Suppose for a moment that ....

[hifigator]

Suppose for a moment that ....

John McCain had attended a church for 20 years. Now suppose that the pastor of the church for the last 20 years had been the minister for McCain's wedding and had baptized his children. Now suppose that the story broke that the minister was a local leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Just how much furor would there be over that story? Just how lambasted would McCain be? How long would it take before the heat got so unbearable that McCain had to pull out of the race for the Presidency?

Now in that case, it is at least conceivable that the minister led two lives -- one saying the right things from the pulpit and another when anonymously hidden by a hooded sheet. That wouldn't matter a bit though. The minister and anyone associated with him would suffer continual and perpetual ridicule. Any prominent politician who attended the church, even infrequently would catch endless heat. Any who were religious attendees and were active in the church as well would suffer political suicide.

Now consider the Obama-Rev. Wright situation. The parallels between that relationship and the hypothetical relationship described above are eerily similar -- the chief difference being that at least in the former example, it could be argued that the KKK leader was done in private and anonymously, while Wright was very clearly who he is and who he has been for 20 years in the open public eyes of any who would see. I am still somewhat astonished that more hasn't been made of this. To me, this causes very serious questions as to Obama's character. That he severed ties with Wright after the story broke, gives some degree of confidence, but not enough. It is simply too obvious what Wright believes. It is simply too obvious that he is a cancer. It is simply too obvious that his views are not only wrong, but abhorently wrong. To have a 20 year relationship where this guy is your pastor and performs not only your wedding but your children's baptism is something short of astonishing. At the very, very least, attendance at the church for 20 years gave acquiescence.

Now my personal belief is that Obama didn't really think about it that way. When he first selected that church he did so at least partially to further his political aspirations. That alone is not a bad thing in my book. Then that became his church. He routinely attended church there. He developed relationships with people there and in all likelihood much of what was said from the pulpit was inoffensive and appropriate. But that isn't a good enough excuse, in and of itself, for someone aspiring to be President. We must hold such a high position to a higher standard. Again, I don't in any way think that Obama views life, America, Israel, Islam and the rest of the world the same way that Wright does. But that being said, I don't think we should just sluff off his 20 years of association with him because of his recent change of heart in leaving the church, amid the obvious political pressures of the Presidential election.

[moe09]

OK, I'll bite. Didn't read all your post. However, if McCain didn't know about his KKK Reverend (which I think is a bit overboard as a comparison), and then said he didn't agree with his positions and distanced himself from this reverend, then we could easily be in the same place.

[The Stig]

I think that, like the Reverend Wright case, it would reinforce what the candidate's fiercest critics thought of him.

Those who see Obama as an anti-American radical will never shut up about the Wright case, and they'll use it to justify their pre-existing views. However, those who supported Obama before are unlikely to change their views.

Similarly, if it turned out that McCain's pastor was in the KKK, very few blacks would vote for him, and they'd use McCain's pastor as their reason. However, McCain is unlikely to get much support from black voters anyways, and a few of his supporters would probably see a link to the KKK as a positive.

[EasyEd]

Hifi is right on.

[strummer8526]

To make clear from the outset, I'm NOT a huge Obama supporter. I'm not a huge McCain supporter. I'm happily sitting on the fence at the moment. So don't read this as coming from a biased Obama-ite.

Clearly, this analogy most heavily rests on the fairly tenuous premise that being associated with Wright's COMMENTS is equivalent to being associated with an ORGANIZATION that has actually committed atrocities: the KKK has killed people. The KKK has physically suppressed freedoms of others, it has coerced and threatened thousands. It continues to threaten people. Prominent Klan members have made not-so-subtle threats to Obama himself. So what stands out to me is that while Wright's comments may be wrong, deplorable, incendiary, etc., they are words. Potentially hateful words. But they've never been backed with the action that the Klan has. This means that when you say "Imagine McCain is affiliated with the Klan," it's not the same as saying "Obama was affiliated with Wright." The Klan is worse. Period.

Still, this thread made me decide to look a little further into Wright's actual comments because maybe...just MAYBE, they reach a level of such offense that they may make the analogy more tenable. (I still don't think there's any way to equate words with an organization that commits acts of violence, but still.)

At the end of some quick perusing of articles and videos on the Wright stuff, I'm left with some thoughts that maybe some want to respond to before anyone jumps to a conclusion about what Wright actually means about Obama.

1. Why has there been so little discussion about the fact that Wright's "America's chickens are coming home to roost" comments were based on an interview with a white ambassador who received significant career appointments under Republican presidents?

2. This leads me to wonder if maybe there's some legitimacy to what the ambassador (and then Wright) said. Sure, it could have been said far more tactfully and with more nuance. But there's a case to be made that America's actions around the world over the last 5-6 decades have played a part in the rise and success of an ideology focusing on the destruction of the US. That's not to say our actions around the world were entirely or even mostly wrong. But right or wrong, they had an effect on how others view this country.

3. Some of the accusations he makes about the U.S. knowing about Pearl Harbor and helping to imprison Nelson Mandella are pretty absurd. But they're not hateful towards other specific individuals as the Klan is. They're incendiary. They don't strike me as factually accurate. Most logical people would say such accusations are downright silly. They're hardly worse than some of the nonsense spouted by Pat Robertson and plenty of other preachers. Sure, it's a different angle, but it's not like the man is calling for violence, attacks, or threats against other people based on their skin color.

4. The government did lie about the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam, so I guess he gets 1 point. I don't think the government invented AIDS, but then again, on the other side of the ledger, to best of my knowledge, the whole Contra thing was a none too honest bit of governing either. I was a year old, so I'm sure you guys remember more than I do on it.

5. How many Americans think that our treatment of Native Americans, the Japanese, or slaves is something to be proud of? How many of us think that until 40 years ago, this country treated blacks fairly? I certainly don't.

6. Where Wright goes terribly terribly wrong is that he ignores progress made and attempts to attain the ideals of this country. He shows no appreciation for any of the positives--neither the excellent motives of so many Americans nor the progressive and humanitarian actions taken to aid those in need in this country and around the world. He reaches a "God damn America" conclusion by looking only at the worst of this country's history. But some of his characterizations are not 100% wrong. There are a lot of reasons to ask that this country come off its high horse, and even more so, this administration needs to come way down off its rhetoric of superiority that it spews while at the same time lying to the public on a whole host of issues.

7. What has he said that I'm missing? I'm sure I haven't looked at the text of every sermon he's giving, and for all I know, there may be something much worse. Is there anything specific that stands out that I didn't address?

At the end of the day, I wouldn't sit in the man's church. I don't agree with his conclusions or the reasons he reaches them. I don't think the pulpit is even the right place to discuss foreign policy or U.S. history. Would it be better if Obama was not affiliated with all this? Sure. Is it something that makes you pause and look harder at the man? Yeah (although if he's going to be President, I would hope that people would be looking at him closely anyway).

But is being a member of Wright's church the same as being affiliated with a man who is a member of a hate group of the level of the Klan--a group that killed, lynched, and intimidated others--a group that ironically stands for everything that Wright points out is the worst in this country's history? Absolutely not.

[moe09]

Thanks, strummer, very good points.

[Jack]

I am certain this will never happen, but I would really encourage ed and hifi and anyone else who is so certain that Obama's relationship with his church and his pastor is evidence of some failure in judgment (or worse) to read "Dreams of My Father," a book written over 13 years ago, about Obama's childhood and his young adult life before law school. I would like to quote it, but I only listened to it on tape, but I can tell you the impression I got was of a man who grew up unsure of his identity as a black kid in a largely white world, who ended up as a community organizer in Chicago but still without a certain connection to the black community, and who sought out that connection through his faith, working with many churches somewhat warily before finding a home at Trinity. His description of being in Wright's church and feeling tears stream down his face as he finally felt a part of something authentic is powerful stuff, and it suggests a very different experience than one might get from a few Youtube clips. That he chose to stand by someone who made such a powerful impression for longer than was politically expedient is not entirely surprising.

The rest of the book, and his story in general, is also remarkable, and would be instructive reading for the "values" set. I know it is too much to ask the electorate to read a whole book about a candidate, and ultimately I doubt conservatives will vote for him purely on policy reasons, but they might at least feel a little more comfortable with the person who will become their next President.

[EasyEd]

Look, Obama gives an inspirational speech and his books are also probably inspirational but words go only so far. His actions show that he stuck with a church led by a pastor who was patently racist and anti-American - and his congregation loudly applauded his rantings. For 20 years Obama sat in and listened to this stuff and did not leave the church or denounce the pastor until it was politically wise to do so. The point of hifi's introductory statement is that, were the shoe on the other foot (McCain's) the press would not let him get over it. Instead of using the KKK perhaps he should have used merely an example of a white preacher ranting against black people and McCain sitting through that for 20 years with no action. No analogy is perfect but it is amazing that people are offering excuses for Obama rather than holding him responsible for his actions. If you think the press would let McCain, or any Republican, get away with something similar, talk to George Allen. Even if he wrote an inspirational book or had a silver tongue.

[Elvado]

Suppose one of McCain's supporters was a Senate colleague who had actually been in the Klan, like Mr. Byrd.

[Bando]

Jun 21, 2008 18:39:47 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

Hifi is right on.

Let's not say things we can't take back. Think about it for a second, Ed. He's a Gator fan!

[Bando]

Jun 22, 2008 17:03:22 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Suppose one of McCain's supporters was a Senate colleague who had actually been in the Klan, like Mr. Byrd.

Or that one of his supporters was a pastor who called the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon and thought the Holocaust was God's way of getting the Jews to form Israel. Oh wait...

[Elvado]

Is that pastor passing laws which affect US Citizens?

[Boz]

Jun 22, 2008 18:04:49 GMT -5 Bando said:

Jun 22, 2008 17:03:22 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Suppose one of McCain's supporters was a Senate colleague who had actually been in the Klan, like Mr. Byrd.

Or that one of his supporters was a pastor who called the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon and thought the Holocaust was God's way of getting the Jews to form Israel. Oh wait...

Personally, I think this whole issue is more or less irrelevant, but let's be fair here.

There is a big difference between "supporter" and a long-time mentor and advisor. Because we could talk about a number of additional Obama "supporters" that are far worse than either of these two gits posing as religious leaders.

But I agree with Jack. I don't like Obama's policy positions and that is why I will not vote for him. It is those positions that make me very uncomfortable with him as President, not that I think Rev. Wright is going to be giving radical invocations at prayer breakfasts.

[Filo]

Jun 23, 2008 8:34:40 GMT -5 Boz said:

But I agree with Jack. I don't like Obama's policy positions and that is why I will not vote for him...

I think that this election will ultimately come down to that -- both candidates are likeable enough (or at least not as unlikeable as some in the past), so it really will be coming down to your ideology.**

As a middle-of-the-roader, I am more inclined to vote for McCain because I think he is more moderate than Obama (I would love to see McCain the maverick back if he gets elected). Obama's voting record clearly shows that he is pretty far left. For example, he voted along party lines something like 97% of the time, which if you are a true Democrat (I'm not), I guess is a great thing.


** One wild card, which I think could make more of an impact than the Reverend Wrights of the world, is Obama's wife. She seems to be a pretty angry person and somewhat of a loose cannon. Obama would be wise to keep her in check. Teresa Heinz Kerry did John Kerry no favors last time.

[hifigator]

Interesting feedback. When I chose the KKK analogy, I wasn't thinking of it in historical terms. Certainly the atrocities that have been carried out by men in hooded sheets are far worse than someone talking bad about others. I was thinking of it in the modern sense. The behind closed doors KKK that still exists is predomnantly an elitist group of racist bigots -- effectively the same but polar opposite of Wright.

Someone mentioned Pat Robertson. I think that is very aprepos. Much like Wright cheered 9/11 and said that we had it coming and God was giving us punishment for our past actions, Robertson said that God gave us Aids to punish gays. He was just as wrong to make that comment, and ultimately recanted and apologized. But it was still a media story for quite some time. In his case it didn't involve a real candidate. Sure, it could have involved his own run at some point, but not others. Now suppose that McCain was a member of Robertson's church. Suppose he had Robertson baptize his children and perform wedding ceremonies. Now suppose that Robertson had been making such comments for 20 years. Do you honestly think that the media would just let that story die? In Robertosn's case, he took back his comments. I'm not sure that really matters, since you can "say" that you took back the words, but there is no way to take back the sentiment. Taking it back, isn't the same thing as saying that you didn't mean it. In any case, my main point is that the media treatment of such a relationship that is questionable in the least, is dramatically different if you are a liberal democrat than if you are a conservative or republican.

As for my position, I am still undecided, but leaning McCain. In all honesty however, it might hinge on the VP choices. I like Lieberman as a VP and I could see him being chosen by either candidate. I think Bill Richardson could be a choice for Obama that I might go with. Charlie Crist is very moderate, to the point that he is called a RhIno (Republican In Name Only).
As Filo said, I think that we really need a moderate centrist administration. In that regard, McCain looks to be the choice.

[Bando]

As Filo said, I think that we really need a moderate centrist administration. In that regard, McCain looks to be the choice.

I'm sorry, but this flies in the face of what McCain's positions on the issues actually are. He's not a center-right Maverick (TM), he's a right-wing ideologue. The maverick thing was all image and little substance.

Here's a personal example. I've always respected McCain's wartime service, and especially the sacrifice he made in wallowing in that NVA POW camp for 5 years. He had tremendous moral cache on the issue of torture, because he himself had been tortured. After initially opposing all torture by the US or its armed forces, he's now reverted to the Jack Bauer torture-a-palooza that the rest of the GOP espouses. This is sad and disappointing, to say the least.

As for Lieberman, he has no shot of being Obama's running mate, chiefly because he's not a Democrat anymore. If the Dems reach 60 in the Senate after the elections, I expect he'll be stripped of his seniority faster than you can say "Joementum".

[Boz]

Jun 23, 2008 13:12:47 GMT -5 Bando said:

I'm sorry, but this flies in the face of what McCain's positions on the issues actually are. He's not a center-right Maverick (TM), he's a right-wing ideologue. The maverick thing was all image and little substance.

It can just as easily be said (and, in my opinion, better substantiated, but that's just my opinion) that: "Obama is not about Change (TM), he's a left-wing ideologue. The hope and change thing was all image and little substance."

So there we are, in opposition as we always have been, and probably always will be, at least for my foreseeable future.

EDIT: At least we can agree that Weezer today sucks compared to Weezer of yesterday, so there's always some common ground to be found. ;D

[Bando]

Jun 23, 2008 14:02:16 GMT -5 Boz said:

Jun 23, 2008 13:12:47 GMT -5 Bando said:

I'm sorry, but this flies in the face of what McCain's positions on the issues actually are. He's not a center-right Maverick (TM), he's a right-wing ideologue. The maverick thing was all image and little substance.

It can just as easily be said (and, in my opinion, better substantiated, but that's just my opinion) that: "Obama is not about Change (TM), he's a left-wing ideologue. The hope and change thing was all image and little substance."

So there we are, in opposition as we always have been, and probably always will be, at least for my foreseeable future.

EDIT: At least we can agree that Weezer today sucks compared to Weezer of yesterday, so there's always some common ground to be found. ;D

The thing is, I don't think Obama's claiming to be anything other than a liberal. He might talk about reaching out across the aisle, but it's to reach whatever common ground can be had or to pull people to the left. He's not banking on some "I break with my party all the time" image.

And yeah, Cuomo and Co. need to give it up now before everyone forgets the Blue Album and Pinkerton and just thinks of them as a ty band.

[Filo]

Jun 23, 2008 14:50:48 GMT -5 Bando said:

The thing is, I don't think Obama's claiming to be anything other than a liberal. He might talk about reaching out across the aisle, but it's to reach whatever common ground can be had or to pull people to the left. He's not banking on some "I break with my party all the time" image.

Maybe so. We'll have to wait and see if he starts softening his stance to get more votes.

Let's keep an eye and see if he backtracks on troop withdrawal as the campaign goes on. Here is what he is saying today, June 23, 2008:

Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

(By the way, I agree on McCain to a large extent also. He is not the maverick that he once was. )

[hifigator]

I disagree with your depiction of McCain. Not that I am a strong supporter of his, but my concerns come in different areas. In case you missed it, there was a big AP story in Sundays paper (well it was in our ty paper on Sunday, so it was probably in last Tuesday's NY TImes) ... in any case, it detailed much of the information that came from the 9/11 mastermind. It detailed many of the arrests and thwarted attacks that were the direct results of his interrogation. Furthermore, there was a major breakthrough when he finally started talking. Not very ironically, it coincided with the stepped up interrogation techniques. Personally, I think "torture" is just to ambiguous of a term. Obviously I'm not for soldiers raping prisoners or anything like that and soldiers who do such are a disgrace to the Country, but more importantly to the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who make up the overwhelming majority. That being said, there are uncomfortable measures that might need to be taken sometimes. And when I say "uncomfortable," there is definitely some degree of double entendre there. Obviously said measures might be uncomfortable for the prisoner. Additionally the measures might make you or I uncomfortable just thinking about them. But when you are at war, you don't play nice. I've used this description before, but I think it's aprepos here as well. When you are in criminal court, there are very specific things you are looking for and very specific things you are to entirely disregard. Justice is interested in what did this person do? What did this person say? What did this person know? And then of course, what physical evidence is there to prove these questions. We are specifically to disregard who is this person? What does this person think? Who does this person know? etc... I think we are all trained to think along these terms because of our great Country and the very freedoms that She affords us. That being said, when you are at war, the tables are turned entirely. I don't want to say "all bets are off," but that does at least come close to explaining it. At war, what we are concerned with is WHO IS THIS PERSON? What does this person think? The exact questions that we are to disregard in an criminal court is and should be exactly the information that we are seeking from prisoners of war. In any case, I will admit that some measures are uncomfortable, but unfortunately necessary. I'm not going to get into a technique by technique critique of each and every measure, but there are certainly times when things that might be considered torture are unfortunately acceptable. Heck, for me being forced to sit and watch episodes of Roseane would be absolute torture, but if that's what it takes to find out what we need to know ...

On the larger scale, McCain has been very willing to work with the dems. He is well known for bipartison bills. My complaints are that I think he is too conservative when he shouldn't be. His gambling bill which targets the financial institutions which facilitate internet gambling is a great example. I think government should stay out of that area and let people gamble if they want to. I also think that his immigration bill didn't have the teeth it needed to. I also thought that his interests in steroids in baseball were overzealous and a waste of tax dollars that could have been spent on an assortment of other things. But in any case, there is no denying that he is a moderate. You picked out one issue in which he would be siding with the right wing view, but there are certainly issues where the opposite is true. Can you say that of Obama on much of anything?

Getting back to VP, I'm not saying that Obama will select Lieberman, just saying that it would be appealing to voters like myself who are really desiring a moderate administration. As for Lieberman being an independent, I'm not sure how that would hurt Obama's chances. I don't think the core base of liberals would stay home and they certainly wouldn't vote for McCain or a 3rd party candidate instead ... at least not in any significant numbers. Conversely, I would like to think that there are a lot of voters like me out there who are open to either side of the aisle.