insurance.
The other America agrees with Claude Castonguay, the father of the Quebec universal health care system, later adopted by the whole of Canada. Castonguay recently pronounced his country's system a failure, and now urges American-style competition and pushes for a greater role by the private sector.
Obama's solution: Provide universal health insurance to those without it. Allow those happy with their current health-care policies to retain them. Who pays for the uninsured 47 million? Tax Canada.
Global warming: Obama's America considers global warming a dire threat to our planet. As with Al Gore of the Oscar-winning film "An Inconvenient Truth," they consider drastic action necessary to avoid catastrophe.
The other America agrees with General Motors' vice-chairman, Bob Lutz, who recently called global warming a "total crock of s---." They support an analysis in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which aired in England on the UK's private channel 4. This America questions the extent to which man-made activity causes increased temperatures. They question whether the Kyoto Protocol – mandating large expenses on industry to control greenhouse gases – actually harms more than helps. Other climatologists/skeptics argue that many factors account for the slight rise in world temperature over the last hundred years, including, but not limited to, solar activity.
Obama's solution: Force Lutz to square off on pay-per-view against Al Gore in an Ultimate Fighting Championship no-holds-barred death match. The winner gets to decide America's policy on climate change.
Hopefully this comforts the naysayers who doubt whether Barack Obama can, indeed, bring us together.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 13, 2008
1:00 am Eastern
© 2008
Critics dismiss Barack Obama's plans to bring the "two Americas" together. But, his plans may just work.
Taxes: Barack Obama's America blasts the Bush tax cuts for "unfairly" benefiting the rich. They intend to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, with resulting higher taxes on income, capital gains and dividends.
The other America believes in limited government, low taxes, fewer regulations. They believe that individuals, rather than government, know how best to spend, save or invest their own money. This part of America feels that the Kennedy, Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts actually benefited the economy by placing more capital in the hands of private actors, resulting in more jobs, greater productivity and higher net worth.
Obama's solution: Shared sacrifice. If your last name begins with A through E, Obama will continue the Bush tax cuts. If your last name begins with F through L, Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. If your last name begins with M through Z, Obama will raise your taxes. Now the following fiscal year, those with last names beginning A through E face a tax increase. The F through L's get the Bush tax cuts. And the L through Z's will have their tax cuts expire. The next fiscal year, Obama will rearrange the cuts, depending, of course, on your last name, and will continue this rotation every year of his administration.
The Iraq war: Obama's America considers the war a failure, a war that "never should have been authorized, and never should have been waged." They feel the Iraq war makes Americans less safe, causes us to take our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, infuriates our allies and uses funds better spent elsewhere.
The other America feels that, however we got into Iraq, leaving precipitously emboldens our enemies, creates a safe haven for terrorism and gives Iran – an avowed enemy of America and a country pursuing nuclear weapons – a dangerous and destabilizing influence over oil-rich Iraq. This part of America believes we cannot in good conscience leave without ensuring Iraq's stability because that would endanger our own. This part of America agrees with former Secretary of State James Baker, "[I]f we picked up and left right now, you would see the biggest civil war you've ever seen. Every neighboring country would be involved in there, doing its own thing, Turkey, Iran, Syria, you name it, and even our friends in the Gulf."
Obama's solution: Withdraw all troops by the year 2009. Then send them back in 2010, followed by their return to America in 2011, with another redeployment to Iraq in 2012. These on/off, every-other-year rotations would continue throughout his presidency. This satisfies those who want the troops home immediately. But it also appeases those who consider our national security dependent upon a military presence in Iraq. This policy also confuses our enemy, since they never know whether we are coming or going.
Health care: Obama's America considers health care a right, not a privilege. They want a government-run universal health care system. They consider it a national disgrace that 47 million people (many here illegally) live in a country without health insurance.
The other America agrees with Claude Castonguay, the father of the Quebec universal health care system, later adopted by the whole of Canada. Castonguay recently pronounced his country's system a failure, and now urges American-style competition and pushes for a greater role by the private sector.
Obama's solution: Provide universal health insurance to those without it. Allow those happy with their current health-care policies to retain them. Who pays for the uninsured 47 million? Tax Canada.
Global warming: Obama's America considers global warming a dire threat to our planet. As with Al Gore of the Oscar-winning film "An Inconvenient Truth," they consider drastic action necessary to avoid catastrophe.
The other America agrees with General Motors' vice-chairman, Bob Lutz, who recently called global warming a "total crock of s---." They support an analysis in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which aired in England on the UK's private channel 4. This America questions the extent to which man-made activity causes increased temperatures. They question whether the Kyoto Protocol – mandating large expenses on industry to control greenhouse gases – actually harms more than helps. Other climatologists/skeptics argue that many factors account for the slight rise in world temperature over the last hundred years, including, but not limited to, solar activity.
Obama's solution: Force Lutz to square off on pay-per-view against Al Gore in an Ultimate Fighting Championship no-holds-barred death match. The winner gets to decide America's policy on climate change.
Hopefully this comforts the naysayers who doubt whether Barack Obama can, indeed, bring us together.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Obama's Stumble On NAFTA
No matter what your opinion of NAFTA is Barack Obama made a major mis-step in bad mouthing NAFTA in Ohio and then giving a wink-wink to Canada that he really didn't mean it. See the article below.
Obama says Canada ‘misreported’ NAFTA meeting with campaign adviser
Sheldon Alberts and Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, March 06, 2008WASHINGTON - Barack Obama insisted yesterday that Canadian officials “misreported” details of a meeting with his senior economic adviser now being cited as a key reason he lost Ohio’s Democratic presidential primary to Hillary Clinton. Obama maintained his campaign was not at fault in the “NAFTA-gate” controversy and insisted he had no plans to fire economist Austan Goolsbee for his role in the affair.
In a memo leaked to the media last weekend, Canadian diplomats reported Goolsbee said Obama’s tough talk on NAFTA should be viewed more as “political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” Media reports last night implicated Harper’s own chief of staff, saying he was the original source of the leak. Clinton seized on the reports and accused Obama of employing a “wink-wink” strategy — saying one thing about Nafta to voters in economically depressed Ohio, and another to foreign governments. Exit polls showed a sharp swing of support to Clinton in the final three days before voting, at the height of the publicity surrounding the controversy. In Ottawa, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the leak of the Canadian memo was “blatantly unfair” to the Illinois senator’s White House bid. Harper also pledged a full investigation into how an account of the conversation between Goolsbee and Rioux became public on the eve of the Ohio primary. “We will take every step necessary to get to the bottom of this,” Harper told the House of Commons. “The way the leak was executed was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign.”
Obama says Canada ‘misreported’ NAFTA meeting with campaign adviser
Sheldon Alberts and Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, March 06, 2008WASHINGTON - Barack Obama insisted yesterday that Canadian officials “misreported” details of a meeting with his senior economic adviser now being cited as a key reason he lost Ohio’s Democratic presidential primary to Hillary Clinton. Obama maintained his campaign was not at fault in the “NAFTA-gate” controversy and insisted he had no plans to fire economist Austan Goolsbee for his role in the affair.
In a memo leaked to the media last weekend, Canadian diplomats reported Goolsbee said Obama’s tough talk on NAFTA should be viewed more as “political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” Media reports last night implicated Harper’s own chief of staff, saying he was the original source of the leak. Clinton seized on the reports and accused Obama of employing a “wink-wink” strategy — saying one thing about Nafta to voters in economically depressed Ohio, and another to foreign governments. Exit polls showed a sharp swing of support to Clinton in the final three days before voting, at the height of the publicity surrounding the controversy. In Ottawa, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the leak of the Canadian memo was “blatantly unfair” to the Illinois senator’s White House bid. Harper also pledged a full investigation into how an account of the conversation between Goolsbee and Rioux became public on the eve of the Ohio primary. “We will take every step necessary to get to the bottom of this,” Harper told the House of Commons. “The way the leak was executed was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign.”
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Obama's 2 Step
Obama and the Farrakhan TrapThe Democratic frontrunner stepped in it Tuesday night.By Byron York
Cleveland, Ohio — Talking to reporters after the Democratic debate here at Cleveland State University, David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s closest adviser, insisted that Obama didn’t try to spin his way through a question on Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who recently praised Obama as “the hope of the entire world” who is “capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow.” “I thought that he was very forthright about it,” Axelrod explained. “The point is this: Louis Farrakhan said kind things about [Obama]. From what I read, he didn’t say it was an endorsement, and I think Sen. Obama made clear what his position on Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements was.”
The question stemmed from Obama’s initial answer when NBC’s Tim Russert asked, “Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?” Obama might have said, “No.” But instead, he seemed to go out of his way to denounce some of Farrakhan’s statements while not taking on Farrakhan himself (and even using Farrakhan’s preferred honorific in the process). “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments,” Obama said. “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan.”More than a few observers were taken aback by Obama’s not-so-deft sidestep. What if, the blogger Andrew Sullivan asked, it had been a question to John McCain about David Duke? And what if McCain had answered, “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Dr. Duke’s racist comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in a white man who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Dr. Duke.”And what if then, after the debate, McCain’s top campaign aide explained by saying, “The point is this: David Duke said kind things about [McCain]. From what I read, he didn’t say it was an endorsement, and I think Sen. McCain made clear what his position on Duke’s racist statements was.”But Obama’s sidestepping didn’t stop there. After his answer, Russert asked again, just as directly, “Do you reject his support?” Obama might have answered, “Yes,” but instead tried his best to stay away from anything so definitive. “Well, Tim, you know, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy. You know, I — you know, I — I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.”At that point it became clear that Obama simply would not say that he rejected Farrakhan’s support, preferring instead to refer to, but not repeat, previous statements. It’s a common technique for a politician who doesn’t want to say something to say that he has said it before without actually saying what he says he said. Here in Cleveland on Tuesday night, Obama seemed to be heading in that direction until Russert pressed a bit more, bringing up Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s long-time pastor, whose magazine last year said that Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.” And then Hillary Clinton — who must have enjoyed seeing her opponent take a rare turn on the hot seat — added, “There’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting…I have no doubt that everything Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we’ve got to be even stronger.”At that moment, Obama was in trouble. If he continued to repeat his I-have-denounced-Minister-Farrakhan’s-anti-Semitic-statements position, he would clearly seem to be avoiding a larger critique of Farrakhan. So he rather nimbly suggested that it was all a matter of semantics, and if Sen. Clinton liked, he would reject as well as denounce. “Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” Obama said. “If the word ‘reject’ Sen. Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”The concession got Obama out of trouble. But it didn’t stop the talk in the spin room after the debate. Was Obama initially trying to nuance his way through the question? “Sen. Clinton was pleased that he came back later and…not only denounced it but rejected support,” said top Clinton aide Mark Penn. But Penn continued: “I think you have to listen to the answers. He did not reject what his minister said about Farrakhan. If you listen to the answers, he only responded to Farrakhan, and he never responded to the fact that his minister, if I have it right, said that Farrakhan was a person of greatness. So if you listen very carefully, I do not think he in fact rejected or denounced his minister praising Farrakhan — he only did that to Farrakhan.”A few feet away, Rev. Jesse Jackson approached the question indirectly. He told reporters he was disappointed that there wasn’t a serious discussion of poverty in the debate; why was there no time to discuss the poor and time to discuss Louis Farrakhan? And if there was going to be a discussion of Farrakhan, how could it then leave out…Bill O’Reilly? “They mentioned the Farrakhan matter,” Jackson said. “He’s a free speaker, but in the case of O’Reilly, who suggested about Michelle Obama’s statement about love for the country, about the lynch mob — a very reprehensible statement. He comes under FCC and Fox scrutiny. And so I thought there was an imbalance there.”(Jackson was referring to a recent incident in which the Fox News host, on his radio program, defended Mrs. Obama on her comment that she had not, in her adult life, been proud of her country until her husband’s run for president. “I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama until there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels,” O’Reilly said. Later, O’Reilly, noting that his statement was in Mrs. Obama’s defense, said, “I’m sorry if my statement offended anybody.”)In the end, what did Farrakhan’s prominent role in Tuesday night’s debate amount to? Perhaps it was all just of interest to the press. But Obama’s reluctance, at least initially, to reject Farrakhan’s support said something about the closeness of this Democratic race. There are a lot of voters out there who admire Louis Farrakhan. Why alienate them? “What I think we all have to be careful of, in the process of these elections, is people saying, ‘O.K., I support you,’ and then determining whether or not you would want or not want their support,” Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Clinton supporter, said after the debate. “I am confident that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would love to have the votes of people within the Farrakhan sect… Maybe you don’t necessarily embrace the leadership, but you embrace the fact that there are millions — not millions, but thousands — of people within that religion who on a daily basis are suffering from the same things all the rest of us are suffering from.”
Cleveland, Ohio — Talking to reporters after the Democratic debate here at Cleveland State University, David Axelrod, Barack Obama’s closest adviser, insisted that Obama didn’t try to spin his way through a question on Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who recently praised Obama as “the hope of the entire world” who is “capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow.” “I thought that he was very forthright about it,” Axelrod explained. “The point is this: Louis Farrakhan said kind things about [Obama]. From what I read, he didn’t say it was an endorsement, and I think Sen. Obama made clear what his position on Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic statements was.”
The question stemmed from Obama’s initial answer when NBC’s Tim Russert asked, “Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?” Obama might have said, “No.” But instead, he seemed to go out of his way to denounce some of Farrakhan’s statements while not taking on Farrakhan himself (and even using Farrakhan’s preferred honorific in the process). “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments,” Obama said. “I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Minister Farrakhan.”More than a few observers were taken aback by Obama’s not-so-deft sidestep. What if, the blogger Andrew Sullivan asked, it had been a question to John McCain about David Duke? And what if McCain had answered, “You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Dr. Duke’s racist comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in a white man who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally, with Dr. Duke.”And what if then, after the debate, McCain’s top campaign aide explained by saying, “The point is this: David Duke said kind things about [McCain]. From what I read, he didn’t say it was an endorsement, and I think Sen. McCain made clear what his position on Duke’s racist statements was.”But Obama’s sidestepping didn’t stop there. After his answer, Russert asked again, just as directly, “Do you reject his support?” Obama might have answered, “Yes,” but instead tried his best to stay away from anything so definitive. “Well, Tim, you know, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say that he thinks I’m a good guy. You know, I — you know, I — I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.”At that point it became clear that Obama simply would not say that he rejected Farrakhan’s support, preferring instead to refer to, but not repeat, previous statements. It’s a common technique for a politician who doesn’t want to say something to say that he has said it before without actually saying what he says he said. Here in Cleveland on Tuesday night, Obama seemed to be heading in that direction until Russert pressed a bit more, bringing up Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s long-time pastor, whose magazine last year said that Farrakhan “truly epitomized greatness.” And then Hillary Clinton — who must have enjoyed seeing her opponent take a rare turn on the hot seat — added, “There’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting…I have no doubt that everything Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we’ve got to be even stronger.”At that moment, Obama was in trouble. If he continued to repeat his I-have-denounced-Minister-Farrakhan’s-anti-Semitic-statements position, he would clearly seem to be avoiding a larger critique of Farrakhan. So he rather nimbly suggested that it was all a matter of semantics, and if Sen. Clinton liked, he would reject as well as denounce. “Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting,” Obama said. “If the word ‘reject’ Sen. Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”The concession got Obama out of trouble. But it didn’t stop the talk in the spin room after the debate. Was Obama initially trying to nuance his way through the question? “Sen. Clinton was pleased that he came back later and…not only denounced it but rejected support,” said top Clinton aide Mark Penn. But Penn continued: “I think you have to listen to the answers. He did not reject what his minister said about Farrakhan. If you listen to the answers, he only responded to Farrakhan, and he never responded to the fact that his minister, if I have it right, said that Farrakhan was a person of greatness. So if you listen very carefully, I do not think he in fact rejected or denounced his minister praising Farrakhan — he only did that to Farrakhan.”A few feet away, Rev. Jesse Jackson approached the question indirectly. He told reporters he was disappointed that there wasn’t a serious discussion of poverty in the debate; why was there no time to discuss the poor and time to discuss Louis Farrakhan? And if there was going to be a discussion of Farrakhan, how could it then leave out…Bill O’Reilly? “They mentioned the Farrakhan matter,” Jackson said. “He’s a free speaker, but in the case of O’Reilly, who suggested about Michelle Obama’s statement about love for the country, about the lynch mob — a very reprehensible statement. He comes under FCC and Fox scrutiny. And so I thought there was an imbalance there.”(Jackson was referring to a recent incident in which the Fox News host, on his radio program, defended Mrs. Obama on her comment that she had not, in her adult life, been proud of her country until her husband’s run for president. “I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama until there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels,” O’Reilly said. Later, O’Reilly, noting that his statement was in Mrs. Obama’s defense, said, “I’m sorry if my statement offended anybody.”)In the end, what did Farrakhan’s prominent role in Tuesday night’s debate amount to? Perhaps it was all just of interest to the press. But Obama’s reluctance, at least initially, to reject Farrakhan’s support said something about the closeness of this Democratic race. There are a lot of voters out there who admire Louis Farrakhan. Why alienate them? “What I think we all have to be careful of, in the process of these elections, is people saying, ‘O.K., I support you,’ and then determining whether or not you would want or not want their support,” Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, a Clinton supporter, said after the debate. “I am confident that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would love to have the votes of people within the Farrakhan sect… Maybe you don’t necessarily embrace the leadership, but you embrace the fact that there are millions — not millions, but thousands — of people within that religion who on a daily basis are suffering from the same things all the rest of us are suffering from.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
