Obama: "I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decisions with which I agree."
The Senator assumes wrong. As I noted previously, Trumpet Magazine, published by his church, explicitly explained [in the video it prepared for the banquet at which Farrakhan was honored] that it was honoring Farrakhan for his purported dedication "truth, education, and leadership." Obama's spiritual mentor, Rev. Wright, [quoted in The Trumpet last Fall] praised Farrakhan for his "astounding and eyeopening" analysis of the "racial ills of this nation," a "perspective" that is "helpful and honest."
If the magazine and reverend had merely honored or praised Farrakhan for "his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders," it might have raised an eyebrow or two, but I don't think anyone would have found the story of much interest. So, give Obama some credit for forthrightly rejecting Farrakhan's anti-Semitism (though Farrakhan's bile goes beyond Jews to gays, whites in general, and others), and subtract some credit for his failure to address the true underlying concern, which is that the magazine and reverend say that they are honoring and praising Farrakhan precisely because of his stated political and racial views, which they claim are "honest" and reflect "truth."
By the way, last week I criticized Prof. DiLorenzo of LewRockwell.com for invoking a conspiracy theory centered around the Cato Institute to explain the controversy over the Ron Paul newsletters. Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall similarly blames the messenger by referring to Richard Cohen as an "odious slime peddler" and wondering, "Who do you figure pitched Richard Cohen on the Obama/Farrakhan column?" [And here's a rather bizarre defense of Obama by M.J. Rosenberg. Rosenberg points out that he stopped attending his synagogue on the High Holidays when it started inviting what he describes as a hate-filled rabbi to services. This somehow means that Obama is off the hook for not taking such a stance regarding his church.]
UPDATE: A reader, quite fairly, asks what I would have Obama say. How about something along these lines: "I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. Trumpet Magazine erred in honoring Farrakhan, who has made blatantly false statements about Jews and others, for his purported commitment to truth. The Rev. Wright similarly erred in his praise of Farrakhan, which could be read as endorsing Farrakhan's noxious ideas. I am of course not responsible for every action undertaken by my church or my minister, but as a member of the congregation and a religious follower and friend of Dr. Wright's I have made my displeasure known to the relevant parties, in private correspondence that I think would be inappropriate to share." There, that wouldn't satisfy everyone, but I think it would be enough to end the controversy.
FURTHER UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan goes ballistic on Richard Cohen for raising the issue of Obama's church and pastor honoring Farrakhan. Yet here's what Sullivan wrote with regard to Mitt Romney in 2006:
Romney was part of a church that barred blacks from the priesthood for his first 31 years. ... The only sect I can think of as equivalent is the Nation of Islam - in reverse. I don't know if Romney has addressed the question of Mormon racism in its historical practices, or whether he has a record of opposing it in his twenties, when he was a missionary for a racist church. But it strikes me as a matter that will require addressing.
Admittedly, Sullivan's accusation is that Romney belonged to a racist church, while Cohen's complaint is that Obama belongs to a church that honors racists. On the other hand, Cohen's complaint is about current church and ministerial behavior, Sullivan's about decades-old practices. I don't see how Sullivan can logically question Romney as he did, and then be so outraged regarding Cohen.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Obama Responds to the Farrakhan Controversy:
- Cohen on Obama's Church and Farrakhan:
- Obama's Minister and Church:
isn't this already covered when obama said "I decry racism"?
and I don't know anyone who can credibly say that obama supports anti-gay beliefs or is anti-gay himself.
but, in a manufactured controversy like this, there was nothing obama could have said to appease you. you'll find what you want to find no matter what he said.
We already knew that Barack Obama was not anti-Semitic and did not approve of Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. You already knew that too.
You were just trying to smear.
Barack Obama does not deserve credit. But you deserve blame.
Unless Obama has renounced and reversed his own support for laws which mandate discrimination against American citizens on the basis of race in the name of “affirmative action,” any claim he makes to “decry racism” against whites (or Asians) is an outright lie.
See, it is not about pleasing Mr. Bernstein. He never had any sincere doubts about whether Barack Obama approved of anti-Semitism or not.
If he did have any sincere doubts, this statement would have cleared them up.
Obama did the right thing by killing this evil smear in the cradle. Smear can work if it is not killed at birth. But he shouldn't have had to do that.
"Affirmative action" is an unclear term covering many things, some of which are discriminatory -- like racial preferences in university admissions -- and some of which aren't. If you disagree with this and believe that all affirmative action is discriminatory, then your comment is of little interest to me, since we would disagree on that. But if you have evidence that Obama specifically approves of affirmative action in its discriminatory form, I'd very much appreciate a lead to such evidence. That would be of interest.
"Affirmative action" is an unclear term covering many things, some of which are discriminatory -- like racial preferences in university admissions -- and some of which aren't. If you disagree with this and believe that all affirmative action is discriminatory, then your comment is of little interest to me, since we would disagree on that. But if you have evidence that Obama specifically approves of affirmative action in its discriminatory form, I'd very much appreciate a lead to such evidence. That would be of interest.
This isn't like criticizing Bush for speaking at Bob Jones university. This is like criticizing Bush for having a spiritual adviser who once spoke at Bob Jones university. Who cares? Isn't it time to move beyond this Jewish/black BS? Obama is a prominent black man with increasingly enormous support who is explicitly rejecting the anti-Semitism of Farrakhan. Shouldn't Jews be happy about this?
1) If Obama's actions here make him unacceptable as a candidate to you, then there should be no acceptable candidates for President for you. No one --- nobody --- can escape the test of guilt by secondhand association. Those accusing Obama right now can blather on histrionically about the importance his support for the preacher and the preacher's support for Farrakhan, but it's such a secondhand connection that it's either pure nonsense or a smear. Frederick Douglas himself could not escape this level of scrutiny about his race credentials, nor could MLK. Pray tell, all you holier-than-thous: how many friends have you dropped on a dime after they told an ethnic joke? Hell, doesn't this blog occasionally revert to ethnic jokes? Maybe people running for President should think twice before they endorse it's legal content. Geesh.
2) Cohen's column was a disgrace. Andrew Sullivan nails this one. It's as if the presumption is that black men have predisposed hatred of jews. The only thing I detect is that jewish men have predisposed beliefs about how black men feel about jews.
3) This bodes very poorly for Obama in the primary, and even more poorly for the tenor of the general election should he survive the primary. On one hand, the GOP will take a page out of the Clinton/Dem establishment playbook and run this story to the hilt, and on the other hand we'll have the backlash and inevitable scandal about the GOP nominee's racism and use of racism. Just when i thought we were headed for an incredibly civil McCain/Obama election. What a shame.
Also, is it me, or does Kirchick's latest blog post seem like he's trying a little too hard to destroy Ron Paul to be considered just a muckraking journalist anymore? Also, who is he to say what's good for "the libertarian movement"?
Actually, its worse than that.
Obama associated with X. (Rev. Wright)
X is associated by blood with Y. (Rev. Wright's daughter)
Y, we can assume, approves of some of Farrakhan actions. She may have approved of, but at least did not veto, a decision to give Farrakhan an obscure award associated with her obscure news magazine.
Please give me one example, one, of him "wrapping himself in victomhood because of his race."
When someone is member of a church, or a sect, then one does have a voluntary association with the views of the leaders of the church or sect. That doesn't mean the person owns the views, but it is a legitimate question of whether the candidate shares the views, and there isn't anything wrong with asking for an explanation.
It isn't like Cohan or Bernstein said something like: "Doesn't his church believe that Jesus and Farrakhan are brothers?". Or even accused Obama of dealing cocaine.
The problem with that is, that Obama should not be playing in the mud with pigs who make baseless smears.
He should nip the smear in the bud, right when it appears. But he shouldn't roll around in the mud with pigs.
His two sentence statement was a perfect rebuttal to this smear. He doesn't get dirty by rolling around in the mud. He kills the smear in the cradle.
Perfection!
That’s probably not that unfair of a comparison. During his 2002 Senate campaign, Barack Obama delivered an anti-war speech in which he intimated that the Iraq campaign of the War was a plot cooked up by Karl Rove to distract Americans from poverty and the uninsured. Throw in a few UFO references and you’ve got either a Farrakhan speech or a Michael Moore film.
Shocking that both the Far Left and the Far Right indulge in conspiracy theories when their anointed candidates get criticized for the more unsavory associations they used to build their political careers.
. . . [T]he magazine and reverend say that they are honoring and praising Farrakhan precisely because of his stated political and racial views.
Since you're taking Senator Obama to task for not scrutinizing the magazine article that you linked to, it's worth noting that you're misrepresenting it. The only sentence in that article that purports to explain why Farrakhan was honored is the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 15 of the issue (page 2 of the .pdf document; note that the article say it's continued on page 16, but the document I downloaded does not contain page 16). That sentence was written not by Rev. Wright, but by one Rhoda McKinney-Jones, and it states:
The article does not state that Rev. Wright had any particular role in the magazine's decision to honor Farrakhan. While it quotes Rev. Wright lauding Farrakhan, quotes you have excerpted above, it does not say that his praise is the reason Farrakhan was selected. I note also that Rev. Wright is quoted in a way that could be read by a more charitable audience as a signal of disagreement:
On the basis of the materials you linked to, you have misrepresented Rev. Wright's role in this matter, with the effect of overstating Sen. Obama's proximity to Farrakhan. You ought to publish a correction.
Why don't you at least get your facts straight? I see no correction on this post and the other post noting that the editor was not Obama's minister, but Obama's minister's daughter. You should put corrections on both posts.
Someone, please, find out who Bernstein's Rabbi is, and then find out everything his family has ever said so we can smear Bernstein.
Also, I think I deserve an apology, since I had to wade through Trumpet Magazine. Ick.
So what you don't want is people like Farrakhan to be "close to the levers of power." That's fine. But you seem to be defining "close" as "endorsed by a magazine and a preacher who has been endorsed by a Presidential candidate."
If this is truly how you feel --- that Farrakhan will be "close to the levers of power" if Obama wins the Presidency, you are either being stubborn or silly. And the more you try to argue your way out of it, the more stubborn/silly you seem.
I am going to give David Bernstein a pass on this one. He apparently is trying to be "fair" in some sense.
I think that this whole set of posts was a mistake, but I take Bernstein at his word that I am misinterpreting him when I see him as trying to smear Barack Obama.
I agree that Ron Paul deserved most of the criticism he received for pimping out his name to the Lew Rockwell crowd but I’m not sure that his was a “more serious” transgression. AFAIK Ron Paul doesn’t actually have a track record of supporting racist policies like Jim Crow and affirmative action that discriminate against American citizens on the basis of their race. Barack Obama does.
Given a (rather poor) choice between racist words that offend people and racist laws that carry the force of government behind them and infringe on individual rights, words are objectively the lesser transgression.
The Urban Dictionary has this nailed.
Drama Queen
2. Someone who turns something unimportant into a major deal. Someone who blows things way out of proportion when ever the chance is given.
"Oh my god! You copied that without giving the other person credit! That is just mean. You're horrible, don't talk to me. Im gonna go tell everyone what a cruel person you are just so they will pay attention to me and think im cool.
Once again, aging drama queen and his wife cried to the media for attention; the very same media they always falsely claim misquoted them.
Of course, this whole thing is moving into drama whoredom
Drama whore-ism is a self feeding condition. As more and more people are fed up with a constant barrage of useless stuff they don't care anything about, the drama whore feels justified by the new attention of being told off. In some cases, the drama whores will band together into a circle jerk, telling each other they're all right and the other 6 billion people on earth are just jealous.
Best,
Ben
ok.
"Trumpet Magazine erred in honoring Farrakhan, who has made blatantly false statements about Jews and others, for his purported commitment to truth."
this would only make sense if obama has ever taken any responsibility for things written in the trumpet before, had a role in the selection of farrakhan for the award, or if he has previously said he agrees with everything written in the magazine. otherwise it is covered by the very first sentence above.
"The Rev. Wright similarly erred in his praise of Wright. I am of course not responsible for every action undertaken by my church or my minister, but as a member of the congregation and a religious follower and friend of Dr. Wright's I have made my displeasure known to the relevant parties, in private correspondence that I think would be inappropriate to share."
already done through his campaign manager. "Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances." (link here) i would like to point out that this requirement would be impossible to fulfill because all you have to go on his is word. which you clearly think is meaningless...you wouldn't have had to make up this controversy otherwise. obama has already said he disagrees with wright with respect to farrakhan
Not on this machine, alas, but I will bathe myself in disinfectant and watch it later.
Something like this:
"I decry homophobia and murder in every form and strongly condemn statements made in the book of Leviticus. Jews, Christians, and Muslims have erred in honoring Leviticus, who has made blatantly hateful statements about homosexuals, for its purported wisdom and holiness. Rabbis, Imans, pastors and priests err in their praise of Leviticus. I am of course not responsible for every word written in holy scriptures, but as a member of [fill in]and a religious follower of Abrahamic religion I have made my displeasure known to the relevant parties, in private correspondence that I think would be inappropriate to share."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0716/p01s01-uspo.htm
As whispers of supposed anti-semitism grow louder, Obama will be forced to grovel at the feet of AIPAC and AJC. He'll pledge his complete and uncritical support to Israel and declare his commitment to continue the racket that is foreign aid to Israel. If he really wants to get in good with them, he will promise to increase aid, while the rest of America is either too stupid or apathetic to care.
YES. please. volokh@law.ucla.edu
Rev. Wright seems very much a father figure for Senator Obama. I think it is asking too much for him to condemn him. He will lose the respect the many if he does that and gain very little.
You're asking for consistency from Sullivan? The only thing he's consistent in is preening self-congratulatory narcissism.
This is funny, and sad. As others on this thread have noted, there's really nothing much Obama could say to appease DB (and that's as it should be)!
I do see a qualitative difference between the actual policy of a church w/respect to its membership (particularly if racially restrictive) and its decision to honor folks in a magazine? If you can't see that distinction it's not worth having the discussion.
I don't know about Josh Marshall and the Economist but I read about Wright via Mickey Kaus months ago, and IIRC, Kaus had linked a New York Times article on Wright. That Obama's church is headed by an unsavory extremist is about as much of a secret as the fact that the 1980's Libertarian Party was populated by some really creepy people.
And subtract ten more for trying to evade the issue, and thinking we're such idiots we won't notice.
As I said on another thread this reminds me of Huckabee's "Oh, I didn't know there was a cross behind me in that video" routine. Both are trying to simultaneously tell the general public "I'm not of of 'them'" while simultaneously signaling "I am one of you" to "them." Like Kerry did with the antiwar crowd in 2004.
It's both sleazy and insulting to the intelligence.
A disavowal of his "spiritual guide" Wright's racist views.
Yeah, let's generalize about Jewish men.
He thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bad idea. This may not be endorsement of Jim Crow, but it is endorsement of the right of states to enact such laws and to maintain them on thier books. Thorely, go sit in the back of the bus!
Who cares who the editor was when the article contains a direct quote from Wright praising Farakhan's insights into race in America?
I'm getting sick of seeing the same irrelevant talking points over and over. Obama's supporters are starting to remind me of Paul's.
<i>Is there any way to excommunicate a Volokh conspirator? Because I am seriously considering starting a petition. Bernstein's posts have become progressively more worthless as time has passed</i>
Click on the "Select a blogger" link. You will bring up an old post that shows how to "excommunicate" Prof. Bernstein and/or any of the others from your version of the conspiracy.
No, we don't want people who think it's a good idea to go on a road trip to Cuba and Lybia with Farakhan "close to the levers of power."
That would be Wright I'm talking about, by the way.
I cannot imagine what logic could support attacking Romney, whose family staunchly backed civil rights, merely because his church once upon a time was racist, while people see nothing disturbing about the fact that Obama's spiritual guide and mentor is a flagrant racist TODAY, and Obama continues to seek his counsel TODAY, and refuses to recognize his flagrant racism.
Many of the posts defending Obama, by focusing on Richard Cohen's ancestry, are clearly anti-semitic.
(Since you're wondering, I am not Jewish. So don't accuse me of being hypersensitive about anti-semitism. (I'm Norwegian/Swedish/German/Hungarian/Romanian, etc.)).
Thank you for allaying my concern that Obama's campaign, like Paul's, is dependent on the support of conspiracy theorists and antisemites.
Obama's "father figure" is far-left racist. If Obama can't publicly separate himself from those views, he shouldn't be President.
I don't believe Obama is himself a black nationalist. I just think black nationalists are an important enough part of Obama's base that he can't bring himself to cross them. And that's bad enough for me.
this one had me laughing my @$$ off. it's all the funnier when you realize who is saying it.
It's like Trent Lott saying that his praise for Strom Thurmond and wish that he had been elected in 1948 (when he ran on an expressly segregationist platform) was based on his support for mainstream conservative values.
It didn't work for Trent Lott, and it shouldn't work for Obama. Obama shouldn't get a free pass for turning a bling eye to racism.
I think that Obama has adequately disavowed anti-semitism but then again I never suspected him of harboring that illness, and DB never accused him of it.
Nor it the that Farrakhan would be close to power; the concern is that Wright, who says he admires Farrakhan's racial views, would be close to power.
The accusations that Obama is being accused of anti-semitism are a convenient distraction from this issue. It has often been charged at VC that false accusations of anti-semitism are made in order to frighten away honest debate. It seems to me that the same can be said of falsely accusing people of making false accusations of anti-semitism.
Hans: Is there any evidence at all to support this claim, beyond the praise of Farrakhan in the church's newsletter?
That's all that's needed! Come on! If he were praising David Duke, would you ask something like that?!?
Bernstein, Cohen, and their ilk just use the old rhetorical trick of going through the song and dance of saying, "Oh, I'm not saaaaying he's an anti-semite or anything" and then proceed to list all the reasons why he might be an anti-semite. When others cry foul, Bernstein and his supporters claim that the complainers are the ones clouding the issue. It's enough to make Hillary proud.
And on the Republican side?
You might try painting with a finer brush. I think both the Obama and Romney cases are pure horsehockey, and do not appreciate being lumped in with dunderheads like Sullivan.
Romney was a church leader, a bishop I believe, at a time when the church was clearly racist.
This is not guilt by association with Romney but guilt by active participation.
Someone, please, find out who Bernstein's Rabbi is, and then find out everything his family has ever said so we can smear Bernstein.
If Bernstein runs for President, I'm sure it will be an issue. It is part of running for President. Like it or not any presidential candidate is going to have ALL of his associations brought up for scrutiny. You can go back and see similar themes brought up over the years from Kennedy's Cathilocism, Nixons's Quakerism, Carter's born againism, Romney's Mormanism, etc. Not to mention everything any idiot kid brother, or senile parent said. If you want to get outraged over something a newspaper columnist said this seems much worse.
Cite proof or retract.
And "He said kinda nice things about Farrakhan at a benefit his daughter put together to give Farrakhan an award," doesn't count.
A serious question, if you don't mind. Did you seriously, at any point, think that Senator Obama shared any of Farrakhan's anti-semitic sentiments?
Saying nice things about an unrepentant George Wallace would count, I imagine, though. Lefty racism gets a pass.
Psst. I'm not a lefty. I'm not even an Obama supporter.
You wish.
Genug iz genug.
Bernstein, Cohen, and their ilk just use the old rhetorical trick of going through the song and dance of saying, "Oh, I'm not saaaaying he's an anti-semite or anything" and then proceed to list all the reasons why he might be an anti-semite.
</blockquote>
Someone who feels vulnerable because of his demographic characteristics likely will oppose a candidate if there is the slightest whiff of suspicion that the candidate opposes what he considers to be the legitimate aspirations of his group.
This is true of many members of ALL minorities.
Analogy: Say there are 100 cars on the market. One, and only one of them has a miniscule chance of exploding, You will buy one of the other 99 models.
This may not seem fair to you if you like the candidate, and if you think the chances are low that the candidate harbors the flaw in question. That's too bad. We all get to vote based on whatever we think is important. They may not like your priorities (just as you don't like theirs) even though you <i>are </i>"<b>The Truth</b>."
This is not dishonesty on the part of Cohen and Prof. Bernstein (assuming this to be their mindset). Rather, they perceive this slight whiff and would like to be reassured before they consider Obama a candidate acceptable to them.
Obama has only been on the national stage a little while, and has little track record. He hasn't done the sorts of things over the years that build bridges with a lot of constituencies. Those for whom traditional Jewish issues are important don't know where Obama stands with regard to what is important to them. So they read tea leaves, among which are the people to whom Obama turns. With regard to Jews, this consists principally of generalities ("I am not an anti-Semite") and association with Brzezinski and Rev. Wright. This concerns them. (Obama may have more of a record; I am not aware of it. If so, and if the candidate cares, he should publicize it.)
Remember-- Obama has to convince them (and everyone else) that he should be president, not the other way around. If the only thing Jews know about what Obama is likely to do is that he pals around with people who are unfriendly to Jewish concerns, then they won't cast a ballot for him, however unfair this appears to you.
Just as a Black who knows nothing about a candidate except that he praises Storm Thurmond won't case a ballot for him. Or someone whose main concern is keeping abortions legal won't cast a ballot for a candiate who belongs to a strongly pro-life church and has no public record on abortion.
When you're voting, you use whatever information you can get.
Your post was very dishonest in its criticism of this.
Yep. Just leave those poor racists alone!
you are assuming that if it were not for the "whiff" of anti-semitism, that they (and some of the more vocal commentators here) would find obama acceptable. i think this is a very big assumption that is all but guaranteed to be false. In this regard, these people are just using false information trying to make obama appear unacceptable to people who would otherwise find him acceptable. it is an attempt to avoid an argument on the merits of obama's (possible) presidency in comparison to the other candidates'.
Farrakhan is a racist. Obama's minister praises Farrakhan, specifically citing Farrakhan's views on issues where it is known that Farrakhan is an anti-white, anti-Jew bigot.
and you wonder why people up thread are saying that anything obama said would be irrelevant. it's been just about 3 hours and you've already forgotten that obama said:
now you tell me where does obama explicitly support farrakhan or his views?
One of the things I look for in a presidential candidate is a willingness to publicly repudiate obnoxious beliefs espoused by supporters. Take Ron Paul and Stromfront for example. It shows the candidate has the fortitude and the integrity to risk alienating supporters in order to stand for what is right. By ascribing Farrakhans award to helping ex-offenders is Obama trying to sidestep criticizing his chruch for giving Farrakhan an award for "truth"? Just as Mitt Romney had to distance himself from his church for its racist past, it seems fair to ask whether Obama has the courage to do the same. If he doesn't then it is fair to ask is he pandering, or does he share those views.
Obama denounced the views of Farrakhan, but has not addressed why he's so buddy-buddy with a guy who shares those views. Apparently being friends overcomes the whole toxic-racism thing.
A bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not a bishop in the same as a bishop in the Catholic or Episcopal Churches, where the bishop is an eclesiastical leader of a large number of congregations. In the LDS Church, the bishop is the local head of a specific congregation known as a ward--and the LDS Church, while having a heirarchal leadership structure, has other who are above the bishop in the heirarchy (there is a Presiding Bishop of the Church itself, but that is not an office Romney has ever held).
Romney's father was an active proponent of Civil Rights laws in the 1960s--and was also an active Mormon his entire life. There is nothing in either Romneys' background to support Sullivan's smear.
thank you for proving my point. there is nothing obama could say or do to appease you...you'll shift the goal post back.
But he's unwilling to do so, directly. Because he's buddies with the guy, you see. Buddies with a racist.
I don't see this as a column about Farrakhan. Cohen can say whatever he wants about Farrakhan; I'm not going to defend him. This, however, is a column about Obama. As such, the description "odious and slimy" seems quite right.
Feel free to point out factual errors in the column. Inconvenient truths (to coin a phrase) don't count.
it won't be enough for him to "repudiate the views of his minister" because then he'll still be "Buddies with a racist." and if he ends his friendship with the minister, he'll be ex-"buddies with racist".
and obama has already said he disagrees with wright w/r/t farrakhan.
If he DID repudiate the guy, that would make an impression. But otherwise, he's making excuses for a racist.
Sorry, Farrakhan should be toxic to all people of good will. He's a racist demagogue, for heaven's sake, very much along the lines of David Duke or Richard Butler.
Did Romney ever say that racist past was wrong? No, he specifically said he wished it wasn't in the Mormon church's belief system, and was happy when it was taken out, but he had no control over that. That's called distancing yourself while not risking alienating friends and companions. Obama went a lot further (specifically saying Farrakhan was wrong) and you still don't think it sufficient. So, Kazinski, did you ever criticize Romney for not sufficiently "distancing" himself from the Mormon church's racist past? If not, thank you for playing.
Their press release says: "When someone close to a political figure shows sympathy and support for an individual who makes his name espousing bigotry, that political figure needs to distance himself from that decision. Senator Obama has done just that."
It's hard to see how anyone can view this as a continuing live issue.
If the class of persons, Jews particularly, who genuinely fit this description is in the double digits nationwide (excluding Alzheimers patients and the like, who know nothing about Obama because they know nothing much, period), I would be astonished. Ilya could do another post about political ignorance.
Since the class of persons as to whom this argument could apply is asymptotic to zero, what's the point of making it?
My assumption has always been that non-racists generally don't form close personal relationships with racists. I wouldn't even go back to the neighborhood barber after they made disparaging remarks about a Korean baseball player when I was getting my hair cut there.
Maybe my assumption is wrong and others (including Obama) are a lot more tolerant of racism than I am...
From a NYT article:
And from a statement of principles on the church website:
The Wright problem looks to me like a hit below the waterline.
The image of Obama I had received was of the post-racial candidate, the upper-class kid with a Kerry-like upbringing and no connection at all to ghetto culture or the traditional civil-rights establishment and who therefore wasn't considered "authentically black" enough, the guy who could be a president for all Americans and just happened to be dark, the first black Democrat candidate for President who wasn't a racial huckster joke like Jackson or Sharpton.
Now it turns out that for the past twenty years he's been part of a church that emphasizes african-american solidarity, and his personal "spiritual adviser"/confidant /surrogate father is a radical black separatist preacher whose political and social beliefs sound just like Jackson's and Sharpton's.
Aside from the Ivy education and the nicer suits, how exactly is Obama an improvement?
Did you miss the part where Obama said, "I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan"? That's a far stronger and more direct statement than Bill Clinton ever delivered to Sister Souljah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment
You can take the black guy out of the jungle, but you can't take the jungle out of the black guy.
In personal relationships, especially in a case where you are talking publicly about your minister, politeness requires that one go to great lengths of charity to interpret them as not holding bigoted or otherwise unacceptable views. It's much like the expectation that you don't point it out when someone has made a social gaffe at dinner. Of course it's important to clearly and firmly reject the racist or other unacceptable implications but it's just good social grace to pretend that of course the other person wasn't really saying that. It's a different standard when we talk about organizations and we accept the idea that the canidates themselves wave this sort of expectation when they choose to run but we still expect them to treat their personal aquantances in this fashion.
Frankly this isn't merely a choice but a social custom necessary for our society to continue to function. Unfortunately there are a great many people with racist or otherwise unacceptable views out there and we live in a society where everyone (including the speakers..who don't take themselves to be racist) understands that it is a grave insult to be called a racist. It would be wrong (and counterproductive) to refuse to have personal relationships with these people, impossible to do so while publicly calling them racists and unacceptable not to publicly condemn certain views as racism. Thus the only way we can forgive the misguided and avoid social conflict while speaking out against racist attitudes is to politely pretend that our personal relations meant something else while we critique their real message.
I also thought Dr. Ron Paul considers Martin Luther King, Jr, and Gandhi as personal heroes (according to his own words).
I further thought that Ron Paul believes that governments are ill-suited to combat racism - and that in fact, by lumping people into various categories and giving benefits to some groups at the expense of others, etc..., governments in fact encourage group-think and collectivism.
Lastly, I know Ron Paul strongly abhors any collectivist political philosophy - stemming from his strongly held view that ALL people have inalienable rights as individuals, and that membership in any group does not and cannot confer any additional rights that one did not already have as an individual. And wasn't it Martin Luther King, Jr., who had a dream that people wouldnt be judged by the color of their skin but on the content of their character? Sounds like Dr. Paul and Dr. King think alike.
And since Ron Paul is so racist, i suppose his proposal to end the federal war on drugs and pardon all non-violent drug offenders (i.e, mostly minorities) and allow their release back into society is part of his plan to ...do what again?
Man, I thought people knew these things already.
Yes, I think it would. I have little interest in Ron Paul, but I've heard many a conservative argue that the Civil Rights act did more to divide this country than unite it, and that government engagement in race relations does more harm than good.
I don't agree, and I think this is a very shallow comparison, to the extent that it can blind one to the profound influence Farrakhan has had, for better or worse, at one time or another within the black community. You can decry his racism and politics all you like, but if you ignore what parts of his message have meant to large numbers of blacks, you do so at your own peril. The Million Man March wasn't just a Sunday picnic--nor was it a racist conclave. It was intended to revitalize the role of husbands and fathers in the black community, and it led to an upsurge in voter registration and child adoptions. The Nation of Islam has been viewed as a beacon of strength and rectitude in many communities, though Farrakhan's aggressiveness and extremism have probably done a lot to harm its reputation.
Perhaps some would say the same thing about Duke and the Knights of the KKK, but I don't think you can remotely compare the two.
Well, if he is a liberal and he is accused of consorting with illiberals, he could resign from the church.
I believe that is the standard established for liberals in the Augusta National case.
++++
'I've heard many a conservative argue that the Civil Rights act did more to divide this country than unite it, and that government engagement in race relations does more harm than good.' Grover, you may have heard that, but it's nuts. I was there. Jim Crow was not benign.
Man, that sucks. I'm sure gonna miss my folks.
Nuts or not, I recall reading that argument a lot over at the old Southern Appeal blog. I don't know that it's expressive of a desire to return to the "good old days" of Jim Crow so much as a genuine conviction, misguided though it may be, that government meddling in race relations has made things worse.
Yes, but *you're* not running for president, the standard is higher, blah blah blah.
So if I WERE running for president, I'd be unsuitable because my parents hold racist and homophobic views that I do not share. I guess I'll have to wait until they're dead, or until people grow smart enough to realize that I have the ability to hold opinions that differ from those of my parents.
The arguments against Obama started at shrill, and have gone way past silly. Why people are so desperate to hate the man that they're inventing stuff to hate is beyond me.
So if I WERE running for president, I'd be unsuitable because my parents hold racist and homophobic views that I do not share. I guess I'll have to wait until they're dead, or until people grow smart enough to realize that I have the ability to hold opinions that differ from those of my parents.
The arguments against Obama started at shrill, and have gone way past silly. Why people are so desperate to hate the man that they're inventing stuff to hate is beyond me.
In personal relationships, especially in a case where you are talking publicly about your minister, politeness requires that one go to great lengths of charity to interpret them as not holding bigoted or otherwise unacceptable views.
All he needs to do is be as clear about his disagreements with Wright and TUCC on the subject of racial politics as Kerry and Kennedy have been about their disagreements with the Catholic Church about abortion.
No personal slagging of Wright is required, just a declaration of independence in a few specific policy areas.
I wondered how long it would take Sen Obama to start doing this.
Dear Prof.:
Too bad about the personal attacks on you. I don't read your bloggings because I agree with you, since I frequently don't. I read them because you pose provocative questions on important issues that require me to think, and check the facts. If I wanted to remain comfortable in my "opinions" (or substitute the word "biases", if you disagree with them), I'd stick to the many echo chamber blogs out there. Keep up the good work.
I don't understand why so many of you don't get that. I know you all would've liked to see Trent Lott box Strom Thurmond's ears a couple times, right? Stop whining and demand action.
I wondered how long it would take Sen Obama to start doing this.
Knowing that the "distancing" was preplanned and agreed upon, how can we believe it's sincere?
So I would write off Obama on the same grounds, except that I'd already written him off as soft on terrorism.
If we don't judge a politician's character on the basis of who he associates with, how do we?
I seem to recall criticism of Giuliani for hanging out with Kerik. When I lived in Iowa, long ago, a candidate for governor was criticized for associating with a contractor who had some unsavory business history. Her husband.
The claim that the reaction to Obama's religion is hysterical or overblown seems wrong to me. It's been underblown, if anything.
Bush spent what, a couple of hours? at BJU.
Obama's been a member of TUCC for 21 years.
Yeah, it's a much bigger deal.
Obama can't expect to just walk away from this.
Yes, so it's not really the same thing is it? But thanks for fanning the flames of this non-controversy.
Well that's true. Not with the likes of Bernstein and Cohen helping out.
But:
In other words, it's a lose-lose for Obama...but a win-win for his detractors!
It's a lose-lose Obama got himself into by playing kissy-face with a wingnut for 21 years.
I just learned that Obama's gave a speech at the Trumpet Awards.
Blech. Obama's wife.
So any claims that this caught him by surprise, or that he thought the award was for reforming prisoners, are bald-faced lies.
I'd love to see what the press would say about a candidate who chose to associate himself with a radical, Zionist movement of Judaism - I'm sure he'd be skewered in a second.
Do yourself a favor and think of Andrew Sullivan as solely an online entertainer at this point.
Any credibility in the political arena Andrew might ever have had (and I would seriously suggest that his "rise", jumping from publication to publication was fueled for the most part by the novelty of having an HIV+ man writing for them) has been squandered into meaninglessness at this point.
Let's review: self professed "conservative" pushing for gay marriage rights; strong supporter of GWB and the war in Iraq... until the going got tough; now a blathering Obama supporter who represents the heights of liberalism.
I mean, how do you reconcile those views, flip flopping this way and that, trying to go with the crowd picks except, those who once favored GWB are not the same cohorts who now back Obama.
See, I think he's an outsider (not an American citizen, so his vote despite the "you know what to do's" is nonexistent) who just desperately wants to be with the majority. There's no principled "there", there. He is inconsistent to the hilt. See, now today he's loving up to Hillary Clinton, because it looks like she's up in the polls. Sad man, totally sad. Kinda fun to watch though -- like you check out dysfunctional families and car wrecks on the side of the road, or follow small-town gossip, if you live there for any period of time.
As far as understanding the heartbeat of America, this guy can't even drive, and his life seems to be his summer place, and the DC office.
Now that he's all done and married, and his career credibility is pretty much shot, all he's got is following the other blogs and whining. He doesn't offer much in terms of substance, unknown details, predictions, etc.
Honestly: he doesn't know the Nation of Islam well enough to understand, no it's really not linked directly with the IslamicFacism we're fighting worldwide. It's an offensive to many, but throughly homegrown American style. Hence, his objections that others are just trying to link Obama's church to portraying the candidate as a closet Muslim, when that's not it at all. It's Farakkhan and the racial superiority beliefs, stupid!
I click on him as I'm entertained by many drama queens: entertainment value. And no doubt, he'll continue to guest on somebody's political shows. But as a credible commentator?, that pretty much died with the less attention paid to homosexuals in the recent election years. He fed on that stuff, man, because that's all he really has, besides some phD level discourse on dead European philosophers that is pretty meaningless to the average American (thankfully.) The new meme in America is "keeping it real".
If we get a Democratic president, or a Romney or Huckabee or Thompson, Sullivan's got to know his one-trick horse-and-pony credible dissenter days are pretty much over. So sit back and enjoy the flip flopping drama antics as it begins to dawn on him too -- there really is no there, there. He peaked as a political tool on his "wedding day" last summer; by Christmas he was back to "visiting with my family; what a drag."
Absent the religious and political and HIV novelty, he doesn't have it within him to educate himself to offer up something unique. Look for more SoPark clips, more snowy window views, more interns scouring other blogs for items of note, and more manufactured "controversies". Alas, he's burned enough bridges politically that his views from the outside, and his desire to be liked and with the popular crowed, is gone. That's why he's campaigning so drastically against Sen. Clinton now -- his only hope is that Obama takes him in and embraces him, should he get elected. Highly unlikely, and that's not an election prediction either, but a "what use is this guy?" prediction of his worth to the Obama camp.
It's the inconsistency, and the johnny-come-lately political analysis that always seems to take place 2 days too late (GWB, Iraq war, torture, gay rights, Democratic primaries, etc.) Betcha in the end, he ends up blaming his medications -- who knew too much artificial testosterone addles the brain? Always with the excuses for having the platform, but nothing worthwhile to say.
You play with fire, you eventually get caught. Even if it is just for entertainment purposes, meddling in American politics like you're a somebody and not caring much about the end score.
And there's plenty more where those 2 came from. Just because somebody can fill a thread with many "dissenting" voices, doesn't mean you should underestimate the stupidity of the American people.
If you're running as a blank-slate unity candidate, why of course people are going to ask what acquaintances helped you on your super-quick rise to power along the way. HINT: it wasn't the law professors at UC Law School either, where Obama has been but a legislator, but his SoSideChiTown connections. And that's a racial pot surely worth looking into before we hand over the keys to the country.
For instance: Obama attends TUCC, Obama went to Harvard. The opinions and character of the sole operator of the church Obama has attended for 20 years are equivalent to the opinions and character of any one of several dozen professors he took classes from among several thousand faculty at a four-century-old college.
Another instance: The Trumpet article saluting Farrakhan was written by Wright's daughter, not Rev. Wright. Who controls the Trumpet if not Rev. Wright? Who appointed Miss Wright to write and edit the Trumpet, if not Rev. Wright? So an article appearing in the official magazine of Wright's church, written by someone he put there to write it, explaining a major editorial action by that magazine, is equivalent to "anything ever said" by any member of Prof. Bernstein's rabbi's family.
And yes, Farrakhan and Duke are comparable. That Farrakhan is "respectable" among blacks is their shame, and the shame of America that closes its eyes to black racism.
It is interesting to note that Farrakhan has professed (and never explicitly repudiated) religious doctrines that are not merely heretical but blasphemous to any orthodox Moslem. Yet he has been welcomed in Libya and Iran. Anti-Americanism trumps even religious fanaticism.
Also: if a candidate for office has immediate family with unacceptable views, associations, or character, yes, it is legitimate to hold those against him, unless the candidate definitely and provably repudiates those views, associations, or character. John Gotti jr for State's Attorney? I don't think so - until maybe after he testified against the Mob, and not under a plea bargain.