This entry was posted on April 15, 2009 at 11:51 am and is filed under CNN, FNC. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Did the MSM think that if they ignored the tea parties they would just go away????? Just like they covered up for John Edwards—WE STILL FOUND OUT ABOUT IT!!!!!
Why? Should the tea parties be ignored? The anti-war ones weren’t. If the MSM don’t report them, they don’t exist? And CNN is in fourth place…….. What’s so crazy about that?
harley:
The MSM aren’t ignoring the tea parties because they intentionally want to prevent coverage of it; No, from their world view the issue is silly, not worthy of attention.
At the same time, though, a good indicator that something may be gathering steam is when that something becomes a frequent target of ridicule. This is what the left did to Governor Palin and what you can read right here in these blog comments.
The use of ridicule has nothing to do with fear. It is an effective tactic that is often used successfully, but also carries a considerable backlash risk.
I mean how far are the MSM going to go to protect Obama?????? He is going to have to make tough decisions on North Korea, Iran, and piracy. Are they going to ignore stuff and report on Obama’s new dog instead? Folks are not dumb, we don’t have to rely on just the MSM for news now. They ignored these parties for the longest and now today they want to come out and ridicule them. It makes no sense.
The tea parties are everywhere today. The “MSM” is covering them.
Sarah Palin didn’t become a target of ridicule because she was “gathering steam.” She was a media darling at that point; becoming a “target” after turning crazy.
“The use of ridicule has nothing to do with fear. It is an effective tactic that is often used successfully, but also carries a considerable backlash risk.”
Fair enough, but 95% of her wounds were self-inflicted.
I haven’t yet had a chance to watch any MSM, but glad to hear they’re covering the story. They had to eventually.
Tax protests are a good thing and they certainly have their place in American political discourse. Still, they do seem a bit goofy to me…but I guess that’s my personal response to most organised protests.
Ms. Palin got a target put on her the day she knocked newly the nominated Barack Obama off the top story spot. She made the same sorts of mistakes the other candidates went through upon first facing the intense national media presidential spotlight, but it never let up on her. I think other vice presidential candidates went through similar experiences on their first (sometimes only) go-round.
“Ms. Palin got a target put on her the day she knocked newly the nominated Barack Obama off the top story spot.”
Well yeah, that’s kind of the way the game of politics is played. Obama had a target on his back from the moment he beat Hillary in the Iowa caucuses.
“She made the same sorts of mistakes the other candidates went through upon first facing the intense national media presidential spotlight, but it never let up on her. ”
You’re first point is debatable, but it never letting up on her? That was because with every new interview, she made a new, stupid mistake.
This is what the left did to Governor Palin and what you can read right here in these blog comments.
Doesn’t wash Al. Like with Hillary in the primary campaign, Sarah Palin’s own gaffes torpedoed her. And it wasn’t just the “left” piling on Palin. More than a few prominent Republicans said she wasn’t qualified and McCain made a bad choice.
In the end, the Social Conservatives loved her because she talked like them and spoke to them. But that’s not enough to get one elected nationally. It takes more than extreme base pandering.
Did the Left ridicule Palin? Probably. But that’s a sword that cuts two ways because Palin came out ridiculing/attacking everything but Social Conservatism. You reap what you sow…
Palin will run for President in 2012. She has a good chance at getting the nomination (but everyone thought Romney was the real power in 2008 early on with the big campaign and organization effort and that didn’t work out so well).
However, barring some national calamity which torpedoes Obama, Palin will lose in the general election because more people don’t like her than like her and, like Dan Quayle, she can’t undo first impressions.
That’s ok. This is all part of a process. The Republicans need to lurch further to the Right with an extreme candidate, and lose again bad, before they finally realize they went the wrong direction and move to the middle. The Democrats did the same thing in 1984 with Mondale and, to a lesser extent, in 1988 with Dukakis, before finding a candidate who could win in 1992 with Clinton.
Maybe. Could also argue that the Republicans went too far “moderate” with nominating John McCain, and lost the House in ’06 because they failed to follow the kinds of policies that put them in power in the first place.
I don’t know if Governor Palin would run or if she could get the nomination if she did. Repubs do tend to go with the “loser” of the previous election cycle when choosing a candidate, and that bodes well for Romney, I suppose. I do believe that if John McCain had chosen a more liberal Republican running mate he would fared far worse in the general election than he did.
Hillary Clinton did make mistakes but, if not for the gushing popularity of her opponent, those mistakes wouldn’t have been scrutinised nearly as closely.
I also don’t mean to infer that all of the attacks on Gov. Palin were unfair. That’s what happens in American presidential politics and part of the reason she became the target was John McCain, himself – the guy’s an American hero, strong on defence, certainly a “moderate”, politically, and just not a very good target for criticism and ridicule.
John McCain failed to realise that he won the nomination by default and that the significant popularity of his ticket, at least from the perspective of his Republican base, was due mostly to his running mate.
Clinton stumbled entirely on her own. Her campaign was an unmanageable trainwreck completely unprepared for the fundraising prowess and cult of personality Obama presented, then she continued the destruction by hanging on long after she was mathematically eliminated by trying to claim votes in Florida and Michigan she had already agreed not to contest when she was the frontrunner, in the process unintentionally making her opponent a better candidate.
I think the discussion has gotten sidetracked. The bottom line is that Ms. Roesgen, a CNN “correspondent,” was way out of line. She proved exactly what the people accused her of. She is not a reporter. Her actions have damaged CNN’s reputation.
That CNN reporter is an absolutely joke. She clearly went into that with an agenda & tried to argue with her interview subjects. She wouldn’t even let the guy answer.
That’s fine on a debate show. It’s not acceptable in “news” coverage. Of course, CNN plays it “straight down the middle”. B.S.
Spud, the Republicans went right into the middle with McCain & got smoked. Of course, much of that was his own fault because he ran a terrible campaign. Frankly, I don’t think anyone would have beaten Obama.
Palin didn’t hurt McCain in the total scheme. She might have lost moderates for him, but also fired up conservatives who were lackluster on McCain. In the end, the effect was nil.
Looking back, Romney would have been the better choice, as President or V.P., but I don’t think it would have mattered much in the end.
As for 2012, I have no idea who will get the nomination, but the Huckster will win Iowa again, running the gay marriage issue to a big Iowa Caucus victory.
Palin needs to fire her p.r. staff, pronto. From the turkey shredder to the Levi statement, they’re abysmal.
“Maybe. Could also argue that the Republicans went too far “moderate” with nominating John McCain, and lost the House in ‘06 because they failed to follow the kinds of policies that put them in power in the first place.
and…
Spud, the Republicans went right into the middle with McCain & got smoked. Of course, much of that was his own fault because he ran a terrible campaign. Frankly, I don’t think anyone would have beaten Obama.
The Republicans went with McCain not because they liked McCain (they don’t really) or because they consciously went towards the middle but because candidates that would have fared better against Obama fizzled in the primaries (Romney), didn’t have a gameplan (Thompson), or had a horrible gameplan (Rudy). McCain got it because he was last man standing. You can partially blame that on the primary system which puts too much emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire.
But you’re right, nobody probably would have beaten Obama. Not because Obama ran such a great campaign (he didn’t) but because Bush had destroyed his own party to the point that it was impotent and the voters decided that they got fooled by the divide and conquer strategy vis a vis Kerry in 2004 and the tricks that worked then weren’t going to work this time. Not that some in the Republican party didn’t try them again (Palin). It’s easier to pull off a divide and conquer when things are good. When things are bad, people tend to ignore that and concentrate on real issues.
Having said all that I don’t take this tea party thing as a fluke or window dressing. People took the Contract with America as a fluke…right up until the Republicans swept into Congress in 1994. I don’t think they can retake the Senate in 2010 but a lot of the first term Democrats in right leaning or tossup districts could be in trouble. It all depends on how long the recession lasts. If it’s still going strong next year, watch out.
Oh and in regards to the actual subject of this post, I think ya’ll are forgetting something. She was getting heckled pretty bad. “You’re not a reporter”? Come on. I think she didn’t handle it very well and lost her cool and what she said was a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction.
That said, I think there’s something to the concept of FNC and FBN getting behind these rallies to the degree that they have. It does give me pause.
Agreed. It’s one thing to promote the fact that they’re covering the events – if for no other reason than nobody else is. But they’re also covering big time on all the commentary shows… I’d expect Hannity to and maybe O’Reilly mentioning it, but even Van Susteren went on a field trip to the roof or wherever she is to cover it.
Well look at Spud, impressing folks with his political skills. 🙂 Seriously, I think you make some good points Spud. However, I would beg to differ on a point or two. (Can you imagine me disagreeing with you? 🙂
Point 1) While McCain may have been moderate on an issue or two (immigration and campaign finance), he was batsh*t rightwing on abortion, g a y marriage and other social issues, not to mention earmarks.
Point 2) McCain was more than ready to use the Lee Atwater playbook until he wasn’t. His campaign put out all kinds of borderline/racist BS until it didn’t. And what I mean by that is that until he was personally offended by the crazy lady who said he was an Arab (and the loons that shouted he was a terrorist after he asked who is Barack Obama?), he (and Palin) were more than willing to question his Americanism and patriotism and used racist language. He may not have been comfortable with it, but he still did it. That’s like saying someone didn’t want to kill someone, but the moment got the better of them.
No excuse for his behavior. He is a right-winger through and through. Whether right-wingers accept him as one of their own or not is irrelevant. He is one.
Right-wingers and Republicans lost because their ideology is bankrupt. Period. They’ve had 20+ years where their ideology was the favored one. Liberalism has it’s chance now. We’ll see how it goes. I like our chances.
smh, as usual, pure nonsense. Is Obama batsh*t right wing on ga* marriage too??? Because his and McCain’s stances are practically IDENTICAL. Ditto for stem cell research.
Name me ONE TIME McCain questioned Obama’s Americanism, patriotism, or used racist language.
McCain went TOO FAR in refusing to attack Obama on legitimate issues, like his association with Rev. Wright. OBAMA SAID WRIGHT WAS A LEGIT ISSUE…. McCain admonished anyone who brought it up.
Obama (nor the many blue dog Dems in Congress) didn’t win because of his liberalism. He ran on conservative issues like middle class tax cuts. He conned people into thinking he was non-partisan and could bring the left & right together.
legitimate issues, like his association with Rev. Wright.
Oh, come on Red. That’s a window dressing issue. If we held every politician by the standard of who they have any association with, however tangential it may be to the way they conduct themselves as politicians, we’d have nobody qualified to be in office. Pick a President: W, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt….they all wouldn’t pass muster.
It was a loser issue for McCain. Whatever political points he would have scored would have been more than offset by the voters it would turn away. McCain knew it.
If President Obama didn’t know about the nasty things said by his pastor after all those years as a member of that church then he was an idiot. I don’t believe that. That means he put up with that hate speech and subjected his children to it for some reason, such as for political gain, or it means he agreed with it.
That is not a tangential issue, except in how it was deflected by many in the media. The issue goes directly to his character, and could give clues to what the man would say or do in order to achieve his goals.
Obama wasn’t there for the 9/11 comments, which are known to be specifically more inflammatory than his usual routine. I imagine mine were at the time, too. Everybody was highly agitated after that event.
I’ve spent some time as a white guy in black churches. They are more political than other churches, regularly addressing the oppression that blacks have experienced. Obama probably heard a considerable amount of acrimony towards this country that you and I might find troubling. He chose to embrace this country and maybe begin to change the tone of bitterness that many in the African-American community feel towards it. Kinda hard for a black preacher to shout goddamn America now, aint it?
Inside Cable News 
April 15, 2009 at 12:03 pm
THEY’RE JUST MAD CAUSE FOX IS NUMBER 1!!!!!
April 15, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Did the MSM think that if they ignored the tea parties they would just go away????? Just like they covered up for John Edwards—WE STILL FOUND OUT ABOUT IT!!!!!
April 15, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Are you nuts?
lol
April 15, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Yikes @ harley.
April 15, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Why? Should the tea parties be ignored? The anti-war ones weren’t. If the MSM don’t report them, they don’t exist? And CNN is in fourth place…….. What’s so crazy about that?
April 15, 2009 at 1:24 pm
harley:
The MSM aren’t ignoring the tea parties because they intentionally want to prevent coverage of it; No, from their world view the issue is silly, not worthy of attention.
At the same time, though, a good indicator that something may be gathering steam is when that something becomes a frequent target of ridicule. This is what the left did to Governor Palin and what you can read right here in these blog comments.
April 15, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“This is what the left did to Governor Palin and what you can read right here in these blog comments.”
Ah yes, we ridiculed Palin because we FEARED her. LOL. Again, you people confuse mockery with fear.
April 15, 2009 at 1:43 pm
The use of ridicule has nothing to do with fear. It is an effective tactic that is often used successfully, but also carries a considerable backlash risk.
April 15, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I mean how far are the MSM going to go to protect Obama?????? He is going to have to make tough decisions on North Korea, Iran, and piracy. Are they going to ignore stuff and report on Obama’s new dog instead? Folks are not dumb, we don’t have to rely on just the MSM for news now. They ignored these parties for the longest and now today they want to come out and ridicule them. It makes no sense.
April 15, 2009 at 1:55 pm
The tea parties are everywhere today. The “MSM” is covering them.
Sarah Palin didn’t become a target of ridicule because she was “gathering steam.” She was a media darling at that point; becoming a “target” after turning crazy.
April 15, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Harley, if all you’ve got is Media in the Tank for Obama, you belong at TVNewser. We actually talk over here.
April 15, 2009 at 2:03 pm
They are. What else am I supposed to say? Anyone who disagrees with him are called racists or loons. Have you view MSM lately?
April 15, 2009 at 2:16 pm
“The use of ridicule has nothing to do with fear. It is an effective tactic that is often used successfully, but also carries a considerable backlash risk.”
Fair enough, but 95% of her wounds were self-inflicted.
April 15, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I haven’t yet had a chance to watch any MSM, but glad to hear they’re covering the story. They had to eventually.
Tax protests are a good thing and they certainly have their place in American political discourse. Still, they do seem a bit goofy to me…but I guess that’s my personal response to most organised protests.
Ms. Palin got a target put on her the day she knocked newly the nominated Barack Obama off the top story spot. She made the same sorts of mistakes the other candidates went through upon first facing the intense national media presidential spotlight, but it never let up on her. I think other vice presidential candidates went through similar experiences on their first (sometimes only) go-round.
April 15, 2009 at 2:32 pm
“Ms. Palin got a target put on her the day she knocked newly the nominated Barack Obama off the top story spot.”
Well yeah, that’s kind of the way the game of politics is played. Obama had a target on his back from the moment he beat Hillary in the Iowa caucuses.
“She made the same sorts of mistakes the other candidates went through upon first facing the intense national media presidential spotlight, but it never let up on her. ”
You’re first point is debatable, but it never letting up on her? That was because with every new interview, she made a new, stupid mistake.
April 15, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Harley, if that’s all you’ve got to say, you’ve got nothing to say. More ALL CAPS and !!!! maybe?
April 15, 2009 at 3:14 pm
This is what the left did to Governor Palin and what you can read right here in these blog comments.
Doesn’t wash Al. Like with Hillary in the primary campaign, Sarah Palin’s own gaffes torpedoed her. And it wasn’t just the “left” piling on Palin. More than a few prominent Republicans said she wasn’t qualified and McCain made a bad choice.
In the end, the Social Conservatives loved her because she talked like them and spoke to them. But that’s not enough to get one elected nationally. It takes more than extreme base pandering.
Did the Left ridicule Palin? Probably. But that’s a sword that cuts two ways because Palin came out ridiculing/attacking everything but Social Conservatism. You reap what you sow…
April 15, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Palin will run for President in 2012. She has a good chance at getting the nomination (but everyone thought Romney was the real power in 2008 early on with the big campaign and organization effort and that didn’t work out so well).
However, barring some national calamity which torpedoes Obama, Palin will lose in the general election because more people don’t like her than like her and, like Dan Quayle, she can’t undo first impressions.
That’s ok. This is all part of a process. The Republicans need to lurch further to the Right with an extreme candidate, and lose again bad, before they finally realize they went the wrong direction and move to the middle. The Democrats did the same thing in 1984 with Mondale and, to a lesser extent, in 1988 with Dukakis, before finding a candidate who could win in 1992 with Clinton.
April 15, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Ant that, ladies and gentlemen, is what astute political analysis looks like.
April 15, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Maybe. Could also argue that the Republicans went too far “moderate” with nominating John McCain, and lost the House in ’06 because they failed to follow the kinds of policies that put them in power in the first place.
I don’t know if Governor Palin would run or if she could get the nomination if she did. Repubs do tend to go with the “loser” of the previous election cycle when choosing a candidate, and that bodes well for Romney, I suppose. I do believe that if John McCain had chosen a more liberal Republican running mate he would fared far worse in the general election than he did.
Hillary Clinton did make mistakes but, if not for the gushing popularity of her opponent, those mistakes wouldn’t have been scrutinised nearly as closely.
April 15, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I also don’t mean to infer that all of the attacks on Gov. Palin were unfair. That’s what happens in American presidential politics and part of the reason she became the target was John McCain, himself – the guy’s an American hero, strong on defence, certainly a “moderate”, politically, and just not a very good target for criticism and ridicule.
John McCain failed to realise that he won the nomination by default and that the significant popularity of his ticket, at least from the perspective of his Republican base, was due mostly to his running mate.
April 15, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Clinton stumbled entirely on her own. Her campaign was an unmanageable trainwreck completely unprepared for the fundraising prowess and cult of personality Obama presented, then she continued the destruction by hanging on long after she was mathematically eliminated by trying to claim votes in Florida and Michigan she had already agreed not to contest when she was the frontrunner, in the process unintentionally making her opponent a better candidate.
April 15, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I think the discussion has gotten sidetracked. The bottom line is that Ms. Roesgen, a CNN “correspondent,” was way out of line. She proved exactly what the people accused her of. She is not a reporter. Her actions have damaged CNN’s reputation.
April 15, 2009 at 4:54 pm
You’re right, willier. It was a condescending statement and not an informational report.
April 15, 2009 at 5:33 pm
That CNN reporter is an absolutely joke. She clearly went into that with an agenda & tried to argue with her interview subjects. She wouldn’t even let the guy answer.
That’s fine on a debate show. It’s not acceptable in “news” coverage. Of course, CNN plays it “straight down the middle”. B.S.
Spud, the Republicans went right into the middle with McCain & got smoked. Of course, much of that was his own fault because he ran a terrible campaign. Frankly, I don’t think anyone would have beaten Obama.
Palin didn’t hurt McCain in the total scheme. She might have lost moderates for him, but also fired up conservatives who were lackluster on McCain. In the end, the effect was nil.
Looking back, Romney would have been the better choice, as President or V.P., but I don’t think it would have mattered much in the end.
As for 2012, I have no idea who will get the nomination, but the Huckster will win Iowa again, running the gay marriage issue to a big Iowa Caucus victory.
Palin needs to fire her p.r. staff, pronto. From the turkey shredder to the Levi statement, they’re abysmal.
April 15, 2009 at 6:46 pm
“Maybe. Could also argue that the Republicans went too far “moderate” with nominating John McCain, and lost the House in ‘06 because they failed to follow the kinds of policies that put them in power in the first place.
and…
Spud, the Republicans went right into the middle with McCain & got smoked. Of course, much of that was his own fault because he ran a terrible campaign. Frankly, I don’t think anyone would have beaten Obama.
The Republicans went with McCain not because they liked McCain (they don’t really) or because they consciously went towards the middle but because candidates that would have fared better against Obama fizzled in the primaries (Romney), didn’t have a gameplan (Thompson), or had a horrible gameplan (Rudy). McCain got it because he was last man standing. You can partially blame that on the primary system which puts too much emphasis on Iowa and New Hampshire.
But you’re right, nobody probably would have beaten Obama. Not because Obama ran such a great campaign (he didn’t) but because Bush had destroyed his own party to the point that it was impotent and the voters decided that they got fooled by the divide and conquer strategy vis a vis Kerry in 2004 and the tricks that worked then weren’t going to work this time. Not that some in the Republican party didn’t try them again (Palin). It’s easier to pull off a divide and conquer when things are good. When things are bad, people tend to ignore that and concentrate on real issues.
Having said all that I don’t take this tea party thing as a fluke or window dressing. People took the Contract with America as a fluke…right up until the Republicans swept into Congress in 1994. I don’t think they can retake the Senate in 2010 but a lot of the first term Democrats in right leaning or tossup districts could be in trouble. It all depends on how long the recession lasts. If it’s still going strong next year, watch out.
April 15, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Oh and in regards to the actual subject of this post, I think ya’ll are forgetting something. She was getting heckled pretty bad. “You’re not a reporter”? Come on. I think she didn’t handle it very well and lost her cool and what she said was a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction.
That said, I think there’s something to the concept of FNC and FBN getting behind these rallies to the degree that they have. It does give me pause.
April 15, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Agreed. It’s one thing to promote the fact that they’re covering the events – if for no other reason than nobody else is. But they’re also covering big time on all the commentary shows… I’d expect Hannity to and maybe O’Reilly mentioning it, but even Van Susteren went on a field trip to the roof or wherever she is to cover it.
Too much.
April 15, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Spud, the “you’re not a reporter” lines came after she TWICE interrupted the guy & tried to argue with him. Watch it again.
Zero professionalism. Zero credibility. Zero class.
I also don’t think FNC news shows should have been promoting the tea parties. Covering them. Yes. Not promoting.
April 15, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Well look at Spud, impressing folks with his political skills. 🙂 Seriously, I think you make some good points Spud. However, I would beg to differ on a point or two. (Can you imagine me disagreeing with you? 🙂
Point 1) While McCain may have been moderate on an issue or two (immigration and campaign finance), he was batsh*t rightwing on abortion, g a y marriage and other social issues, not to mention earmarks.
Point 2) McCain was more than ready to use the Lee Atwater playbook until he wasn’t. His campaign put out all kinds of borderline/racist BS until it didn’t. And what I mean by that is that until he was personally offended by the crazy lady who said he was an Arab (and the loons that shouted he was a terrorist after he asked who is Barack Obama?), he (and Palin) were more than willing to question his Americanism and patriotism and used racist language. He may not have been comfortable with it, but he still did it. That’s like saying someone didn’t want to kill someone, but the moment got the better of them.
No excuse for his behavior. He is a right-winger through and through. Whether right-wingers accept him as one of their own or not is irrelevant. He is one.
Right-wingers and Republicans lost because their ideology is bankrupt. Period. They’ve had 20+ years where their ideology was the favored one. Liberalism has it’s chance now. We’ll see how it goes. I like our chances.
April 15, 2009 at 7:56 pm
smh, as usual, pure nonsense. Is Obama batsh*t right wing on ga* marriage too??? Because his and McCain’s stances are practically IDENTICAL. Ditto for stem cell research.
Name me ONE TIME McCain questioned Obama’s Americanism, patriotism, or used racist language.
McCain went TOO FAR in refusing to attack Obama on legitimate issues, like his association with Rev. Wright. OBAMA SAID WRIGHT WAS A LEGIT ISSUE…. McCain admonished anyone who brought it up.
Obama (nor the many blue dog Dems in Congress) didn’t win because of his liberalism. He ran on conservative issues like middle class tax cuts. He conned people into thinking he was non-partisan and could bring the left & right together.
People are smartening up very quickly.
April 15, 2009 at 8:47 pm
legitimate issues, like his association with Rev. Wright.
Oh, come on Red. That’s a window dressing issue. If we held every politician by the standard of who they have any association with, however tangential it may be to the way they conduct themselves as politicians, we’d have nobody qualified to be in office. Pick a President: W, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt….they all wouldn’t pass muster.
April 15, 2009 at 8:49 pm
McCain admonished anyone who brought it up.
It was a loser issue for McCain. Whatever political points he would have scored would have been more than offset by the voters it would turn away. McCain knew it.
April 15, 2009 at 10:31 pm
If President Obama didn’t know about the nasty things said by his pastor after all those years as a member of that church then he was an idiot. I don’t believe that. That means he put up with that hate speech and subjected his children to it for some reason, such as for political gain, or it means he agreed with it.
That is not a tangential issue, except in how it was deflected by many in the media. The issue goes directly to his character, and could give clues to what the man would say or do in order to achieve his goals.
April 16, 2009 at 6:14 am
Associating Bob Jones with George W. Bush because he spoke at the University once: Legitimate.
Associating Timothy McVeigh with Rush Limbaugh because both of them voted Republican at some point in their lives: Legitimate.
Associating Jeremiah Wright with Barack Obama because he attended his church for 20 years: Window Dressing.
Got it!
April 16, 2009 at 6:42 am
Bob Jones nad W was window dressing. Tim McVeigh and Limbaugh? Come on…McVeigh wasn’t a politician…
April 16, 2009 at 8:13 am
Obama wasn’t there for the 9/11 comments, which are known to be specifically more inflammatory than his usual routine. I imagine mine were at the time, too. Everybody was highly agitated after that event.
I’ve spent some time as a white guy in black churches. They are more political than other churches, regularly addressing the oppression that blacks have experienced. Obama probably heard a considerable amount of acrimony towards this country that you and I might find troubling. He chose to embrace this country and maybe begin to change the tone of bitterness that many in the African-American community feel towards it. Kinda hard for a black preacher to shout goddamn America now, aint it?