Obama's Preacher for 20 years

[GG]

As far as I know, Obama was not raised in a barber shop or beauty salon.

 

By the way, for what it is worth, I thought it was a very good speech (other than that) as I posted earlier.

 

Personally, I thought it was powerful. Few people have the courage to acknowledge the truth that their parents and grandparents aren't perfect. Maybe the other silver lining out of this is that candidates will become human again, while people will stop demanding perfection from their candidates.

[SD Jarhead]

In the speech he refers to his "former pastor". Has he changed his church now? And was this done in response to the controversy? I'm not an Obama expert and am just wondering...

[Kelly the Dog]

In the speech he refers to his "former pastor". Has he changed his church now? And was this done in response to the controversy? I'm not an Obama expert and am just wondering...

The pastor had retired, not because of this, but previously, about a month ago.

[SD Jarhead]

Thanks Kelly...Did they get a new racist preacher to replace him? Just kidding!

[Kelly the Dog]

Thanks Kelly...Did they get a new racist preacher to replace him? Just kidding!

Probably. I would assume Wright hand picked him.

 

EDIT: Otis. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/...amas_churc.html

[Chilly]

Here's a letter to TIME magazine about the speech, from Larry Sabato (University of Virginia Political Science), who saw the speech similarly to the way I did:

 

It's indisputable that this was a serious speech about the incendiary topic of race in America. Obama was performing his high-wire act, trying to appear black enough for the African-American community and post-racial enough for white voters. That's as tough a task as exists in American politics, and one speech alone will never accomplish it. But if he is to win the nomination and the general election, he has to engage voters in this dialogue, and the sooner the better. He's started down that road, and he has to continue. Whether he likes it or not, and whether Americans generally like it or not, race is a big part of this election, and it has been at least since the election result in New Hampshire.

 

From Obama's perspective, it's much better to have this discussion now. In fact, the debate about race was inevitable at some point. I would argue that race isn't just another issue; it is THE issue of American history. He actually needs to have the racial debate continue until it exhausts the media and the electorate as a whole. If he has to confront racial division in October in a major way, he will lose the election. By October, he needs to have the media and voters say, "We've already finished with this subject. What about Iraq? What about the economy?"

[SilverNRed]

Was it any less crass that he invoked conversations in barber shops and beauty salons?

 

People pine for politicians saying the truth. Until they get one.

And if Obama starts telling the truth about how government works and the limits of what it can do for people, I might give a crap.

 

I thought the grandmother point was basically useless. It doesn't sound like his grandmother said anything as incendiary as Wright and, even so, he didn't get to pick his grandmother. He DID get to choose what church to go to and decided to check out Wright's paranoid, race-baiting rants for 20+ years (presumably taking his family along with him) and apparently didn't decide to speak out against the things he disagreed with until.....now. That seems exceptionally stupid, nice speech or not.

 

For as nice as the speech was, it didn't do anything to explain what he was doing with someone as ridiculous as Wright for so long. But like I said before, I couldn't really imagine a satisfactory explanation for that anyway.

[blzrul]

So, GWB had Falwell and Bob Jones University and who knows what-all in his court. I'm looking for that topic on the board, so I can compare outrage, but can't find it. Must be due to the crash.

 

Uh-huh.

 

Why is it people who claim to be so intelligent and "above the fray" get sucked into this stuff by the media? This kinda sensationalized craps is about as intensely interesting and relevant as whatever Brittney is up to these days. In fact if Brittney was up to MORE, this probably wouldn't have been reported.

[SilverNRed]

So, GWB had Falwell and Bob Jones University and who knows what-all in his court.

In your court is one thing. Having your personal pastor for 20+ years (who your praise in your book and even borrowed the title from) turns out to be a paranoid, race-baiting nutjob who hates America, that's another thing.

 

You can't decide who endorses you and you can't chase away everyone you don't completely agree with, but spending the majority of your adult life with a douche like Wright is a big deal.

 

I'm looking for that topic on the board, so I can compare outrage, but can't find it. Must be due to the crash.

I can't think of a similar situation on this board to compare it to. I don't think we have a shortage of outrage on this board. I remember your thread a few months back where you declared the entire state of Texas terrible based on one woman lying to get Hanna Montana tickets.

 

Why is it people who claim to be so intelligent and "above the fray" get sucked into this stuff by the media? This kinda sensationalized craps is about as intensely interesting and relevant as whatever Brittney is up to these days. In fact if Brittney was up to MORE, this probably wouldn't have been reported.

This isn't the media's fault. What exactly is being sensationalized? We're watching videos of Obama's insane pastor say racist and paranoid things while his congregation cheers him on. And Obama either had no idea for 20 years or just didn't mind for 20 years.

[Chilly]

This isn't the media's fault. What exactly is being sensationalized? We're watching videos of Obama's insane pastor say racist and paranoid things while his congregation cheers him on. And Obama either had no idea for 20 years or just didn't mind for 20 years.

 

SNR defending the media? Never thought I'd see the day.

[SilverNRed]

SNR defending the media? Never thought I'd see the day.

I could just as easily criticize the MSM outlets that held out on covering this thing as long as possible. And friggin' Anderson Cooper apologizing to his viewers for even having to talk about it (he didn't have cold feet talking about Romney's Mormonism). AC should really just put an Obama pin on his sportcoat and get it over with.

[jjamie12]

In your court is one thing. Having your personal pastor for 20+ years (who your praise in your book and even borrowed the title from) turns out to be a paranoid, race-baiting nutjob who hates America, that's another thing.

 

Do you know anything about him other than what you've seen on Youtube?

Edit: Because I don't know anything at all, other than 2 minutes of parts of speeches that he'd given in a 20+ year history with Barack Obama.

[pBills]

I am sure that many people have spiritual leaders that they follow, yet do not believe/agree with EVERYTHING that they say.

[Wacka]

The minister was a racist and gave an award to one of the biggest anti-semites in the country. Iy was well known that the minister was nuts, He even sold DVDs of his rants. There is no way that Obama or his staff didn't know what was said. If Obama had any brains, he would have run as far away from this racist as he could many years ago.

 

Imagine the calls for withdrawl from the campaign if McCain's minister was a Neo-Nazi and had married McCain and his wife, baptized his children, and McCain had used him as inspiration for his book title and had made him an advisor.

 

 

Besides, Obama is even more of a socialist thean Hillary.

[Andrew in CA]

Assuming that this statement is true, what do you believe led him to be in this state?

 

 

Good question, and it's sad and I'm embarrassed I haven't really thought about that. I suppose, off hand, thirst for power, militant interpretation of the Koran, hatred of perceived wrongs to Islam as a whole. Honestly, though, I need to ruminate on that one. I'll get back to you.

OK Bluefire, I thought about it. I'm going to include all the elements I stated above, but I also think you're right in that actions we have taken have led him and others like him to take their crusade out on us. To make us the main target of his jihad, it would stand to reason that we have wronged him and Islam as a whole the most. It seems to me the invasive American culture aspect is a convenient reason for recruitment, but not a fundamental reason for a jihad. Actual encroachment on Arab or Islam (as he and his ilk see it) is probably the fundamental reason that he is the way he is. Combine that with megalomania, a deep religious fervor, and a ton of money, and international terrorism is born.

[Andrew in CA]

Im speaking of this:

 

 

Chilling.

Honestly, that had so little to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about how to stop recruitment of Muslims at home. It showcased Muslims radicals in the West, OK, but had nothing to do with why they are that way. The last four seconds did, and it said something to effect of: foreign policy has a lot to do with it, and that many young Muslims feel they are easy prey because they feel the British government is scapegoating them. OK, so, taking those last four seconds into account as they are the only seconds that address the roots of terrorism, I stand by statement that a good way to stop home recruitment would be to treat Muslims as regular members of society. I'm still not sure why you disagree with that.

[Chilly]

OK Bluefire, I thought about it. I'm going to include all the elements I stated above, but I also think you're right in that actions we have taken have led him and others like him to take their crusade out on us. To make us the main target of his jihad, it would stand to reason that we have wronged him and Islam as a whole the most. It seems to me the invasive American culture aspect is a convenient reason for recruitment, but not a fundamental reason for a jihad. Actual encroachment on Arab or Islam (as he and his ilk see it) is probably the fundamental reason that he is the way he is. Combine that with megalomania, a deep religious fervor, and a ton of money, and international terrorism is born.

 

A lot of that comes from what happened in Saudi Arabia, with American troops being stationed there in '90, and America being viewed as a non-Islamic occupying force by him. I think the most important long-term strategy is to not repeat the mistake of becoming an occupying force (or, at least, what is viewed as an occupying force, as the way we are viewed is more important than what we are actually doing). An interesting book by Robert Pape (Univ of Chicago Prof) has an analysis of suicide terrorism dating back to 1980, and comes to the conclusion that being viewed as an occupying force leads to terrorism.

 

Of course, even if we were to pull completely out of the middle east now, we would still have the current generation of terrorists to deal with. However, its absolutely necessary to remove the incentive to become a terrorist in the first place.

 

I think that the portrayal of suicide terrorists as simply crazy fanatics is a bit silly. Not that these people aren't nutty (attacking civilians, etc), but there is a reason they use the tactics that they do. Suicide terrorism is a logical, strategic weapon. A large majority of suicide attacks since 1980 have NOT been Muslim attacks.

 

This is one fundamental reason why I disagree with the way the GWOT has been fought. Overthrowing countries like Iraq has the potential to help us short-term (and even in the long-term, by allowing us to work with their intelligence community and government better), but I think the long-term effects of occupying the country are more dangerous than the potential gains from it.