Gov. Rendell on the Nation of Islam:
Andrew Sullivan links to this appalling speech by leading Clinton supporter and Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, from 1997 when he was mayor of Philadelphia. Rendell is, to say the least, fulsome in his praise of the racist and anti-Semitic cult and its leaders. And he sure seems oblivious to the irony of a white, Jewish mayor going using the Nation of Islam as his forum for denouncing racism.
Sullivan has a point: will Clinton reject and denounce these remarks and Farrakhan?
Now, as I suspect, Obama's going to church may have been nothing more than political posturing, but that's no better than admitting that he attended a crazy, racist church for 20 years.
Indeed.
EH,
do you think that racism, hatred, bigotry, and thuggish stupidity are not "issues that are facing the nation and its citizens?" That politicians who pander to dangerous cults pushing such ideas are NOT something that people care about?
Interesting. I wonder, given the utter dearth of interest in these matters, how you bothered to read this thread much less post in it.
But I also think it's a big waste of time to discuss politicians' campaign promises, especially when I'm sure 95+% of VC readers already know who they are going to vote for, and things like Farrakhan, Bush's drunk driving escapade, Swift Boats, Dukakis in a tank, "read my lips no new taxes", blather about 'change', and so forth are, along with economic conditions, what actually ultimately decides American elections, because the 5-20% of voters who are swayable in any given election tend to be the most ignorant and least public policy oriented voters. But if you'd like to post a lengthy comment discussing the differences between Obama and Clinton's health care plans, please feel free.
I have seen the candidates' health care proposals; I would rather be waterboarded than spend three hours reading blog posts about them.
Come on now, dont be so disrespectful to Jerry Falwell
Is Ron Paul still in the race?
Maquire provides some context and it makes this thread look foolish.
One positive result of the 2000 campaign was that it made Bob Jones University politically radioactive, forcing the school to change its dating policy. Perhpas this campaign will do the same to NOI (which has the opportunity to change when Farrakhan dies).
However, I did note the Times story wihcih included this:
In a long church rally today, called to promote racial reconciliation after several recent high-profile crimes, Mayor Edward G. Rendell joined Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader, in challenging residents of Philadelphia and the nation to put aside ethnic differences.
...
The church rally, which lasted four hours, was a compromise negotiated by officials of the Nation of Islam, who wanted to help protest the incidents, and by Mr. Rendell, who wanted to preserve the city's peace, two weeks before a Presidential summit meeting here on volunteerism.
My guess is that Rendell thought he was preventing a demonstration that could have led to riots, as in Crown Heights 1991.
Maybe he was wrong - I am no authority on Philly politics of the 90's.
Maybe there is some civic version of a Neville Chamberlain award we could give to Rendell. Except that, as best I know, there were no eventual riots in Philly.
Just the kind of balanced political commentary that its loyal readers have come to expect.
(Semi-)conservative responds: Is that why Rendell was addressing NOI? Because it was the best audience for a detailed policy speech on the "issues"?
This is like the Obamaniacs' response to the most recent debate. "We want to hear the cadidates address the ISSUES!"
No you don't. Almost no one wants that. If they did, newspapers would be a viable enterprise.
Are we going to question Ed Rendell's patriotism ad nauseum? This is Rendell saying it, not his church.
Oh the hypocrisy. I guess it's easier to smear the black guy by association to Farrakhan, then it is another, good old "White Ethnic." Which "ethnic" Rendell is, is beyond me. That's just how he's referred to in the press all the time. He looks just white to me. Which, provides good cover, from - you must also believe the crazy shit that Farrakhan says too, right?
Not in the realm of possibility. A more reasonable request: "We want to hear the candidates lie about the ISSUES!"
You'd be so much more persuasive if you didn't contracdict yourself.
Hmmm, isn't political posturing pretty much the same as pandering. Your words, not mine.
Crazy, racist church for 20 years? How the fuck would you know if it's a "crazy racist church?" Did you attend it for 20 years? Oh let's see, let's take the wackiest things that one of their pastors said, and play it on a loop, and then we'll draw our conclusions. I'm glad we're all concerned with objective truth here and not just projecting our own pre-conceived conclusions.
I know Mike Huckabee doesn't Rev. Wright's a racist:
I know Hillary's former pastor Dean Snyder doesn't think it's a racist church:
But hey, he said GD America. So, we must all run, hide, and cower from the militant black guys who praise Farrakhan. (Why are we afraid of Farrakhan again? He said mean things about Jews? I'm Jewish, and the people I've known to say the meanest things about Jews, have been, NEWSFLASH - other Jews. But I digress)
Ok, let's get through the cognitive dissonance. And, I must preface this with, I personally do not give two shits on who said what regarding Farakhaan, Tuskegee experiments, chicken's coming home to roost et al. Those things mean jack to me. BUT, I know that's what people like to talk about.
Rendell praised the shit out of Farrakhan. Obama has never praised him. Now, if we employ logic, then, one should conclude, that Rendell has a more favorable opinion of Farakhann then does Obama. And how do I know this: Because it's what they said. That's it. Anything else is substituting analysis with projection.
Youtube: Huck and Wright
Google: Dean Snyder and Wright
and you'll get the documents that I meant to link.
Ask and you shall receive.
Farrakhan hasn't just "said mean things about Jews." He is probably the leading purveyor (via The Nation of Islam) of anti-Semitic propaganda (e.g, the Nation of Islam book, The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews) in the U.S. He likely plays a significant role in the fact that blacks are far more likely to be anti-Semitic than are whites.
And if you're Jewish friends believe in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories like Farrakhan, you are hanging out with an awfully strange crowd.
Nobody for President in 2008. Why does a dying Republic need a president?