Username: Password:
Welcome! Please Sign In or Register

Rev. Jeremiah Wright-Spiritual Advisor

reviewed by SilverFox

SilverFox
10/31/2008

Rev. Jeremiah Wright-Spiritual Advisor 1

UPDATE 10/31/08:  The McCain campaign and supporters have focused on a sleazy attempt at character assassination of Obama, in my view because they sense it's their only chance to dissuade others from voting for Obama because they don't stand a chance by talking about the really important issues. Much of that tactic has been intended to ascribe guilt by association, that Obama associated with Wright, Ayers, Khalidi, etc., as here, and therefore that Obama shares their views.

The important question is not whether and to what extent Obama associated with people of questionable character. The important question is "so what?" Does the fact that Obama went to Wright's church for twenty years necessarily imply that he shares all of Wright's views, particulary when Obama has condemned in very strong terms the remarks Wright made and felt so strongly about it that he left that church? Does the fact that Obama knew and sometimes worked with Ayers imply that Obama shares or sympathizes with the terrorist beliefs Ayers had back in the '60s?" That's what these smear tactics would have you believe.

If you have 100 friends and 3 of them have radical beliefs, is it fair for me to infer that you share their radical beliefs? What if I asked you if you shared their beliefs and you said no, and I had no evidence to the contrary? Would it be legitimate for me to go around telling everyone that you have radical beliefs? Or would that be dishonest?

I have relatives and friends who are conservatives. If I spend considerable time with them, as I do, is it legitimate to infer that I'm also a conservative? Obviously not, if you're familiar with my political stances from what I've written on RIA.

See, that's the problem with this guilt by association stuff. It depends on unwarranted, illogical assumptions. Obama, as a politician, probably has thousands of acquaintances and he probably associates fairly frequently with hundreds of them. Does that mean that he shares all of their beliefs? That's an unwarranted, illogical assumption, particularly when he's stated that his beliefs are different, has stated what his beliefs are, and there's no evidence to the contrary.

So is it legitimate for McCain and his supporters to deliberately keep harping about the bad parts of a few people Obama knows? If you're honest, you'll admit it's a deliberate, smear tactic, it's dirty politics, it's dishonest and fraudulent, and it shows a lack of moral integrity. But the McCain campaign and supporters obviously feel "the end justifies the means," i.e., smear tactics are justified if it accomplishes getting McCain elected. Is that the kind of morality you favor? Is it okay with you that people do that? It isn't okay with me. I despise this lack of honesty, decency, morality, and integrity.

ORIGINAL COMMENT 10/8/08:  Hard for me to stand in his shoes.  Maybe the aging process affected his brain, maybe not, but sometimes having a pulpit can be a bad thing if a person can't control his/her mouth.  In the context in which he was speaking, his comments were not nearly so outrageous as when taken out of context, but nevertheless he should have known better.  Not the kind of stuff for a person on a national stage to be saying, even if he was thinking it.  That kind of talk doesn't foster good racial relationships.  Pretty much forced Obama's hand, even though Obama tried to be loyal to him as long as he could, but that kind of talk has to be disowned.

Join to vote! 2 Helpful / 1 Funny / 3 Agree / 0 Disagree
Showing 8 Comments
You must be logged in to comment. login now.
Wiseguy commented 387 days ago.
Have you heard his whole sermon? Have you read Obamas book? I have, the racist (Wright)hates America, end of story, and Obama had a close association with him, its all perfectly in context, you continue to twist the truth.

SilverFox commented 387 days ago.
I have in fact read Obama's book and haven't bothered to listen to Wright's entire sermon, because whatever he said makes no difference to the issue of who Obama is as a man, any more than does Ayers or Khalidi. Your type of froth-at-the-mouth conservatives continue with this guilt-by-association attempt at character assassination of Obama, a deliberate smear tactic that at its base is dishonest, immoral, and lacks integrity, because you have no other positions on legitimate and important issues with which you can win. Slinging mud hoping it will stick is your only shot. And you're a great one to accuse me of twisting the truth. You can't write one single review or comment without twisting the truth. You did so again in your comment below, flatly stating that Wright is a racist who "hates America, end of story." I certainly don't defend Wright, but your words twist the truth and you know it. There's a lot more complexity to Wright's stances than can be summed up by your few words, but your extreme bias causes you to ignore that. You're the perfect froth-at-the-mouth conservative, rabidly biased and willing to say anything and everything to "win" in your holy war against "the libs." You consider me to be one of those "libs," which is why you continue to personally attack me by accusing me of lying and twisting the truth. I'll let other reviewers be the judge of which of the two of us most deserves that characterization. Undoubtedly you consider yourself a soldier in the bitter partisan warfare led by Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly. There's no use trying to talk sense to people like you who fill your lives with hate, intolerance, and self-righteous arrogance. You're a completely different type of personality than other conservatives on this site who can represent the conservative viewpoint reasonably without resort to personal attacks and twisting of the truth, such as Eschew and Flick and Donovan and others, who have earned my respect and whose viewpoints I can "agree to disagree" with because they're reasonable and civil people. There are other froth-at-the-mouth conservatives on this site who are just like you, but you certainly get no respect from me and I suspect not from many others. You started this feud because you were p*ssed off about comments I made about McCain, which upset you to the point where you slandered me personally by calling me a liar. I've challenged you to point out any lies, but you've said that it's "not worth your time" to try to find any. In spite of my offer to end the personal attacks, you refuse to do so and continue to slander me. If you want to see someone who routinely twists the truth, look in the mirror.

Victor83 commented 387 days ago.
Fox is funny.

Ridgewalker commented 387 days ago.
This sounds like a panic attack...

Ridgewalker commented 387 days ago.
Where's GDS? He seems to be good with this kind of thing...

EschewObfuscation commented 386 days ago.
Really. Nice filibuster. Is it logical to infer that, even though he spent 20 years marinating in Rev. Wright's hatred of America, vis-a-vis his Black Liberation Theology, that he doesn't believe ANY of it? So much hatred and you throw him a fig leaf. It doesn't cover it.Dems, and fox, have completely sold out what they know, for what they want. Anything goes, as long as you're a dem.

SilverFox commented 386 days ago.
EO, do you have any evidence that Obama hates whites, or just your unsupported assumption based on his association with Wright? And if you want to make assumptions, wouldn't the more logical assumption be, from what we know about Obama, particularly that his mother and grandparents were white, that he doesn't hate whites? Neither of us can read his mind better than the other. I assume, without evidence for my assumption, that there's no member of any minority, or in Obama's case, half minority, who doesn't have some degree of resentment about prejudice displayed by whites, particularly older whites. But the question in Obama's case would be, to what extent? I think Obama's background is particularly unique. He was raised by a white mother and white grandparents, and the mutual love was obvious to all. He lived with his mother and stepfather in Indonesia between ages 6-10, where it was rare to see someone of his racial mix, and got along well. At Harvard Law School, one of his good buddies was Rob Fisher, who is white. Obama called Fisher "brother," and teased him about his raggedy clothes. They watched Bulls games together, and both idolized Michael Jordan. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/ 28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/). He was elected President of the Harvard Law Review by 60 other, mostly white, law review editors, from a group of 19 candidates. "[Law Review] classmates recall an especially emotional debate in the spring of 1990 over affirmative action, which conservative students wanted to abolish." Presiding over the assembly of editors, "Obama listened to impassioned pleas and pressed conservatives to explain their reasoning and liberals to sharpen their thinking. But he never spoke about his own point of view or mentioned that he believed he had benefited from affirmative action." (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/ 28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/). One of the articles Obama edited and approved for publication was a searing attack on affirmative action, written by a former Reagan administration official. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.ht ml). Here's a relevant quote from one of those white law review editors, Bradford A. Berenson, who went on to become a Bush administration lawyer, about Obama's tenure as their President: "Even though he was clearly a liberal, he didn't appear to the conservatives in the review to be taking sides in the tribal warfare. The politics of the Harvard Law Review were incredibly petty and incredibly vicious. The editors of the review were constantly at each other's throats. And Barack tended to treat those disputes with a certain air of detachment and amusement. The feeling was almost, come on kids, can't we just behave here?" So, EO, we're back to the point I made in my review, which is that the assumptions conservatives have made, including yours, are unwarranted and are not supported by any factual evidence. The evidence I've cited supports my premise. I've never seen any contradictory evidence. Have you? But, to paraphrase you, anything goes, as long as you're a Republican. You're willing to assume the worst, I'm not willing to assume anything. I rely on the facts I see.

SilverFox commented 386 days ago.
Also see my review under "His 20 year ties to the Rev. Wright" at http://www.rateitall.com/i-1053741-his-20-year-ties-to-the-rev-wright.aspx. **** EO, I note your review in the above topic. You seem to now contradict what you said then: **** "This is not a reason 'not' to vote for the man. This is a reason to question the man's circle of trusted friends and advisors. The opportunity Obama was offered to define himself went wasted as he stumbled and fumbled his way to not decry the racist and anti-American sentiments screeched by Rev. Wright over the years. Tell me that if there were a Rev Wright in Colin Powell's past he could not have have articulated an appropriate role for such a minor influence in his life to nearly everyone's satisfaction. The man simply is no Colin Powell." **** Ironic, isn't it, that now Colin Powell supports Obama.
Showing 8 Comments
About This Reviewer
By the Numbers