As I've discussed previously, Senator Obama's church's magazine, The Trumpet, recently honored Louis Farrakhan at a banquet for his devotion to "truth." The magazine quoted Obama's "spiritual mentor," Rev. Wright, as praising Farrakhan for his "astounding and eyeopening" analysis of the "racial ills of this nation," a "perspective" that is "helpful and honest." Farrakhan, of course, is notorious for inflammatory and bigoted comments against whites in general, and Jews (not all of whom, I should note, are white) in particular. The Nation of Islam, which he leads, sells and promotes publications promoting various anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.
When Wright's remarks and The Trumpet's award created a public controversy, Obama forthrightly condemned Louis Farrakhan's anti-Semitism, but said nothing about Rev. Wright's fulsome praise for Farrakhan. He also suggested that the magazine's decision to honor Farrakhan likely related to his work with ex-offenders, a decision he nevertheless disagreed with. Many found his depiction of the magazine's motives disingenuous, given the public record as to the stated reasons for the award to the contrary.
Obama's defender's on the issue, including some VC commenters, eagerly reported that the ADL issued a press release that seemed to hold Obama harmless, indeed, praised Obama's
condemnation of the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Louis Farrakhan, and his making clear that he did not agree with his church’s decision. ... Issues of racism and anti-Semitism must be beyond the bounds of politics. 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.
There is, however, a further development, which I suspect will lead some Obama defenders to regret relying on the ADL as authoritative on this issue:
In an interview with The Jewish Week, [ADL leader] Foxman said this must be just a first step. "He's distanced himself from his pastor’s decision to honor Farrakhan. He has not distanced himself from his pastor. I think that’s the next step. One can now expect from Sen. Obama that he confront his minister." Ultimately, said Foxman, if Obama is unable to influence Wright to alter his stands, "I think he has an obligation to leave."
Foxman added with regard to Wright that "I would say he is a black racist." He later amended his remarks, stating that Wright "embraces, awards and celebrates a black racist. I think [calling him] racist is going a little bit too far." [Question a reporter might pursue: Does the ADL's turnabout on the issue mean that it took flak from its constituents for leaping so vigorously to Obama's defense, despite his failure to distance himself from Wright's remarks?]
I don't think that Obama necessarily has to leave his church, or even "confront" Wright. However, it would be more than welcome to discover that Obama has made clear his displeasure with the Farrakhan endorsements.
There are those who have argued that it's unfair to ask even this of Obama. While I have disagreed, the point that one shouldn't hold Obama responsible for answering for the statements of his minister has some rhetorical force, even if Obama himself has noted Wright's importance his own intellectual and spiritual development. But it's rather harder to maintain the position that Wright's comments don't reflect on Obama now that Obama has publicly criticized Wright for stating during a sermon that Bill Clinton did "the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky." Obama issued a statement: "As I've told Reverend Wright, personal attacks such as this have no place in this campaign or our politics, whether they're offered from a platform at a rally or the pulpit of a church." Obama added: "Like a member of my own family, there are things he says at times with which I deeply disagree," he said. "But as he prepares to retire, that doesn't detract from my affection for Reverend Wright or appreciation for the good works he has done."
Obama's defenders will undoubtedly point out that compared to the Farrakhan remarks, Wright's condemnation of Clinton was much more directly campaign-related, and could have raised suspicions that Obama was using Wright as a surrogate. Fair enough. But The Trumpet's decision to honor Farrakhan was not campaign-related, and Obama did see fit to comment on that, instead of taking the position that his relationship with his church is a purely private religious matter. His surrogates, meanwhile, eagerly spun the controversy, with some success, as about a "magazine edited by Rev. Wright's daughter," obfuscating that the reason for the controversy is that the magazine is sponsored by Obama's church, and, even more significant, that Rev. Wright himself praised Farrakhan.
Related Posts (on one page):
- UPDATE: ADL's Foxman Condemns Rev. Wright; Obama Criticizes Wright, but not re Farrakhan:
- Cohen, Obama, and the Blogosphere:
Obama has done exactly the right (politic) thing.
(And I assume we can expect a similar series of posts addressing Guiliani's acceptance of Pat Robertson's endorsement sometime soon?)
Can one disagree with most of what someone says and still think they have "astounding and eyeopening" analysis of the "racial ills of this nation," a "perspective" that is "helpful and honest?"
Here's where I'm coming from -- I disagree with a lot of what Catharine Mackinnon, a radical feminist, has to say. But when I read her first book, it really was eyeopening for me -- I really started to see gender discrimination in a whole new way. Her perspective was helpful and she was being honest about her beliefs . . . .
Yeah, but how many votes does he get from that congregation? A few thousand at most?
This is Obama's opportunity for a Sister Souljah moment, and he's blowing it. I'm an Obama supporter, and this episode is disappointing. He's usually much more thoughtful and eloquent than this. And if he can't do better, he'll be eaten alive in the general election.
But, of course, that's only the second step.... One can then expect Obama to demand that Rev. Wright resign, renounce Farrakhan and send a check to the ADL. That would be an adequate third step. The fourth step... who knows? Perhaps guest-posting on the VC to condemn Farrakhan's anti-Semitism.
Obama has condemned Farrakhan, and he has condemnde Rev. Wright, but because he has not condemned Wright Re: Farrakhan, he might still be a secret anti-semite?
If not, what's the principled difference?
Is that a reference to Sephardic or Mizrahi jews, or Ethiopians or Sammy Davis Jr?
If you will tell us what among all of Farrakhan's utterances about race is clearly separable from the rest of Farrakhan's utterances about race and is in your opinion a legitimate basis for saying Farrakhan has offered "astounding and eyeopening" analysis of the "racial ills of this nation," a "perspective" that is "helpful and honest," we will tell you whether we think Reverend Wright's approving remarks about Farrakhan are defensible.
Good luck finding the particulars of what might reasonably be viewed as Farrakhan's "astounding and eyeopening analysis of the "racial ills of this nation," a "perspective" that is "helpful and honest." And when you report back with what you were able to carve out as acceptable, if not praiseworthy, Farrakhan, please let us know about what didn't qualify. In that should be what of any relevance it is that Wright disagrees with Farrakhan over. That should be the easy part of the assignment, since you suggest that Wright disagrees with "most" of what Farrakhan says. (Wright and Farrakhan are on the record as agreeing on that odious "Zionism equals racism" formulation which owes to the Soviet Union, that great font of antisemitism.)
Why indeed? Lacking any contraindication, one makes the naive assumption that David Bernstein feels a strong repulsion for Farrahkan as an object of his anti-Semitism. Fair enough. Further, it's a just and proper use of the blogosphere to dispense opinions in strong doses of heavy language. Since this is a shared forum, it's the tolerance of the other members of the Conspiracy which is limiting.
As a reader and commenter, however, I hold the opinion that a candidate is not responsible for all the opinions of those he is connected to by two or three degress of separation. I wonder if Bernstein is not connected in the same degree with someone whose views on Middle East or civil liberty or gun control or abortion issues he finds repugnant.
I am VERY surprised by this. I personally do not know any (except for friends with one Jewish parent and one minority parent).
He hasn't reached Jimmy Swaggart territory yet, but he has the potential.
Well said.
What is it about Bloggers' insistence on politicians carefully following their own prescribed denial-paths to clear themselves? See: Mickey Kaus on Edwards, Bernstein on Obama.
I have to imagine it comes from confusing strategy and effect. Perhaps TACTICALLY it would be more efficient to attack Wright for Farrakhan in a one-step process. But the real question is EFFECT -- does Obama hate Jews and subscribe to Wright's more kooky beliefs? Obviously his public pronouncements and general demeanor clears him of this.
Or it might be the dead horse thing.
No, the real question is whether Obama's well-cultivated persona covers up the truth that he's just a typical politician, who when, e.g., confronted with some ugly [truths--make that facts] about the church and minister he hitched his political star to long ago, tries to be satisfy everybody by evading the core issue.
If that is his primary failing, I can live with it.
Possible effect number 2 - does Obama consider those who "hate Jews and subscribe to Wright's more kooky beliefs" an important part of his base who will be owed favors should he get elected?
Obviously his public pronouncements and general demeanor clears him of this.
It's not obvious to me - his public statements strike me as Clintonian in their careful missing of certain points, and I consider a politician's "general demeanor" on the stump no more indicative of anything than a good actor's "general demeanor" on the stage.
And nothing he has said addresses effect # 2.
It looks to me like Obama's going out of his way to find a way to placate those who dislike Wright without pissing off those who agree with Wright. It makes me nervous that he feels he needs their support.
Obama has shown that he can contradict the personally-unimportant and fading-in-power Farrakhan on the important subject of race.
Obama has shown that he can contradict the important-to-him and powerful-with-his-base Wright on the unimportant subject of whether it's OK to talk mean about the Clintons.
I want to see Obama demonstrate the stones to contradict the important man Wright on the important subject of race.
If another church went on about the White Race, the European homeland, described American society as conspiring to kill whites, and gave an award to David Duke, we would have little hesitation in characterizing that church as racist.
If Obama is genuinely interested in uniting America, he has shown--at the very least--terrible judgment in embracing this quasi-racist church in the first place.
This is yet another example of the PC attitude towards Obama. If the candidate were non-black the firestorm would be vicious.
Imagine the outcry if a white candidate's pastor had honored David Duke. Billy Graham -- the pastor to the Presidents -- was on record making anti-Semitic remarks yet I don't recall any outcry.
I don't know any ... except for friends with one Jewish parent and one minority parent
If their mom is Jewish, then halakhically your friends are Jews. In America we see half-whites as minorities.
I once met a Black Hebrew Israelite, but I don't know if she was considered Jewish or not.
Obama didn't "hitch his political star" to Rev. Wright. The notion that there's a political upside for Obama in his relationship with Rev. Wright is downright loopy. Among other things, it's completely inconsistent with the sort of campaign he has been running.
Obama certainly is a "typical politician" in that he must know that there's no upside for him -- unlike, possibly, the ADL -- in making a mountain out of this molehill. But it's certainly hard for him to address "the core issue" when his detractors keep moving the target. Richard Cohen and others criticized him for being too close to Farrakhan. So he condemned Farrakhan. Now you've decided that "the core issue" is realy his relation with Wright. Obama surely understands that he can't win this game of Whack-A-Mole. As must you.
The real question -- for most of us, but maybe not for those few people obsessed with condemning Farrakhan -- is what kind of President Obama would be. On that question, you're generating an awful lot of heat, but no light at all.
I would humbly suggest, if you're not interested in the post, ignore the thread. If you don't like what's being posted on a blog, start your own...
And I agree that if Obama's worse failing is that he's a typical politician, that doesn't mean one shouldn't vote for him if one otherwise thinks his policy positions are wise and his advisors sensible. But Obama would like to have cross-ideological and nonpartisan appeal as the representative of a new kind of "uniting" politics, and that's something a typical politician just can't convincingly do.
This is much more interesting. I agree that calling Obama a typical politician is not much of a condemnation. But I don't get what you say in the second sentence at all. Obama wants to unite people across party lines and ideologies. He does this in different ways. One of the most obvious is that he speaks with respect of people who disagree with him, and seems to genuinely take their views into account. This is a marked contrast to the polarization of the last seven years and that offered by some of the other Democratic candidates -- Edwards, most obviously, but also Clinton. One key to this approach is that he emphasizes what we share, instead of what separates us. He says he wants to be the President of the United States of America, right?
This style is exactly what has gotten him in trouble with you and others in this little episode. Obama would rather talk about what he owes to and respects in Rev. Wright, not about where they disagree. He is willing to condemn Farrakhan, as reasonable people must, but his condemnation is not as comprehensive or loud as you would like. You see this as a sign that he's a typical politician. I see it as a sign that he would rather spend his energies elsewhere, and not on the polarizing, tired media charade that revolves around Farrakhan at regular intervals.
Phelan is off the reservation. You are, too, David; you're just couching your arguments in a less aggressive tone. Like another poster noted, there is no political upside to Obama's relationship with Wright. If anything, that relationship is a political liability, as the continuing Cohen/Bernstein attacks illustrate.
Besides, at this point would anyone respect Obama for cutting ties to his church and pastor for political reasons? Pandering to people who aren't going to vote for him anyway like Cohen (and Phelan) makes no political sense whatsoever, and it'd also show he has no spiritual principles. This is an unwinnable issue for Obama since there's literally nothing he can do about this issue that will satisfy the critics and race-baiters. Like you say, David, you don't believe the man to be either racist or anti-semitic, yet you continue to paint him as such even after he's condemned Farrakhan and disagreed with Wright in public forums.
I get the sense that it is the people who are making so much of this issue who find the idea of cross-ideological and nonpartisan politicking to be unconvincing in general.
That's among the reasons I think that Foxman goes too far.
Precisely, Tyrone.
This is a candidate who worked as a community orgainizer on the South Side of Chicago, then went to law school, then practiced law in Chicago, and then was a state legislator from the South Side for 8 years. He has been a national figure since 2004 as a senator. He is a long-time neighborhood politician with a national career of only 3 years, spent as a United States Senator, Now he wants to be president.
He has so little national record, and so little exposure, that anyone who wants to know how he would do, or what he woudl do, has to read tea leaves.
Unlike Mayor Giuliani, who has played out a career on a large stage for a long time (the same can be said of Sens. McCain and Clinton) he does not have an extensive record of opinion and action with regard to a myriad of national issues.
If Giuliani played footsie with Pat Robertson (who does not have the same sort of public record of bigoted obsessions as Louis Farrakhan) we can at least put this in the context of many years of public service on a large stage.
If Senator Clinton embraced Arafat's wife right after she gave a wacky speech about Jews, we can also place this in the context of her national career.
For someone like Obama, his associations are relatively more important because there is so little hard data about the man himself. Without such specifics (and statements leike "I deplore racists and anti-Semites" do not provide much insight into a politician's likely policies) potential voters will go by whatever is out there.
Remember-- nobody has an obligation to vote for any candiate. It is entirely the candidate's obligation to demonstrate to the voter that he or she is fit for office.
That's right. I, for one, don't believe he is really cross-ideological or non-partisan. He can get away with it because he has only been around for a short time, and has not established sufficient recort to allow definitive refutation of his claim to be a "uniter." We can only go with our gut.
No Pat does not have the same bigoted obessions, just a few that he shares with others from his camp. I don't think Rudy has to distance himself from Pat's endorsement or anything of the sort. But I don't think that Rudy shares some of Pat's beliefs on women or homosexuals. But there is a record of Pat's beliefs. Fewer people may find them problematic than say Farrakhan but they are not always easy to defend.
Pat Robertson said:
That shouldn't be hard. They are both Democrats.
On the one hand, I find Louis Farrakhan disgusting and any opportunity to condemn him I would gladly take.
On the other hand, the Nation of Islam poses very complex issues for black politicians. The Nation of Islam had a role in the civil rights revolution in the 1960's, producing flawed but nonetheless somewhat effective leaders such as Elijah Muhammed and Malcolm X. Muhammed Ali and some other prominent blacks joined the group. They have done a lot of work in prisons and in the black community, promoting a self-reliance message that resonates with a lot of blacks.
So, while there are some followers of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam who like the anti-semitic message, there are also a lot of people who don't but who nonetheless cooperate with him because he is influential and respect some of the things that his movement teaches. This is why numerous mainstream black leaders attended the Million Man March, for instance.
It is obvious that Jewish leaders would like Farrakhan to become more of a pariah. I don't blame them for that one bit. At the same time, I haven't seen a lot of evidence that Farrakhan's anti-semitic views are taken seriously or are resulting in any real harm to Jews.
Thus, there is an argument for a cooling the heels a bit here. Obama is clearly not an anti-semite; his pastor probably isn't one either, and there isn't any great need to punish every black politician who goes to a church that has some connection to Farrakhan, at least unless and until there is evidence of an epidemic of tangible black anti-semitism that starts doing harm to Jews. Of course, Abe Foxman doesn't cool his heels-- it's simply not in his M.O.
When do you expect to see an honest politician?
If you really want to know more about him, read his books. Unlike tea leaves, they're filled with lots and lots of words. He also speaks publicly quite often.
What is happening here is a perverted form of red-herring prejudice. Bernstein has chosen a set of attributes that Obama should stand for, then lambastes him for not honoring them. We get it, you don't like Farrakhan and have decided to become a mouthpiece for the increasingly-discredited Cohen.
MDJD2B: Are you saying we should be looking for another Cheney? Experience is overrated.
Please, spare us any more of these ridiculous posts. Obama's denounced anti-semitism generally, denounced Farrakhan's anti-semitism specifically, and said that he disagrees with his pastor's daughters' (!!!) decision to give him an award. Your continuing efforts to raise "questions" as to his feelings toward Jews is risible, and your claims that this is simply an inquiry into whether Obama is a "typical politician" are transparently false. Your point is to insinuate (not subtly) that he's in bed with anti-Semites. You're not fooling anybody; and your continual harping on this non-issue is functionally no better than passing along emails regarding the "madrassa" that Obama attended when he was 7.
As for your claim that Obama's avoiding the "core issue" -- isn't the "core issue" here antisemitism? And hasn't he roundly denounced it? Haven't all of his public statements regarding Jews generally and Israel specifically put him well within the mainstream of the Democratic pary, and the country? How in the world can this amount to "evading" the "core issue"?
Get real.
Neurodoc, I will answer you in the same helpful way you did me:
Prove it.
There, didn't that address the merits nicely?
"isn't the 'core issue' here anti-Semitism?"
No, it's not. It's judging Obama by the company he keeps (that is, Wright, not Farrakhan), given that this company may become part of his "kitchen cabinet" or "inner circle" as president, and whether he's more of the sincere chap of his image, or more the typical political type, full of obfuscation and trying to divert people's attention from unpleasantries. His response, and his aid's response, to Cohen's piece suggests the latter. Not a trace of genuine, "I'm really angry that my church and pastor would honor someone like Farrakhan" (assuming he hadn't heard about it already).
You do realize this is a pretty accurate desciption of Kwanzaa. It was created in 1966 by Ron Karenga, who is a felon convicted of torturing two women in California by beating them with electrical cords and using a soldering iron on them. I guess if you do not consider marxist black panthers to be hippie types you can call this quote incorrect.
Obama's church states that it is 'Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian.' The reality is that the church is most definitely 'Unashamedly Black,' but far from 'Unapologetically Christian.' Just read their about page (this link is to one changed early last year). Do a little research and you'll find tht the church is more about people of color than Christ.
Fred is a Democrat - you can look it up. The only reason I can think of that he would endorse Thompson is to sink him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps
Gore Delegate to DNC in '88.
apparently you are unaware of the takeover of the Bnai Brith building in Washington by armed Hanafi Black Muslims in the late 1970s, which resulted in the death of a security guard and the taking hostage of everyone in the building, who were frequently threatened with execution by their captors. The spokesman said that Bnai Brith was chosen because Jews were the original slave traders -- a canard often spread by Farrakan and his followers.
The anti-Jewish riots in Crown Heights riots, of course, were more the work of Rev. Al Sharpton than of Farrakhan; I do not know whether the latter and his NOI were involved. As you know, those riots resulted in the murder of one Jew and the injury of scores of others, as well as damage to Jewish homes and businesses.
Did you just make that up?Fred Phelps has endorsed Fred Thompson for President.
</blockquote>
Phelps helped out Al Gore's campaign in 1988 and his son was later invited to the first Clinton/Gore innagural, in 1990 Phelps ran for governor of Nebraska in the Democratic primary, and in 1992 got 30% of the vote in Democratic primary in Nebraska for US Senate. See this Southern Poverty Law Center bio of Phelps for details: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/ intelreport/article.jsp?sid=184
AC, thanks for repeating the disingenuous Obama talking points? Do you work for the campaign? The church does not have "some connection" with the magazine. The church publishes the magazine. The magazine did not "honor Farrakhan for its socical justice work." It honored him for his purported dedication to "truth, education, and leadership." Wright is not just Obama's minister, but his friend and confidante; Obama has just said he's like family. The controversy is over not just the magazine, but also Wright's own comments praising Farrakhan. Finally, unlike Foxman, I have not suggested that Obama should disown his church or his minister.
Obama should publicly embrace his minister. He should at least get the arm over the shoulder Sharpton got. I mean - best buddies for 18 years - isn't that worth at least an arm over the shoulder?
You can't see the forest because you've found a branch that you can't take your eyes off of. If Obama disagrees with Wright at the right times -- e.g., he condemns Farrakhan -- then why would it matter if Wright were to "become part of his 'kitchen cabinet.'" As someone else said, the issue is Obama's character and judgment.
Unless you don't care as much about who is President as you do about marginalizing Farrakhan. If Farrakhan bothers you so much that you will vote against a candidate merely because they are close to someone one who might be seen to legitimize Farrakhan, regardless of what the candidate would do or say as President, then that is your right, and I can only take comfort that other voters will cast ballots for equally peculiar reasons that will cancel yours out. But stop pretending that it has something to do with Obama.
Obviously, this is tangentional, but what the fvck are you talking about DB? Maybe I am just really, really out of it, but I have never heard of these. Maybe it's an east coast thing, but the "major cities" out here in the West don't have any long-standing African-American synagogues (not that I'd have any problem with it).
What part of "I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," is a diversion? What part of "...it is not a decision with which I agree," is a dodge?
I remain mystified as to why this is an issue. Let's be honest: if Obama did come out with an "angry" statement, how many of his detractors would take it to be genuine anger? If he left his church, how many of his detractors would take it to be a sign of typical political expediency? After all, none of Cohen, Bernstein, etc., believe Obama to be either a racist or an anti-semite, so how much influence could they believe Wright really had on Obama on these issues? This is an issue only because Cohen, et al, want it to be an issue for the simple reason that they don't like Obama -- Bernstein's at least been upfront about that -- and they want to raise as many negatives as possible, regardless of how little merit those negatives have.
But you weren't talking about personal relationships. You were talking about common ground. Phelps made it explicitly clear in his post that he shares much common ground with Thompson.
In politics actions (and who your friends are) speak louder than words.
Politicians lie. Embracing Al Sharpton is a fact. And I have the pictures to prove it.
I have been talking about nothing except personal relationships. Why embrace Al Sharpton if there is no common ground?
BTW I have a lot in Common with Fred T. and I despise Fred P.
Now how does Fred P. square his militant ant-war stance with Fred T.'s "send the jihadis to their virgins"?
MDJD2B: Nice job setting up and knocking down the strawman. Both of your examples involve a candidate who is directly involved with someone who is accused of bigotry, subtly suggesting that Obama is "playing footsie" with Farrakhan, who is the counterpart to Pat Robertson and Arafat's wife in your construct.
The analogy is false - no one has suggested that Obama has ever supported Farrakhan; on the contrary, the reality is that Obama has pointedly criticized Farrakhan's racist and reprehensible positions.
I have no problem with criticizing any candidate for the company he or she keeps, but don't make it up as you go along.
Not only that, but Fred Phelps hates Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham and basically all Christians (other than those who follow him, of course); he deeply hates the Catholic Church and the Pope and loathes George Bush.
While it is true that liberals love homosexuality and Phelps doesn't, this one issue certainly doesn't supercede everything else (plus, Phelps claims that God hates even homosexuals who do not engage in homosexual conduct, which position is very different from the standard conservative Christian position).
Once again, the Phelps endorsement of Thompson is ON A SPOOF SITE.
No doubt. Rightly or wrongly (rightly, in my view) Farrakahn is the third rail of American politics.
Obama may consider he is in a difficult position in this respect, and wish -- as his defenders here all wish -- that we would just overlook it -- but if he isn't smart enough to figure that out, he ain't ready for the big leagues.
So it's possible and right for you to share common ground with Phelps, but impossible and disgusting for Obama to share common ground with Wright? Because if we applied the standards Obama's be given to you, M. Simon, not only would you not be able to run for president, but you'd also be a horrible human being.
I think it's more likely that in this case, neither of you are horrible people, and that the standard given is all wrong.
The notion that there'd be an upside in November is loopy.
Whether there's an upside now is debatable - Obama association with Wright is a negative with some white voters, but is a positive with racist, antisemitic or conspiracy-mongering black voters, so the net result becomes a question of numbers. I'm sure Obama will do well in Durham, NC, where all the folks who voted for Mike Nifong are just gonna love Reverend Wright.
The notion that membership in this church was a huge help in getting Obama into the state legislature sounds pretty likely to me.
Bernstein's not gunning for Obama -- he just cares much more about the exercise marginalizing Farrakhan than he does about distinguishing between Democratic presidential candidates. The same is true of Cohen, with the added twist that he has to generate new columns periodically and this was one he could write in his sleep. With Cohen, it's a sort of laziness; with Bernstein, it's the opposite.
Again, if a Republican politician was a member of a church that focused on the White Race, the European homeland, espoused beliefs that American society fosters the killing of whites, and gave an award to David Duke, that politician would have some serious explaining to do, and wouldn't get off with saying that he disagreed with David Duke's racism.
Phelan is off the reservation. You are, too, David;
What exactly does that mean?
That we're going someplace you don't think we should be allowed to go?
Herding people onto a reservation is generally considered a rather hostile act ... why should we let you confine us to a "reservation" of acceptable (to you) thoughts?
Since black nationalism is a really lousy base for a national politician, and since there's a world of information out there suggesting that Obama isn't a quasi-racist, one searches for another explanation.
A-ha! Here's one! The church isn't quite that racist, and Obama has found spiritual and religious value from the non-racist parts. There, that wasn't so hard.
Until Huckabee becomes the solid #2 contender in the Republican race, I can wait.
Obama's worth covering in detail because he has a real shot.
Paul was worth covering because (a) he had generated a lot of interest among this particular audience and (b) he's hilarious.
I find Huckabee mostly tiresome and not worth the trouble.
I've often disagreed with Professor Bernstein, but now he's just being intellectually dishonest. First he criticizes Obama for not making a statement condemning the fact that Farrakhan was honored in his church's newsletter. Then, when the pressure from Bernstein and other folks like him forces Obama to deal with the issue, he uses the fact that he made a statement to criticize him for not making a statement on other facts. Professor Bernstein, just admit that at this point you're going to criticize Obama no matter what. And more importantly, if you can't be fair, at least be honest.
How would this differ from a Jewish politician who strongly supported Israel and believed that the Anti-Defamation League was necessary to monitor anti-Semitism?
Huckabee is currently #2 in the last national polls I saw
At the very least, I'd say that Obama has terrible judgment to associate long-term with a church where such beliefs are proudly espoused, and completely rules Obama out as a unity candidate.
The USA Today/Gallup Poll has had Huckabee at either #1 or #2 since the beginning of December. I'd say he has a real shot.
A mindless link-counting Kevin Bacon game is meaningless.
But if you take into account the strength of the links it becomes more meaningful. the realative appallingness of what's on the other end matters too.
Obama
["spiritual advisor" &surrogate father since 1987]
Wright
[Publicly agree about racial theories under which white people, especially Jews, are the cause of anything bad that ever happens to a black person. Political allies since 1984]
Farrakhan, who blames Jews for the slave trade. This claim is factually incorrect. This belief is sufficiently inflammatory that it is known to have resulted in deaths.
Giuliani
[Accepts endorsement from]
Robertson, who says impolite but true things about Kwanzaa and radical Islam, who believes all religions but his own are incorrect (Wow, big surprise!), and who believes that 9/11 was Gods punishment against America because we don't oppress gays harshly enough. The last claim is clearly insane but has no factual content that can be proven either true or false. I don't know of this belief ever having actually inspired a riot in which people got killed.
I'd say two links consisting of associations both of which are over two decades old count for more than one link consisting of a political endorsement. And that Robertson may be a bad man, but Farrakhan is far worse.
I find that wacko and repugnant. How about you?
Sounds wacko and repugnant to me.
At the very least, I'd say that Obama has terrible judgment to associate long-term with a church where such beliefs are proudly espoused, and completely rules Obama out as a unity candidate.
Poor political judgment, sure, if he was thinking about it from a political perspective. I suspect he finds something else at the church to be compelling, and hasn't ever bothered to look at the web site, much as I've never looked at my church's web site.
If I thought Obama believed those things, I wouldn't find him to be an attractive candidate. Perhaps because I'm more familiar with him from other sources, I don't think that sort of stuff is a good guide to what he thinks at all. There are different strains within black churches, and I would surmise that this is true specifically of that church. I've never seen any reporting of what the services are like, presumably because most reporters would rather do research at their desks, on the web, instead of having to go to religious services on Sunday morning. I'd be curious to know more about the church.
Actually a lot more could have been said, and if you were applying the same standards to Thompson that Bernstein is applying to Obama, you would demand that more be said. He could say why he condemns WBC as a radical fringe group. He could specifically condemn Phelps. He could specifically condemn the Phelps/WBC treatment of the American military. See, this game is fun to play. You can always come up with a more specific statement or a new issue they didn't addres in their condemnation.
Just in case it's not obvious, I consider what Thompson completely adequate. It's the appalling hypocrisy that I object to.
Since black nationalism is a really lousy base for a national politician, and since there's a world of information out there suggesting that Obama isn't a quasi-racist, one searches for another explanation.
Obama is a cynical politician who used Trinity as a base to get started in politics, and is now trying to disguise that fact without pissing off his long-time supporters. I don't see the need to go looking for another explanation, unless I'm already so emotionally attached to the Obama campaign that I'd find it emotionally painful to accept the obviousness of the above.
Now that Huckabee is number two, you think that Bernstein should focus his effort on the connections of Huckabee...right?
Would anybody have suggested that every member of the LDS church prior to 1971 should have left the church because of their policy on race, regardless of the positive influence the church may have been having on their lives?
We ask alot of sacrifices from our presidential candidates, let's leave them the right to attend their home church without being trashed for it.
The anti-Jewish riots in Crown Heights riots, of course, were more the work of Rev. Al Sharpton than of Farrakhan; I do not know whether the latter and his NOI were involved. As you know, those riots resulted in the murder of one Jew and the injury of scores of others, as well as damage to Jewish homes and businesses.
Yankev, without in any way defending those horrible acts, those were DECADES ago. Al Sharpton is actually a perfect example of this-- he's not a guy I admire one bit, as in addition to his past advocacy of violence and his role in the Tawana Brawley affair, he also is a rampant publicity hound. Nonetheless, Al Sharpton's prominence right now is simply not harming anyone.
There is very real anti-semitism out there, it is a threat, and we need to keep fighting it. But the problem is, getting one's dander up everytime some black leader somewhere associates in some indirect way with Louis Farrakhan or the Nation of Islam is counterproductive to fighting actual, harmful anti-semitism. I don't blame Jewish groups at all for this-- Jews were targeted in the Holocaust and I wasn't, and seeing millions of one's people killed in that manner will naturally and correctly make one very concerned about the threat of anti-semitism in the future. Nonetheless, it is still possible to overreact.
Thompson didn't express respect. Thompson didn't try to find a part of their message he could agree with. Thompson didn't try to find a way of distancing himself without actually offending Phelpsians.
Thompson came right out and slagged off the lot of them. That really is pretty unequivocal.
There were many Germans who opposed Hitler, and some were brave enough to attempt his ouster/death. Point out one, yes, even one Mohammedan who has condemned 9/11 or the Munich Olympics slaughter.
Mr Obama is born and bred a Mohammedan--his posited embracing of an anti-Semitic church should come as no surprise.
The recent Ms. magazine flap should be a reminder that the left is vehemently anti-Jew.
Why should we expect Obama to be different?
'nough said.
So where is your proof that Obama believes this? What in the world are you babbling about?
Also, apparently how evil someone is depends on whether what someone says is true or not. Yeah, because Robertson cannot "be proven true or false" in his homophobic ravings that makes him less bad than Farrakhan. That makes sense.
Also, Great, except this chain of events never happened. I raised the issue of the praise by Wright, and the honor by the magazine. I didn't say what Obama should do about it. Cohen then wrote his column. Obama then criticized Farrakhan and halfheartedly and somewhat disingenuously disassociated himself from the magazine's honor. I pointed out why I didn't find the statement completely satisfying. If you're going to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty, you should at least get the underlying facts straight first, my posts are still up, not hard to check.
Several posters have cited Obama's forthright condemnation of antisemitism, and asked why would we not let it go at that?
Well, Lindbergh, once his hand was caught in the Jew-hating cookie jar, asserted his disdain for antisemitism, and nobody believed him.
Same with Obama. Not credible.
That is false. Indeed, if you read this 1995 profile of Obama at the start of his political career, you won't even see Trinity mentioned. You will see Obama talk about the importance of building up black churches as institutions, which will give -- maybe not you, but a fair-minded reader -- a better sense of the role he thinks black churches should play. (It doesn't have much to do with that stuff on Trinity's website.)
(Did I miss where you came back to tell us what of non-hateful Wright might have had in mind when praising Farrakhan, as Wright did, for "'astounding and eyeopening'" analysis of the 'racial ills of this nation,' a 'perspective' that is 'helpful and honest?'" And did I also miss where you came back to tell us exactly what parts of the hateful Farrakhan Reverend Wright had explicitly rejected? That would be evidence we could weigh, but I don't see where you ever presented any evidence in support of whatever case you might be trying to make.)
I wasn't trying to make a point about Pat Robertson's beliefs as comparted to Farrakhan's. I was trying to say that Giuliani's extensive public record of statements and actions provide a context for his distasteful or controversial associations than does Obama's.
Obviously, anyone is free to hold either candidate's associations, friendships, or endorsements against him. The less concrete stuff we have to go on, the more important this sort of stuff becomes.
The remarks were made in a recorded conversation with Nixon 30 years or so before the tape was released. There was an outcry, Abe Foxman for one loudly reproaching Graham for the antisemitism expressed.
When the tape was released, Graham was ill with advanced Parkinsons, out of the limelight, and not closely associated with any particular politician, though he had certainly been close to many over the years. Which politician would have been obliged to step forward to publically reproach Graham at that point in time?
Rather than statements, I had votes and actions more in mind. I consider those to be more predictive than books and speeches.
With Cheney, we knew what we had before we voted for him. Like him or hate him, nobody is surprised.
That was my point about experience.
I would go further, though, and say that (all other things being equal) doing well at running something big is a good predictor of doing well at running something else big. If their philosophy were similar, I would vote for a well-regarded big-state governor before I would vote for a log-time state legislator with a couple of years in the Senate.
"There is, however, a further development, which I suspect will lead some Obama defenders to regret relying on the ADL as authoritative on this issue...."
Right, and the Clintons are worried that Republicans are going to attack him for his drug use too. It certai