Right-Wing Douchebaggery Round Up, 10/24/08

First off, here's Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) expressing concern about whether Obama has anti-American views, followed by her calling for a press investigation into supposed anti-American politicians. When caught, she then denies the whole thing, and blames it all on Chris Matthews. Via TPM:



As stated, Bachmann is taking a big hit for this, and the former Republican Governor of Minnesota has endorsed Obama over this.

Next, there's this one, from Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC):



Of course, he also tried to deny he said it, but there's that pesky audio again. Lastly, there's this one from GOP hack Brad Blakeman:



Forgive the source (it's MSNBC, I know) but Blakeman's words are what they are. I'll also point out again that Obama flipping on public financing is not something you want to bring up too much, but going after him for visiting his ailing grandmother is a new class of low.

Just wanted to share those, and point out how amazing it is that people from either side still try and deny making the statements they make, in the age of YouTube.

Wright Is Still Wrong

More on Wright's latest speech, in which he basically says the same hateful things he's said before, just with more bad political analysis thrown in, is forthcoming, but I just wanted to offer up this, via Dana Milbank in the WaPo:

His views on Farrakhan and Israel? "Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion. He was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter's being vilified for and Bishop Tutu's being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago. He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century; that's what I think about him. . . . Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains, he did not put me in slavery, and he didn't make me this color."

First off, Farrakhan did in fact call Judaism a gutter religion, and even if he was talking about Zionism, and I know I should know better considering who we're talking about, but are we supposed to treat that statement as if calling Zionism a "gutter religion" is somehow a good thing? Are we supposed to agree with you, and Jimny "Douchebag Diplomat" Carter, that standing up for Israel is somehow a bad thing? I think not. Farrakhan was wrong then, and he's wrong now, and so are you.

Also, there's this:

Wright also argued, at least four times over the course of the hour, that he was speaking not for himself but for the black church.

"This is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright," the minister said. "It is an attack on the black church." He positioned himself as a mainstream voice of African American religious traditions. "Why am I speaking out now?" he asked. "If you think I'm going to let you talk about my mama and her religious tradition, and my daddy and his religious tradition and my grandma, you got another thing coming."

One of the big problems I have with Wright, is his assertion that his brand of preaching and theology represents the mainstream of the black church. I find that assertion ridiculous. The prophetic tradition of black preaching is one thing. Wright's sermons are something else. Don't get me wrong, it's not as if Wright's the only one who preaches this way, but the idea that this is how the black chuch, or the church in general is to function is revolting.

And lastly, there's this, in which he totally throws Obama under the bus, and may cost him the Presidency:

Wright suggested that Obama was insincere in distancing himself from his pastor. "He didn't distance himself," Wright announced. "He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American."

Explaining further, Wright said friends had written to him and said, "We both know that if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected." The minister continued: "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Ouch. To paraphrase the proverb, "My enemies I can handle, God save me from my friends."

Obama needs to cut this guy loose. I mean, he can't totally disown him, but he needs to publicly denounce Wright's views some more, and with more force than before.

HT: Instapundit, Patterico, and Sully

Further Thoughts on Obama/Wright and Iraq

It's been a day since the speech, and after further reflection I still hold to my view that it was a good speech, and Obama did most of what he needed to do. One big thing that still nags me though, is the problem I'm having reconciling Wright's supposed good qualities that Obama asserts we haven't seen, and his anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, and his anti-white bigotry. In other words, I'm wondering what Barack Obama sees in this man. I've said before that I do not believe for a second that Obama shares his views. The question is of judgment, and integrity. He still has to go further in explaining this.

In other news, today is the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War. President Bush gave a speech acknowledging it today. Call me crazy, but at the end of the day, setbacks, blunders, missteps, foul-ups, and tragedies included, the Iraqi people, America's long-term security, and the free world is better off. Yes, there's still a lt of messes to clean up, and a lot of those are messes that should not have been made, but the idea that Iraq circa 2008 is not an improvement over Iraq circa 2003, is just not cricket.

Just for reference, let's remind ourselves why we went in again.

UPDATE: No, Tom, not quite. (HT: Instapundit)

UPDATE#2: The Obama-Wright discussion continues over at my second home, Stubborn Facts. Thoughtful and heated at the same time.

Jeremiah Wright is a Conservative

That is, a Black Conservative. David Schraub explains the difference in a must-read essay:

Black Conservatism essentially operates off the premise that racism is an ingrained and potentially permanent part of White-dominated institutions. As a result, Black Conservatives essentially tell Blacks they can only rely on themselves to get ahead in America -- counting on White people to be moral or "do the right thing" is a waste of time. Politically, this means building tight-knit communities that emphasize the patronizing of identifiably Black institutions, with the end result being social independence from White America. In this, it mixes at least partial voluntary self-segregation with a significant aversion to external dependency, with Whites and White institutions being defined as outsiders who can't be trusted.

He goes further, and explains how this applies to Obama:

I'm not saying I agree with all of his points -- I'm not a Black Conservative, and as I outlined in the Thomas post, I'm not sure that a White person can morally adopt the premises of Black Conservatism. But we can't understand what we're yelling about until we properly position it within its philosophical school. This is why I feel confident in asserting that Obama and Wright are not of a political kind -- they operate from totally different ends of the Black Conservative spectrum. Obama is an integrationist, the very act of running for President means that he believes that there is a space for Blacks in our hitherto White-dominated government, and all of his speeches, policies, and writings have indicated he believes that there is hope for an America that is not separated and divided on racial lines. All of these positions would be derided as doe-eyed idealism by a true Black Conservatism. And if there is one thing Obama can't be accused of, it's of being too much of a pessimist.

Damn good stuff. Read it all.

HT, from Andrew Sullivan

Obama's Speech

I watched the speech, and I thought it was really good, and did most of what it supposed to do, at least in terms of the Rev. Wright controversy. I believe Obama effectively repudiated the hateful and divisive rhetoric of his former pastor, while doing his best to explain the complex relationship he has with him:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems – two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all. Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth – by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

And this:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

And this part here:

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

I think Obama is saying that Wright's views reflected in this sermons are wrong and hateful, but one must understand the background they issue from--and this is important, they do not reflect the totality of the man. Wright is family, and he cannot totally walk away from his family.

You should read the whole thing here. (HT: Tom Maguire and Drudge.)

As I said, the speech was pretty good, and dealt with this issue the best way he could have. As a black man, I have experience dealing with the wide range of views Obama talks about. It's important for us to continue to move forward, face the challenges, and heal the wounds that still remain, even after all the progress that has been made.

Politically, I still feel he may face questions about his judgment, (namely why he let his children attend, and the fact that many of Wright's statements weren't so much but race, but vicious attacks on American foreign policy) but at the end of the day I think he did a pretty good job. I'm in agreement with the view that those who choose not to vote for Obama over this probably weren't going to anyway, and those who have a preconceived negative view of Obama aren't going to be swayed by this speech.

Ross Douthat has a really insightful piece on this:

Barack Obama’s long association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright isn’t significant because it suggests that Obama shares Wright’s more controversial views; I have no doubt that he does not. It’s significant because it undercuts an important aspect of Obama’s promise as a politician: Namely, his potential to break the mold of American politics, by transcending both the recent templates for African-American political activity (grievance-based shakedown politics on the one hand, Afrocentric separatism on the other) and the larger red-blue polarization in the country as a whole.

He needs to reject his minister's politics, in other words, in the name of a new generation of African-Americans, while simultaneously suggesting that the bigotries are not necessarily the only measure of the man, and that the appropriate response to Wright's noxious words isn't outrage but rather the mix of pity and tolerance that a white American might feel toward a racist parent or grandparent, who deserves to be loved and accepted in spite of their retrograde opinions.

Could he actually say all this? Can a half-white, half-Kenyan politician presume to speak for the experience of black America? Can a man who clearly loves his pastor go so far down the road toward attacking him outright? Can a black man persuade white Americans that they should feel toward a ranting black preacher the way they might feel toward their own grandparents? I doubt it. But I'd love to see him try.


Shelby Steele goes a somewhat different route, and deals with Obama's whole candidacy. As to "the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap," Steele in effect says that it is. He's totally wrong, much like Geraldine Ferraro was wrong, but his piece deserves a read. (HT again to Tom Maguire)

UPDATE: The always-on-point John McWhorter gets it right. (HT: Sully, who gets it right as well.)

When You Slander The Military...

people take offense, and fight back. Over at Winds of Change, Marc "Armed Liberal" Danziger calls out idiot James Gibney at the Atlantic Monthly:

Please cancel my subscription.

My son - serving in the US Army - is not a part of a group that needs to justify that "most of them are not sociopaths".

Indeed. Our military is the bravest and noblest fighting force in the world, and that doesn't change because of a handful of mistakes by a few. The military shouldn't have to explain why they're not sociopaths--they ought to be given the benefit of the doubt by those who benefit from their scarifice, at home and abroad. Gibney, and the Atlantic should be embarassed, and can only except more blowback if this continues.

To be fair to the magazine as a whole, I emphasize the word 'if." There are some first-rate writers over there, and one writer shouldn't affect the reputation of the whole magazine, but if this attitude is in fact the prevailing attitude at the Atlantic, then I won't be reading the magazine anymore either.

I mean, the military is being attacked on all fronts, it seems.

HT: Instapundit

Why Do So Many Hollywood Lefties Love Hugo So Much?

Anne Applebaum has a good theory:

"In fact, for the malcontents of Hollywood, academia, and the catwalks, Chávez is an ideal ally. Just as the sympathetic foreigners whom Lenin called "useful idiots" once supported Russia abroad, their modern equivalents provide the Venezuelan president with legitimacy, attention, and good photographs. He, in turn, helps them overcome the frustration John Reed once felt—the frustration of living in an annoyingly unrevolutionary country where people have to change things by law. For all his brilliance, Reed could not bring socialism to America. For all his wealth, fame, media access, and Hollywood power, Sean Penn cannot oust George W. Bush. But by showing up in the company of Chávez, he can at least get a lot more attention for his opinions."

For a regrettably large number of Hollywood big shots, the reality of life in a repressive dictatorship is lost on them. They are easily deceived. This is why a guy like Hugo Chavez can cast himself as a man of the people and a friend of democracy, (much like Che continues to cloak his true bloody legacy even long after his death), while Penn, Redford, Danny Glover and others manage to miss the persistent details of reality.

She continues on:

Most of all, Venezuela's leader not only dislikes the American president—so do most other heads of state—but refers to him as "the devil," a "dictator," a "madman," and a "killer." Who cares what Chávez actually does when Sean Penn isn't looking? Ninety years after the tragedy of the Russian revolution, Venezuela has become the "kingdom more bright than any heaven had to offer" for a whole new generation of fellow-travelers. As long as the oil lasts."

Certainly seems that way.

Anti-Gay, America-Hating Kooks Get Their Comeuppance

That's the only title I could come up with to describe this victory:

A federal jury in Baltimore awarded nearly $11 million in damages yesterday to the family of a Marine from Maryland whose funeral was disrupted by members of a Kansas-based fundamentalist church.

One of the defendants said the civil award was the first against the church, whose members have stirred anger across the nation by picketing at funerals for service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, often carrying placards bearing virulent anti-gay slogans. The church maintains that God is punishing the United States, killing and maiming troops, because the country tolerates homosexuality.

Unrepentant Fred Phelps is somehow undeterred, and continues to somehow see in the First Amendment the right to disturb private military funerals with hate speech:

"It was a bunch of silly heads passing judgment on God," he said. "I don't believe anyone in the courtroom knows what the First Amendment is. Religious views are expressly protected by the First Amendment. You can't prosecute a preacher in civil law or in criminal law for what he preaches."

Fred Phelps and his ungodly coterie miss the mark big time, but the family of Lance Cpl. Snyder sets them straight:

"The fact of the matter is, a funeral's private," said one of their attorneys, Sean Summers. "There was no public concern when [church members] showed up with a 'God Hates You' sign."

Exactly. This is open and shut for me. Not only are these rogues utterly hateful in their rhetoric, they do not have the right to invade private funerals with their rhetoric. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why the ACLU has taken sides with the Phelps, although if you ask some people, they'll tell you it makes perfect sense.

Michael Scheuer Is A Prick

These guys think so too, and I agree with them. You need to read the whole thing, and to my fellow liberals especially, ponder why it is that some of us are so quick to embrace such unreconstructed types. Interesting blog all around too.

UPDATE: Link fixed.