Shamefully Gutless

How are you reaching the conclusion that the right is to blame for this? Seems to me all involved are guilty of turning into the p.c. police. Even his fellow dem competitor (denounce, no reject, no denounce AND reject).

They'll stop doing it when it stops working. Just like "scare" tactics.

 

I want HatterDon to say, without the verboseness, that he is voting for McCain. Cut and dry.

Say it, please.

And then PM me. We need to talk.

 

Actually I agree with Don on the issue of his throwing his church... and Wright.. under the bus.


But not with the conclusion. The man will say anything to anyone if he thinks they want to hear it, and it will bring him votes. And now he just kicked his socialist/palestinian/anti-jewish communities off his website. I'm SURE they will understand, though. He'll make it up to them once he is in office.
But the FACT is he is being STRONGLY questioned on his associations. And that's how politics is.

And the FACT is that all the associations that seem to come to surface are of the leftist kind. With the exception of Tony Rezko, whose politics dont really matter. But neither does the land deal, it was on the up and up.

And in all the cases, Obama feigns surprise at the way those associates' views are perceived or that they had any nefarious motivations.

I had started out saying the problem with Obama is that we have no idea what he would do when President. But I think it's pretty clear now. He will not go back on a lifetime of empirically gained beliefs.

 

HatterDon--Say it ain't so. If you're pissed off at Obama for disillusionment, voting for McCain is not the answer. Abstain or vote for Spock. What if his running mate is Sentorum?!

 

You dont get Don's point... Obama is more Clintonesque than the Clintons!
He told AIPAC that Jerusalem was off the table, then the palestinians complained and he didnt just wobble, he crapped all over what he had just said days before. That's not the only problem, he seems to be attracting every socialist nutjob on the planet.

McCain is bad enough, IMO.. in fact I think Hillary probably has a better handle on many of the real domestic issues than Senator John does. As a Conservative, I dont rate McCain at all.

 

If you're looking for consistency in politics, look the other way. Now, I'm not defending Obama's desire to please. But honestly, what politician doesn't do this. McCain speaking at Liberty University to cater to the religious right is not all that different. You'll argue that it's a lot different, that McCain's speech is a public relations issue and Obama's position (as you describe it) in the middle east is a national security issue. But McCain is walking a tightrope to appeal both to the independent and to the right. Obama is probably walking one between other interests. All politicians walk such tightropes, not only domestically but abroad.

Emerson said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman, philosophers and divines." (I think I'm quoting accurately.) When people have new information that should affect their views, they ought to change their views. Obama was able to defend Wright until Wright went on three national stages to reinvigorate what most of white America thinks are bizarre views. I don't see what choice he had?

What we need is a leader who is willing to change his/her mind should circumstances require the change. What we don't want is a leader who is blown by the popular wind. We do, however, want a leader with a mind--that can change!

 

don, the difference between the religious right and the republican party vis-a-vis jeremiah wright/black liberation theology and barack obama is that the republicans pander to the religious right.

you can easily say that republicans favor the religious right, and i agree, but they merely use them as a voting base. if republicans really were all crazy christians or at their bidding, then abortion (for example) would have been reversed under Reagan. but it hasn't been and probably never will be removed. instead, they say "oh how its so immoral!!" without ever planning on doing something meaningful to change it.

obama however sat in the pews of Rev. Wright's for 20 years. he isn't suddenly pandering to the black theologian base for votes, and denouncing them when it blew up in his face. instead, its something that he essentially immersed himself in -- he even credits Wright in his autobiography as a major influence in his life (or something thereof).

if david duke were to, and i really hope he does for the sake of humanity, denounce his segregationist beliefs would we laud him or rebuke him? probably the former. yet we're supposed to get angry when obama throws an equally segregationist ideology under the bus because of the media and right wing blogosphere?

 

For the sake of accuracy I request that Don provide documentation of the exact quote regarding the grandparents and such.

Here Obama's in his own words on the decison;
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/ ... nnSTCVideo

 

I think you misunderstand me (which is why I purposely made that post ambiguous).

I am still "UNDECIDED".

 

What Don leaves out, which is quite telling, is that after that speech {which even I thought was brilliant, remember?}, it was all put to naught by Rev Wright at the National Press Club. Wherein Wright threw Obama in front of HIS bus.

The fact that Obama continues to morph while expressing surprise at his associates' views shows that the outcome of his presidency is at best uncertain. The only certain thing is there WILL be change, and the change will be based on hope.

I think that's been Obama's only core strategy, there'll be no wavering from that.

 

Here's the passage I assume your referring to.;
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=88478467

Alright. First off he's talking about Wright not the church. Perhaps you'll argue that they are the same thing, I disagree.

Second he's talking about "disowning" Wright, not quiting the church. Perhaps you'll argue that withdrawing his membership is effectively disowning Wright. Again I'd disagree. It's clear that part of his decision making process involved protecting the church.

He's not heaping scorn on the church and its members or committing himself to never speaking to anyone involved again. He's making the move in the hopes that the burden he's placed them under can be removed and that they can get back to worshiping god. Far from disowning he says just previous to this in the same clip I linked that he continues to respect Wright's work, has tremendous respect for the new Rev. Moss, and even calls Father Phlegher, someone who was not part of the church but merely a guest preacher, a friend.

Now of course I realize that were it not for the campaign he'd not have taken this step;

He feels he can't continue to be associated with every new Trinity revelation that comes out every other week for the next five months. In the same breath how does continuing to level an up hill struggle and thus subjecting himself and the electorate to endless Trinity loop clips help to return civility to our politics which you seek Don? Seems to me it does quite to opposite.

Furthermore the right wing you say it is your goal to marginalize threw this in the mixer in the hopes that the electorate would opt for their man McCain just as they did to for Bush over Kerry and previous to that as well. It appears the jig worked on you, why should they vacate the strategy when it gets them into office? Perhaps they'd take a look in the mirror were they to say LOSE, but certainly they will not if they continue to win.

Call me cruel(I don't wanna but sometimes I am) Don but seems to me you've been high on McCain and non-comital on Obama at best for a long time. Are you looking for an event to justify that jump? If McCain's your man then well I disagree, but who am I to tell you to vote for? I just don't think theres meat on this issue. I don't see how this one decision on Obama's part justifies shitting in the face of what you describe as 50 years of social liberalism in the other thread and I certainly don't see how electing John McCain returns civility to politics anymore than electing Barack Obama does.

Your very kind and complementary of me but on this issue, this decision at least, I can't return the complement.

 

One small step for man...

Too bad you continue to throw that 'hate blogs' line around so carelessly, still.

 

Not your job, but very much an indication of how useful I think your opinons are, especially considering a somewhat similar political tinge to us, I ask for complete disclosure regarding your reasons for picking McCain over Barak.

Of course, if you are too busy, don't worry about it. But you seem very sure, while I still am not.

EDIT: Scratch that. Seems I should look on the 2nd page of this thread first.

 

At this point we'd be arguing over technicalities which would be tedious. However I do feel I must respond on the last point. You are turning your back on the social liberal to elect the social conservative. You are casting those particular values, 50 years in the making, aside when you vote for McCain. You seem to be doing so with the justification that those values are unlikely to be addressed regardless. Again I disagree.

Do you happen to know John Paul Steven's DOB? 04-20-20! That makes him 88.

Ruth Bater Ginsburg? 3-15-33. So ah 75.

Your history is better than mine senor so you know that many a social advances have come through the Supreme Court. I have no idea if your pro choice or pro life(I'm life) but the concequences go far beyond that even if the media doesn't bother going into it. Your voting for the man who has said time and time again that he'll appoint "judges like Thomas and Alito". Thomas for Stevens, Alito for Ginsburg. Your putting votes of future advances and even votes to uphold advances previously made in serious jeopardy. I judge that as turning your back turning your back on those values. I'm not going back off that point. But... since you object I'm willing to abstain from the crudity of future shit in the face analogies :|.