Thursday, October 30, 2008

The Ineffable Reverend Jeremiah Wright

Michael Goldfarb? Dude looks like one of my meathead fraternity brothers from Auburn who used to light his farts on fire and kick the crap out of pledges for "eye-ballin' him." Is McCain resorting to interns as mouthpieces? Where have all the GOP cowboys gone? Iron your shirt, Goldfarb. Anyone have a comb?

On the other hand, the pathos of McCain's loyal, tongue-tied abettors is palpable. "We both know who the number 2 guy is" - i.e., the other radical besides Khalidi finding no favor with the state of Israel under the auspices of the United States.

If McCain is vanquished on Tuesday, the political post mortem has to begin with the campaign's peculiar decision to leave the most demonic toy in the trunk when so many other diabolical action figures came out to play with the electorate.

Oh, since I'm not bound by the strictures of the ticket, allow me to present "the Number 2 guy":

Probably my biggest criticism of Senator Obama. The guy McCain won't talk about.

***UPDATE**: . . . McCain won't talk about and now won't have to. As reported by Talking Points Memo:

Get ready for a deluge of Wright rantings.

The National Republican Trust PAC, which has been airing an ad attacking Barack Obama's association with Reverend Wright in three battleground states, has now put down for a national buy on five networks that will last from now through election day, a consultant with the group confirms to me.

The ad will run nationally on Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC for the next five days, the consultant, Rick Wilson, says -- "all the way until election day."
The ad, which you can watch here, features the now-infamous footage of Wright's livelier sermons, and intones that Obama "never complained" about Wright "until he ran for President," adding that Obama is "too radical, too risky."

Previously, the ad was only running in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, as Ben Smith reported the other day.

Now, however, the ad will run nationally, Wilson says, adding that the group just got through getting the spot vetted with network lawyers and is good to go.

I mean did you really think you would get through this election cycle without the Wright hobgoblin striking fear in the hearts of "Real Americans?" It's Halloween. We're supposed to be fearful.

Works out nice for McCain too. Plausible deniability. If he loses the election, but the Wright ad airs on a continuous loop, he maintains the moral high ground and can live with himself as he blithely enjoys dinner theater and early bird specials in Fort Myers, Florida. If he wins, same difference - I wouldn't expect a principled stand by the McCain campaign against a PAC's infection of this race with Wright in the gloaming hours. John's scruples only extend so far and only to whom he can justifiably call "his people."

So begins the 72-hour Republican blitzkrieg. The bottom-of-the-ninth GOP scare-a-palooza. In 2004, it was an audio tape from Bin Laden. Just reminding us to "gird your loins" as the terror alert level was raised to a new Crayola color: "We're F**ked Red."

Obama has endured the political maelstrom for two years and still sees clear skies. Chin up, liberals. If he does manage to survive one more weekend, think what a free pass he'll enjoy on character issues in 2012. Obama's gang of cruddy associations won't play twice. We all hated Scream 2.


Warm Apple Pie said...

And Obama's limp offerings on the subject of Wright have shaken me at moments during this campaign. 500 sermons and he claims he never encounterd such rhetoric? That is a bold-faced lie.

Unfortunately, McCain has an almost insurmontable lead in the lying poll of polls. It would take some real confabulation and retelling by Obama to close the gap in such a short period of time.

Defective Pants said...

And just like the last time you brought it this week, you ignore that this was pushed for weeks by Hillary to no effect in the primary. Unlike you, apparently, people understand that we can find positive qualities and worthy influences in others, even when those positives are among negative qualities. I've had influential people in my life that have had some downright ignorant opinions. That doesn't mean that (1) I wasn't positively influenced by them in other matters or (2) I am doomed to share those ignorant views.

The reaction in the primary proved it a dead issue. And to again claim that all he has done is offer "limp" assurances that he never heard such rhetoric in addressing this issue - that is a downright lie. He gave an f'n speech on race relations in direct response Wright's words, and answered every questioned asked.

In any event, the last time you brought up this topic, you were sufficiently slapped down by reader Reid here - I suggest you read it again and save everyone's time with this waste of a topic:

Warm Apple Pie said...

Big waste of time, DP? Always a big waste of time with the implacable Obama supporter, which I am not to be clear. I support Obama, but I do it with solemnity and reflection, not swimming and splashing in a tank of kool aid.

I thought it was a great speech on race after the Wright news cycle, but it came out of political necessity with some smoke-and-mirror elements (and after he said he had attend 500 sermons).

It had no effect during the primaries? Were you dry during the primaries or already in the tank. You do realize Hillary probably wins the primary with Michigan and Florida and it would have had a MONUMENTAL effect on Saul Goldberg, 70 year old retiree from Naples (ie, everyone in Florida). Please. That dog won't hunt. Or, for the disenfranchised FL primary voter, that's meshugana!

So that destroys your first hyper-defensive sentence.

Let's move on to two: the positive qualities loopiness. If Hitler told you to brush your teeth every night, would you listen to him? Actually, yes - you would. It's good advice. He would be positively influencing you.

But you would only listen to him IF there was an absolute dearth of other individuals in your circle of mentors also informing you to brush nightly, but not also advising you that all Jews should be exterminated.

Of course it's hyperbolic, but the point remains - watch five minutes of Wright footage and you will immediately realize that none of his gyrating histrionics, even at their most positive moments, carry enough of a life lesson to tolerate the remaining bulk of gruesome hatred of America, government, Israel and Jews.

You're right - I'm basing this on the most sensational clips because they're the only ones in circulation. And you'll tell me you cannot judge five minutes of unvarnished rhetoric in a lifetime of speaking. That's out of context. Just like taking a sentence Obama used eight years ago about redistributing wealth and twisting it without the surrounding statements. Agreed.

But I'm betting that even his conciliatory, more constructive verbage is not grounded in solid academic thought, but gussied up to hide the radicalism he holds sacred. I mean it is a rare feat that someone can look more lunatic than Hannity in an interview WITH Hannity. Tried that clip out. See how it sits with you.

And you either completely miss the point or, as with most Obama surrogates, try to obfuscate the point of the inquiry with this not "doomed to share those ignorant views" broken record. It is the same technique in response to Ayers rehashed as "I was 8 years old when he commited these despicable acts."

My criticism of Obama isn't that he shares the views of the Weather Underground or the Trinity United Church of Christ, but that he didn't or doesn't passionately, stridently REJECT them - I use "didn't" because he didn't reject them when issued, he didn't leave the church, he didn't stand up and protest when he heard "God damn America" or America's love of Israel resulted in 9-11, and I use "doesn't" because he doesn't vociferously reject these abhorrent views without a professorial lecture on race and America or with the slightest bit of regret or mea culpa.

C'mon DP, it is okay to cast some doubt on your great leader. You can criticize him without your faith being shaken.

There are some associations that you clean conscience must demand a parting of ways. Period. Nothing else to say. There is nothing I can learn from Lewis Farrakan behind the rampant, vile foulness he spews. Nothing. There is nothing I want to glean, no morsel of knowledge he guards using his prejudice, even the winning mega million numbers, that I need to discover to make my life complete. If Tim McVeigh knows the meaning of life and I'm not privy, well I guess my life will remain meaningless, but not embarassing.

Wheel spinning now. You get the point. If you don't, then you have passed the final test, Obama grasshopper - see you in the communications office in Washington.

I'm bushed. I'll end on your last two retarded paragraphs with "everything DP said is bull shit . . . thank you."

Defective Pants said...

Nice rant, WAP. Now back to reality. First off, your ridiculous attempt to marginalize my opinion as being based in blind loyalty for Obama is nothing but a cheap argument tactic to bolster your own weak point of view. The fact that you think that anyone who disagrees with your opinions is simply irrational says more about your own delusions of grandeur than it does about your target. I hope you’re better than that.

And how many more times will we hear the “I’m an Obama supporter, but . . . “ out of you? Enough already! You sound ridiculous. Your sick obsession with being perceived as objective is just silly. But whatever helps you sleep at night in your objective house, with your objective wife, in your objective bed, on your gigantic objective pillow.

But I digress . . . Twice this week you have stated that you need to hear more about this Wright issue. And twice you have ignored the fact that it was on a constant loop during the primaries, with O’Reilly and Hannity skull-f’ing it into oblivion. Now maybe you weren’t around to catch this. Maybe you were doing peyote at the Joshua tree or studying for your MCATS, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen.

People saw the clips (a skabillion times), listened to the analysis, listened to Obama answer every question that was asked and give his speech, and they made up their minds then – just like I and just about every other voter not longing to hang on to shreds of dissent for their own sanity (or to further their own insanity, depending on who you talk to). You either accepted his explanation then or not. To claim that this is an inadequately discussed issue is pure insanity.

And as for your addressing the substance of my post, you also fail. I honestly don’t know if you are a religious guy. I’m not, but my family is. And so I can tell you that in my experience religious people tend to pick and choose the messages they want to hear from their pastors. Right or wrong, courageous or cowardly, that’s what happens. Why? Because most people don’t go to church for politics. They go to be closer to God. Catholics ignore the firebrand sermons about abortion, war and just about every other view where they differ politically from the church’s teachings. He was a spiritual guide, not a political consultant for Obama. I now accept that explanation form Obama.

Do I wish he handled it less politically? Yes. But that doesn’t affect my final judgment based on the totality of the evidence.

And please stop with the crap about not rejecting the sermons. He did. He refused to denounce the man. I know you love throwing around speculation and hyperbole, but at least get your facts straight.

Reid said...

First off, thanks for the shout out DP. I'm not always entirely sure my "rants" have the clarity I'm shooting for.

Secondly I don't know who wants "Death to Israel" and who, like me, is confused by our relationship with Israel. In the small amount of research I have done on the Old Testament and history I've found that Moses took the "Chosen people" and cut through the Middle East's many tribes with the "Lord's" aid and direction to "Kill every man, woman, child, asses and camels" and to take suckling babies and "dash them upon the rocks" so that they could reach the "Promised Land". So their history has them not only putting themselves above all others, but committing genocide in the name of God in that region. But the Promised land was lost to their enemies and regained not by their own hands, but by what some called a "division of spoils" following WWI. They have defended their newly recieved territory with the help of allies and that has angered their enemies, which is basically the entire region, and made their allies targets as well.

So what exactly is the payoff for supporting them? Stability in the Middle East? Solid Intel of WMD's in the region? Neither of those have occurred, but landgrabbing has futher angered their enemies, just as it angered themselves before the land was taken back by world forces and given to the most hated people of the region.

I'm honestly trying to find the connection to what they offer and why we need to continue to defend them against every other interest in the area. I believe a complete withdrawal of support would mean genocide and I in no way am condoning that direction. But I think the issues need to be further explored by our leaders and the other World leaders who subjecting their populations to ongoing attacks by fundamentalists.

The presence of what are being called anti-Semites in this election cycle have given me pause to wonder and question. Perhaps this was started pre-911 when speaking to many Muslims in my area who believed that Christians and Muslims were going to come together one day in common beliefs and not common hatred, not the "America is Satan" we've been force fed by a government bent on keeping an enemy alive post Cold War. Their issue with Jews was theirs, not ours, and based on thousands of years that have obscurred the reasons for the hatred. These guys were not looking to destroy the Jews, regardless of over the top leaders spouting about the "evil Jews". Many of these people came to America to get away from that rhetoric and to worship a purer form of their religion, sans ignorant hatred and incendiary, divisive leadership.

So what is the reason for defending Israel? What do we get out of it? Can their not be a comprimise in the area that was forced on Muslims? Are the people who are against the way the US handles its business in the Middle East wrong because we've been told that they are wrong without explanation? Can anyone give me answers to these questions without fear that I am anti-Semetic or that they would be percieved as anti-Semetic? Can a leader realistically confront the possibility of a comprimise without first understanding the other POV? Can there be a true discussion without claims of Anti-Americanism to end it before it begins?

Warm Apple Pie said...

My name is Warm Apple Pie and I approve this message:

"Do we really know who Defective Pants is? Well, at least we know who his friends are? DP pals around with radicals like Reid who called Israel "land grabbers" and said in a sentence not at all taken out of context for this advertisement "Death to Israel.""

"Death to Israel, Defective Pants, from a radical you've worked closely with?"

"I guess we don't know Defective Pants. Do you?"

"Defective Pants: Too anti-Semitic to lead."

Warm Apple Pie said...

DP, I wouldn't belittle your impregnable, absolute support of Obama if you could show just a touch of objectivity. But you are clearly to close to the fire.

Once again, I disagree with most of your retort. My "Obama, but . . ." support is as it should be. See, that's what independent voters do - they take the entirety of the candidates, weigh the pros and cons, and throw their support behind the individual (not the party) and the individual's imperfections.

Wasted breath with you. So I'm done . . . after a final outrage with your most inane point to date:

And so I can tell you that in my experience religious people tend to pick and choose the messages they want to hear from their pastors. Right or wrong, courageous or cowardly, that’s what happens. Why? Because most people don’t go to church for politics. They go to be closer to God. Catholics ignore the firebrand sermons about abortion, war and just about every other view where they differ politically from the church’s teachings. He was a spiritual guide, not a political consultant for Obama. I now accept that explanation form Obama.


DP, I'm going to ask you a question. Please think before you answer. From what you know of Obama and his meteoric rise through local Illinois politics to the national scene, do you really think his decision to sit in worship before Wright was a spiritual decision and not politically motivated?

If so, then can I interest you in a vacation time share in Orlando? How about a dozen bottles of Brazilian Acai Juice? Tony Little's Gazelle?

Reid said...

See that? Now what is more American than land grabbing?

I'm not sure exactly how much of that was a joke, but I guess I've gone and muddied up my question. I mean you never answered, but you did reference the post.

Can you answer my question? Not that a guy with a blog is now expected to be a foreign policy expert for some guy on the interwebs. But I'm interested in the answer.