A blog about Kern County, Politics, and Religion & Faith.
|
Cops on cell phones? It's part of their job McCarthy won't quiet down, luckily Vegas' plan to run good news all around The people will decide the same-sex marriage issue Fireworks lovers are their own worst enemy Duck attack horrible, but tragedy is in youths He gave her the White House for celebration Recalls should be last resort, not first Barnett's views shouldn't be fodder for obsessive media High school district admits Bible blunder June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 June 06 May 06 April 06 March 06 February 06 January 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 August 05 July 05 Blog RollAsk The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Obama can speak, but he can't unite anymore
You have to hand it to Sen. Barack Obama. The man can really whomp up a speech. The presidential hopeful from Illinois is obviously a brilliant orator whose recent reflections on the racial state of the union left many Americans, including the already infatuated mainstream media, more gaga than ever. But in spite of Obama's spellbinding speaking skills, red flags are still flapping over the racist and incendiary remarks made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., the senator’s longtime pastor, friend and spiritual mentor. By now you've heard the words and seen the spectacle — the reverend at his pulpit, calling on the Almighty to damn America, insisting the “government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color” and declaring America got just what it deserved in the 9/11 attacks. It's not that Obama hasn't denounced the pastor's racist and anti-American rants. He has, albeit belatedly. And it's not that Americans expect Obama to “disown” his friend of 20 years. We're simply trying to comprehend how the man who would be president could sit quietly by as his pastor and his church embraced some of the most virulent racist remarks ever to pass from the pulpit. It's a question Obama himself asked in his eloquent speech, but ultimately failed to answer. True, he did call the reverend's remarks “divisive” and “racially charged” and said he “strongly” disagreed with them. But he then went on to characterize those remarks as merely “controversial,” a disagreement of the sort any of us might have with our own “pastors, priests or rabbis.” Hold on a second. This isn't a debate over hymnals versus overhead projectors. It's not an argument over the number of services or the volume of the worship music. This is about the core faith beliefs we share, the doctrines by which we live and raise our children. Like Obama, I've attended the same church for more than 20 years. Like most of my fellow congregants, I have an abiding respect and affection for my pastors. That being said, if any one of them uttered racist or inflammatory remarks like those shouted from the pulpit by Wright, I would be faced with only two possible conclusions — that the pastor had suddenly taken leave of his senses, requiring immediate psychiatric assistance, or that our philosophical and faith beliefs were no longer in sync. If it were the former, I would support him, if the latter, I would leave. Obama's continued presence at the church is tacit approval of his pastor and his pastor's behavior. His regular attendance over two decades indicates he is either comfortable with Wright's racist worldview or — and here's an even scarier thought — he didn't recognize it as racist when he heard it. Obama believes he has the power to unify this nation, yet the defense of his choices and his subsequent “typical white person” remarks not only fall short, they offend. Whether or not Obama can put this mess behind him remains to be seen. But his claim to the title of “uniter, not a divider,” rings true no more. 123 comments from 26 users
posted by
randomfactor
on Mar 24, 2008 at 03:29 PM
Heck, compared to the Shrubbery, *NIXON* is left-wing. posted by
randomfactor
on Mar 24, 2008 at 03:31 PM
Beautiful, Tom. Didn't Adlai Stevenson answer a woman who said he had the votes of "every thinking American" that it wasn't enough, he needed a majority... posted by
TomW
on Mar 24, 2008 at 03:32 PM
Compared to Bush, Reagan was a liberal. Compared to Reagan, Nixon was a liberal. Actually, compared to Bill Clinton, Nixon was pretty liberal... posted by
sagefever
on Mar 24, 2008 at 03:33 PM
How am I supposed to stay at least a little serious if you two keep cracking me up? But,thanks I need the yucks today. posted by
TomW
on Mar 24, 2008 at 03:34 PM
I think that's right, RF. The construction is pretty widely used by politicians now. posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Mar 24, 2008 at 03:52 PM
Again Chico, please show me where he was wrong on the history. In the speeches you quote, he talks about history. I say that he is historically accurate. If he's racist, then history is racist. ~Mattloch
I feel no guilt over things I haven't done and will never do. I have no problem holding everyone to the same standard but I do have a problem with people who feel they should be treated differently due to past real or perceived injuries or injustices. You evidently do not.............. posted by
randomfactor
on Mar 24, 2008 at 04:07 PM
So he was right on the history. . I have no problem with people who feel they should be treated differently due to *PRESENT* real or perceived injuries, and that's the case here. The history Obama cited shows how we got to this point. posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Mar 24, 2008 at 04:28 PM
I didn't say he was right on history. Whether he is or not he is still a racist. If you are saying the White man invented AIDS in order to wipe out the black man I say you are full of beans. But you go ahead and believe that. Just don't expect me to buy into it any more than I'm responsible for the mistreatment of blacks. You or Mattloch have still not answered the question. posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Mar 24, 2008 at 04:58 PM
Compared to Bush, Reagan was a liberal. Compared to Reagan, Nixon was a liberal. Actually, compared to Bill Clinton, Nixon was pretty liberal... Right about now Bill Clinton looks pretty good......... OUCH!
posted by
randomfactor
on Mar 24, 2008 at 05:13 PM
Best Republican president in 40 years. posted by
mattloch
on Mar 24, 2008 at 05:46 PM
Chico, as I pointed out (repeatedly), for the first 200 years of this country's existence, "white" and "government" have been interchangable.
posted by
antiextremism
on Mar 24, 2008 at 07:03 PM
Yeah, but the leadership is getting less and less white Matt. I mean, at least we're not slapping on large doses of white powder on us. Maybe we have leaders who put large amounts of white powder...in them...but not on them. LOL posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Mar 25, 2008 at 06:57 AM
Chico, as I pointed out (repeatedly), for the first 200 years of this country's existence, "white" and "government" have been interchangable. OK. I get it now Mattloch. As Richard Dawson would have said: "Good Answer!".... In the "old days" White meant Govt and vice versa. Kewl. I get it now. Thanks. Sometimes we need a real historian like yourself to set us plebes straight.
posted by
NumberOfTheFallen
on Mar 27, 2008 at 08:34 AM
4003. posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Mar 27, 2008 at 08:39 AM
posted by NumberOfTheFallen on Mar 27, 2008 at 08:34 AM 4003 With all the respect due I can muster P*ss Off poster who goes by the handle "NumberOfTheFallen" Your handle belies your true intent You are as transparent as a pane of TSMMattlochRF Glass to me.............. posted by
anglo1
on Mar 27, 2008 at 09:09 AM
Anti, just think if Obama gets elected you can easily swap a black caricature in place of the Pres. Bush face on your little cartoon and be accurate. posted by
NumberOfTheFallen
on Mar 28, 2008 at 07:13 AM
4004. posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Mar 28, 2008 at 07:15 AM
Give it a rest Random You could give a Sierra Hotel crap about the troops posted by
mattloch
on Mar 29, 2008 at 02:32 PM
Funny, Chico, but you've insulted people for wanting to bring the troops home and out of harm's way (because it doesn't accomplish the larger goal of "the War on Terror"), and now you're claiming that someone doesn't care about the troops because they're honoring those who have fallen in service to this country. You can't have it both ways.
posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Mar 29, 2008 at 03:48 PM
When I get back to a PC Matthew I will tell you how the cows eat the cabbage....... You nor Randy care about the troops, just your socialistic agenda.......
posted by
sagefever
on Mar 29, 2008 at 04:52 PM
Chico, Chico Chico~ you simply must get a patent on those glass's that see into a persons soul~through your PDA no less.... posted by
NancyII
on Mar 29, 2008 at 05:18 PM
If I thought the reason behind posting the number of fallen was to honor them I wouldn't mind seeing it there. But we all know that's not the real purpose. It wasn't in the beginning and I don't believe it is now. posted by
ChicoEsquela
on Mar 29, 2008 at 06:05 PM
its a pearl Sage and its even bettern' the old one! Our readers recommend: |
