Hannity, Fox News now criticize Obama for speaking out against Wright

Filed under: Politics — one April 30, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
 
In new political commentary that itself seems more than a little disingenuous, Sean Hannity on his radio show today and numerous pundits on Fox News are now saying that Obama is disingenuous for speaking out against his former pastor.
 
On his radio program today Hannity repeatedly emphasized that Obama defended Wright's comment last month and right up until a few days ago, so it's blatant dishonesty for Senator Obama to suddenly denounce them. Of course the problem here is that as usual Sean has his facts wrong, whether it's because he's deliberately trying to mislead his audience or because he's just naturally stupid I won't deign to speculate.
 
In fact, Senator Obama defended Reverend Wright — the man himself — as someone who had helped the poor and done many great things for his community, but Obama was from the very beginning unswervingly clear that he denounced the controversial statements Wright appeared to be making in the sound bites playing on the news.
 
Hannity and many of the other pundits query, "So what's changed?" — a question to which the answer should be so blatantly obvious to these supposed journalists that they should probably be flogged, or subjected to whatever form of torture their hero Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says is legal (because according to Scalia, torture may be "Cruel and Unusual" but in his view it's not "Punishment" so it's completely Constitutional). The flogging would not be "punishment". It would be torture for the personal amusement of the many people in this country who are sick of the constancy of their disingenuity.
 
What has changed is that Wright said in no uncertain terms, on more than one occasion over the past several days, that he doesn't think Senator Obama disagrees with his views. He just thinks Obama "said what a politician had to say" in order to get elected. Senator Obama wanted to make it clear that he does in fact disagree with Wright's controversial views and he is beginning to see from Reverend Wright's recent actions that the Reverend is too wrapped up in his own views about race in this country to even open his mind to the possibility Obama is striving for: Transcending race, with the entire nation coming together.
 
In fact, even Sean Hannity seems to agree that Wright is deliberately trying to sabotage Obama's campaign. The general consensus is that Wright wants to prove race is still very much an issue in this country, Obama wants to prove we can transcend the issue of race, and Wright's ego and personal beliefs are driving him to do as much damage to Senator Obama's campaign as possible.
 
Oddly though, despite the general agreement that Wright must know he is damaging Obama's campaign and is likely doing it deliberately, Sean Hannity and many other conservative pundits have decided to believe Wright's insinuations that Obama secretly agrees with his views — despite all evidence to the contrary. Anyone who has ever actually listened to Senator Obama speak with an open mind would know that he doesn't agree with any Wright's divisive views or divisive politics.
 
So as usual Hannity and his colleagues are promoting theories that only make sense if you completely ignore some of the facts (like Obama never defended Wright's comments, and in fact denounced them) and place extreme importance on other facts, like Obama went to Wright's church for 20 years. That means (according to Hannity & co.) Obama must not only have heard Wright make these comments, but that he also secretly agrees with them.
 
Let's take a look at the facts. Wright was the pastor of that Church for about thirty years. After thirty years of preaching, someone was able to find a handful of soundbites that were offensive. I'm not sure how long they've been recording the masses, but in the interest of being fair to Mr. Hannity let's say they were recording them for only ten years. That's over 500 Sunday morning masses. So in over 500 preaching sessions, the conservative media (and Clinton supporters) have only been able to dig out less than two minutes of quotes that can be deemed "controversial".
 
So, with less than two minutes of "controversial" statements in over 500 Sunday morning masses I'd have to say it's downright silly to assume that everyone who goes to this Church agrees with those views, it's ridiculous to assume everyone who goes to the Church even heard Wright say those things.
 
I mean, to hear Wright's detractors tell it, you'd think the man was spreading this sort of vitriol every week, but if that were the case then let's see more recordings! They've got basically three statements they say are controversial, and two of them (as I wrote in my last article) aren't even that controversial! Three statements in 10 years, 500+ Sunday masses. That's not even enough to suggest it's typical of Wright — and many of Wright's parishoners have said it absolutely not typical of the man they know — so it's even more farfetched to make the claim that these statements have something to do with Senator Obama's beliefs.
 
In a nutshell: These ultra-right-wingers are painting Obama with colors that aren't even in their paint set. Believe anything they say at your own risk.

America’s Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Filed under: Politics — one April 25, 2008 @ 1:26 am

Barack Obama's controversial Pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright recently did an interview with Bill Moyers — thus, he is back in the news (also the Republicans are running an ad featuring him in North Carolina, but that's a whole other matter).

Now, this man has said some seriously stupid things (like AIDS was created in a lab to kill blacks in Africa) but there are two comments that seem to generate more anger than any others. First, there is the clip where he says, "God bless America? No, God Damn America!" and then there is the one where, in reference to the attacks on September 11th he says, "America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Rev. Jeremiah WrightI wanted to address these two remarks, because as stupid as some of the other things this man has said, anyone who gets offended by these remarks needs to get educated or have their head checked. First, let's deal with "God Damn America".

Are African Americans no longer discriminated against? Was there a memo I missed? The last time I checked, there was still a lot of racial tension in this country and much of it for good reason. You did realize that's what this remark was about, right? In context, he's basically saying that the government isn't helping black communities the way he feels they should, and then they want blacks to get up and sing, "God bless America" like everything is fine and hunky-dory.

Without getting into the pile of evidence that has come out over the years showing that the Republican party did in fact deliberately try to disenfranchise black voters in Florida during the 2000 election and elsewhere, let's just say that there's enough real racially motivated stuff going down to make some African Americans a little paranoid. Are we going to judge them for that too?

Seriously, when did it become not-okay for blacks to speak out when they have good reason to feel they aren't being treated equally? When did it become not-okay to criticize the government for not doing anything about such racism?

And this second quote about chickens "coming home to roost" — first off, Rev. Wright was actually quoting someone else there, but to be fair he was agreeing with the sentiment. But what exactly is wrong with that sentiment?

Let's examine it. He's basically saying we deserved 9/11, right? Not exactly, what he's saying is that we could have avoided it if we hadn't been sticking our noses where they didn't belong. That's a little different. If you had a friend that always rode a motorcycle without a helmet and he was killed in an accident where his helmet probably would have saved him, would you say your friend "deserved" it? Certainly not, but you would be upset knowing it could have been avoided, wouldn't you?

And so was Jeremiah Wright. He pointed to America's constant interference in other countries, which had been unpopular with many even going back to Reagan and before (Vietnam, anyone?) and was basically saying that these actions by our government created enemies that we didn't need and now it's come back to hurt all of us.

Al Qaeda had actually been attacking us at least as far back as 1996 and possibly before, and their justification from the beginning had been that the United States had left troops in the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) after the Gulf War (1991) and this was unacceptable to them. It offended them at a religious level, and what's worse was the perception many middle-easterners had that we were only there because we were greedy and protecting our precious oil.

Of course, Rev. Wright probably didn't know any of these details, but he did know what we had done in Iran, Grenada, Nicaragua and many other nations. He knew we'd been installing dictators and funding revolutions, he knew it was making a lot of people angry in these places and when we were attacked he naturally (and correctly) assumed we had finally managed to create some enemies that could hurt us.

So when did it become not-okay to criticize the Government for sticking its nose where it doesn't belong? In fact, the kind of stuff we got our nose into post WWII was unheard of for the first half of the 20th century. War raged in Europe for years and while the U.S. government secretly aided Britain the general sentiment in the U.S. was to let the Europeans sort out their own problems. We have problems at home to deal with and they can fend for themselves. Only when the RMS Lusitania was torpedoed in 1915, a cruise liner with Americans on board, could the U.S. government get enough citizens behind them to join in WWI.

And only a few decades later Hitler invaded Poland, and then France. Americans once again decided by-and-large it was none of our concern. Only when Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese did the government have enough support from the citizens of this country to get involved.

Many would say it's a good thing we did get involved, and even that we should have gotten involved sooner. Perhaps, but those scenarios didn't entirely cure many Americans from thinking that we should focus on matters at home and leave overseas matters alone except in cases of extreme urgency. Certainly you would be hard pressed to make a case that our late entry into WWII suggests we should preemptively throw our military into every potential problem that crops up in the world-at-large.

So whether you agree with or completely disagree with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright it should be clear that these opinions are not extreme, but are extremely valid and held by many other Americans. He spoke passionately about them and was publicly smeared by having a few "shocking" clips cut from what were largely well-reasoned sermons that were not un-American in any way (unless we're suddenly not allowed to criticize actions taken by the government).

The real people who deserve your shock and disgust are the ones who tried to feed you these clips and manipulate your opinion for their own gain. These people counted on being able to use these clips to stir up the latent fear a lot of white people have deep-down about angry black folks. And as Barack Obama said during his famous speech on race March 18th in Philadelphia, having that fear doesn't make you a racist — there's been a lot of tension over the years and that fear is a natural result of it. It's something we need to overcome together.

But the people who are trying to stir up that fear, they are the racists, and they're hoping they can scare you into becoming one. So the next time you see a clip of Rev. Wright on television I hope you get outraged again, but this time direct that outrage at the people who want you to hate the man on the TV screen, a former U.S. Marine who received a letter of commendation from the White House after serving on the medical team that took care of President Lyndon Johnson after a surgery in 1966. A man who has been a spiritual guide for many influential Americans and was even a guest at the White House during the Clinton administration. What?! Yes.

 

 


Eye to Eye with… Michael Moore?

Filed under: Politics — one April 22, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
I was more than a little astonished yesterday to discover myself not only on the same side of an issue with Michael Moore but to actually be in complete agreement with him. Never before has such a thing happened, but such are the times.
 
Moore posted on his blog a plea to the residents of Pennsylvania to vote for Barack Obama, partly because Moore himself lives in Michigan and was not able to take part in the Democratic primary, but mostly because it's in their best interest.
 
In fact, I believe that out of the many who are sick of the way this country's been run over the past eight years, there is only one real candidate and anyone who hasn't figured that out yet hasn't really been paying attention. Hillary has some solid politicians on her side (including the Governor of Pennsylvania and the Mayor of Philadelphia), and that's probably part of the reason why she appeals so broadly to working class Americans but I see those endorsements as a good reason to run the other way.
 
The biggest political difference between Clinton and Obama is that Clinton wants to continue old-school Washington politics, where politicians get funded by corporations, corporations get contracts and favorable legislation passed, politicians claim there's no connection between the two and the American people suffer.
 
Obama, on the other hand, wants to clean up the process and make the politicians accountable to the people who elected them again. He wants to get rid of the ridiculous talking points that have nothing to do with the issues and are in-fact being used to divert voters' attention away from the issues that really matter. Obama has had many opportunities to slam Clinton over many such issues but he has opted to keep it to actual political issues rather than release commercials explaining to voters that Clinton clearly must think they're stupid to lie to their faces repeatedly about Bosnia and then say it was because she "misspoke" even though she was reading straight from prepared remarks.
 
Many celebrities who have spoken out for the working class their entire careers, such as Michael Moore and Brice Springsteen, believe Obama is the better candidate. Meanwhile Hillary supporters still seem to believe their own deliberate misrepresentation of Obama's remarks about working class Americans clinging to guns and religion. Barack Obama built his career around Churches as a community organizer and is a deeply religious man — it's completely disingenuous to claim he was belittling people for their religion, and if they really believe that then they're blinding themselves to reality.
 
In fact, it was clear to people who actually attended that fund raiser and heard him speak those words that he meant working class Americans have been given the short-end of the economy for so long that they only vote on their core values (guns, religion, etc) because they don't believe anyone in Washington is ever really going to do anything to help them economically. In short, he is saying that a lot of working class Americans are voting Republican when it's economically against their best interest to do so, simply because they feel at least the Republicans will do *something* they agree with.
 
But given the choice between better jobs with better pay and banning gay marriage, Barack is confident that all of these little issues that divide us will go back to where they belong — the background of politics instead of the forefront. No one needs to be messing with gun laws, one way or the other, when we have communities that have been suffering economically for decades. These issues may be very important, but they are not nearly as important as making sure every American has a fair shake.
 
So if you're reading this and you live in Indiana, North Carolina, or one of the other remaining states yet to have your Democratic Primary, I implore you to take a close look at both Senator Clinton's and Senator Obama's candidacies. People criticize Obama for not having concrete plans, but his plans are just as concrete as Hillary's — and with differences significant enough that you'll begin to get a sense of his personality and guiding ethics vs. hers.  For instance, they both believe that every American is entitled to health care, but Clinton's plan forces every American to pay for it (much of that money goes into the private healthcare industry that has donated millions of dollars to her over the past decade) where Obama's plan doesn't, but fails to cover 15 million Americans. Senator Clinton uses that number to scare people, but really that means Obama's plan will cost less and provide more benefits to more than 95% of all Americans. 100% would be nice, but for a first attempt at national healthcare which approach do you like better?
 
Clinton claims years of experience, well frankly we have three Senators running for the Executive office of the Presidency and none of their Senatorial experience is really relevant. Clinton cites her time as First Lady, but really how relevant is that either? She's already proven her willingness to inflate her Presidential Resume by lying about her trip to Bosnia. Frankly, the only real Executive position — running a large organization — that any of them have to-date is running their campaigns, and how has that been going? 
 
Hillary's campaign has been taking tons of lobbyist money and she's in debt to the tune of more than $10 million, not counting the millions of dollars she lent her campaign out of her own pocket. McCain's campaign has raised even less money, and despite running on an anti-earmark platform he's still taking lobbyist money. Obama has outraised the both of them combined and he's done it taking no lobbyist money, taking an entirely new approach getting only campaign contributions from average Americans. He's raised over $100 million with an average donation of $109. He's also, as mentioned earlier, run a clean campaign that attacks his opponents only on the issues and never personal attacks like the ones he has weathered.
 
So it would seem the most successful executive, with the most experience in an executive position, is the one both candidates criticize as having too little experience. Certainly he has less experience as a "Washington Insider" but then he is running on a platform of getting rid of  the "Washington Insider Politics" and he makes many, many excellent cases how it has benefited companies in bed with the government at the expense of average Americans.
 
Hillary stands for some good things, but she's a proven liar, she's made bad decisions (like voting for the Iraq war and arranging multiple meetings to convince congress to vote for NAFTA) that she pretends didn't matter or somehow weren't her fault.
 
She also seems rather suspect on her opinion of lobbyists and their contributions to politicians. Clinton unashamedly says she's proud to take their money and she will keep taking their money because they're ordinary Americans too (they're not) and they deserve to have their voice heard. When asked if the contributions influence her in any way she says what most politicians say when asked this question: Of course not, that's silly. How they deserve to be heard but not listened to is beyond me, but I think it's just one more example of why we need to get the lobbyists out of our government, NOW.
 
As for her criticisms of Obama — pay attention and you'll see how much smoke she blows. Within the past couple of months she whined about media coverage, complained that debates were biased against her, and even accused Obama of using tactics "straight out of Karl Rove's playbook".  After the last debate suddenly she accused Obama of "whining" (the closest he came to whining was to say how ridiculous it was that Americans had to wait 45 minutes before a single question about any issue that mattered was asked, and that many issues such as Afghanistan were never brought up because of this wasted time) and she suddenly embraced using "Karl Rove" tactics (against Obama) because "that's what the Republicans will do in a general election".
 
For the record, the tactic Obama used when Clinton accused him of "Karl Rove" tactics was sending mailers to people's homes criticizing her healthcare plan in a way she thought was unfair. What Clinton did to Obama last week was try to take a number of controversial figures (such as Louis Farrakhan) and build tenuous links between them and Obama. In other words, Obama is guilty of saying, "I don't think you're going to like her health plan" and Clinton is guilty of saying, "Let me tell you white people why you should be afraid of the black man".
 
Hillary Clinton is a disgustingly ambitious woman who is so convinced of her own ability to lead this country that would tear it to pieces with manufactured hatred, controversy and lies if that's what it took for her to get the Presidency. Don't take my word for it. Look at both candidates, really look at them, and see for yourself. 
 
 

Next Page >>>
Calendar

April 2008
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930