Obama's "crazy uncle" defense

More to the point, does the media have the stones to ask these uncomfortable questions about Obama's church in the same gleeful way they did about Romney's church?

The media asked questions about Romney's faith because people in his own party said they wouldn't vote for him because he was a member of an anti-Christian cult. The press didn't invent concerns about Mormons, those concerns were being voiced by the GOP's most feared voting bloc: Evangelicals.

Democrats are not all that concerned about Obama's church. The anxiety is all coming from conservatives and the GOP. So electability issues emanating from one's own party is different from sliming and smears coming from the political opposition. One needs to be paid attention to, the other doesn't need to be treated with the same level of credibility.

My personal comparison point:

We had a family physician who took good care of us, yelled at us for being stupid, and paid close attention to whether we should be treated with the new drugs that would come out. To my knowledge, he was never sued for malpractice. I would, to this day, recommend him as a good physician... except that at one point, he was convicted of Medicare fraud and served a prison term.

Should I be expected to denounce that man as a bad doctor? If I don't comply, does that then mean that I condone Medicare fraud?

Can you say witch hunt..? I knew you could...

"Really, so Democrats are just sort of ok with the Reverend's "AIDS was created in a lab" schtick?"

Democrats understand the anxiety among African Americans--who have a history of being subjected to medical experiments by the federal government (Tuskeegee ring a bell)--when medical problems plague their community. Yes, it is a conspiratorial whack job theory unsupported by medical reality. But to a lot of people, the idea that frozen embryos are human beings is a whack job theory unsupported by medical reality. But no one asks Catholics to renounce the church for its whack-job medical theories.

Rod:

Have you heard this sermon from Rev. Wright, from Politico? It's the origin of the "audacity of hope" phrase, I believe.

Listening to this, I find myself sympathizing with the position that the vast majority of Rev. Wright's teachings are perfectly acceptable, mainstream black Protestant Christianity.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Wright_sermon.html

I think most people will, like me, give Obama a pass on this. Some of Wright's preaching is obviously wrongheaded, but I don't see what it is that's getting folks so worked up about it. Wright's homily here sounds pretty downright crunchy. I suppose I'll get around to reading Obama's book sometime this election season, where I expect I'll find enough answers about his relationship with Wright to satisfy me.

I'm sure you realize that there are plenty of Orthodox Christian pastors who have made comments about race, or about Israel, that would be perceived as just as controversial as most of what Wright has said.

Bless,
Doug

Obama gave $22,000 a year to this man, and took his 3rd autobiography's title from one of his sermons(so many autobiographies, so little time; but it's all about us, not him!). I'd note he did this even though his wife has caterwauled about the unfairness of having to pay back student loans for their Ivy educations while earning top dollar in great jobs. Yet they had 22 large to throw to their crazy Farakhan-loving uncle annually. Sorry, that's not gonna fly.

Please pardon me if this comes across as angry, Adam, but what stops you from applying the same standard I hold that doctor to, to Obama and Wright? When has Obama ever said anything similar to those statements by Wright that are offensive? Why should his general "I don't believe the things he believes" be insufficient reassurance?

How would you feel if I took your posts here and accused you of being a bigoted witch hunter? I am not doing that, but I'd be very surprised if you reacted with anything other than anger.

If you've read anything else I've written here, especially recently, you'll feel no surprise that I agree with you that we should take everything a candidate for federal office says with suspicion. However, I am quite sick of any person being judged by what someone else says and does. I prefer to judge a person by what that person says and does.

Side note: after the reality of the Tuskegee Experiment, one should not hesitate to understand the Rand/UofO study. We can remain skeptical of the belief expressed, but we should not be surprised at it.

"When has Obama ever said anything similar to those statements by Wright that are offensive? Why should his general "I don't believe the things he believes" be insufficient reassurance?"

Never, which is why I think Rev. Wright is a angry conspiracy nut, having a substantial body of evidence to support that, and do not think that Sen. Obama is an angry conspiracy nut, having absolutely no evidence to support that.

"How would you feel if I took your posts here and accused you of being a bigoted witch hunter? I am not doing that, but I'd be very surprised if you reacted with anything other than anger."

I would feel that you were strange person with an axe to grind, and yawn in your general direction. Anger would be pretty far down the list.

"I prefer to judge a person by what that person says and does."

Imagine some candidate, any candidate for public office. This candidate has never said anything insensitive, incindiary, hurtful, etc, or led you to beleive that he/she harbors any opinions in that direction. This candidate counts as his spiritual advisor, pastor, friend, some head of a whacko Christian Identity church. Would it be unfair to ask the candidate exactly what, and in what way (if any) that pastor had an impact on the thinking of said candidate? Is it really that out of bounds to say, "Senator, exactly what parts do you accept and which parts do you disavow?"

Please pardon me if this comes across as angry, Adam, but what stops you from applying the same standard I hold that doctor to, to Obama and Wright? When has Obama ever said anything similar to those statements by Wright that are offensive? Why should his general "I don't believe the things he believes" be insufficient reassurance?

Obama is largely an unknown to most of the electorate. The central themes of his campaign have been vague promises of Hope, Change, Unity, etc. That's been sufficient to lift him to frontrunner status in the Democratic primaries, but most American voters don't participate the primaries. Being the undefined candidate onto whom radically different groups can project their own aspirations simply won't cut it in a general election.

Either Obama moves quickly to define himself with more precision, or he will be defined by others. Like it or not, Rev. Wright is now starting to define Obama in the minds of large swaths of the electorate -- and not just among ultraconservatives. No matter how often liberals tell us that Wright's views are understandable given the history of segregation etc., to the overwhelming majority of whites, latinos, asians and others they are totally unacceptable.

Whether all this is fair or unfair is beside the point. The political reality for Obama is that this thing can become deadly to his campaign. Unless he can credibly and forcefully distance himself from Rev. Wright's views, Barack Obama has no chance whatsoever of being elected President of the United States.

Rod, terrifying as it must be for both of us, I agree with you. What I think what some folks are missing is that protestants do not use the parish model in church choice. And for protestants it is a matter of choice, you pick the church that suits your personality and needs and make no appologies for it. Obama feels no family or historic obligation to go to that particular church. he could as easily be a Baptist. He goes because it meets a need, possibly a purely political one because embarrassing as it may become in a national race, in a local race it is a benefit. (And remember, he won the Senate seat because Mike Ditka chose not to run for office.)

The other thing to remember in that in non-liturgical protestantism, the keynote of the service is the sermon. What the preacher says really does matter and often determines if he keeps his job. (I was raised in the same denomination and I remember when I was 15 the pastor of our church was almost fired by the congregation. The issue that brought things to that point involved news of the church bowling team being banned from the weekly newsletter.)

Thus the behavior of Rev. Wright is a legitimate issue. Obama cannot claim that it is his "local parish." The concept has no relevancy in the United Church of Christ. The "crazy pastor" defense will not work for him.

Charles C:

I think there is a lot of truth in what you write. Obama does not belong to the UCC denomination such that one could ask him about the UCC's beliefs and practices as they asked Romney about the LDS Church. He belongs to Reverend Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, mainly because TUCC is Rev. Wright. He built/led it according to his personal theological emphases from 87 to 8,000 members, and he continues to lead it.

The Obama campaign has put out word that “Sen. Obama has said before that he profoundly disagrees with some of the statements and positions of Rev. Wright… Sen. Obama deplores divisive statements, whether they come from his supporters, the supporters of his opponent, talk radio or anywhere else.’" (Reported on the Swamp Political Blog on Chicago Tribune online - probably elsewhere as well.)

I think that based on Obama's own words, record and persona it would probably be quite safe to surmise that he attends this church in spite of the rhetoric Rev. Wright has been known to spew. Although this sort of stuff is obviously something which Rev. Wright does every so often, I'm pretty sure that he has other, more useful and interesting things to say much of the time, which by all indications is what Obama has been drawn to.

I think that we can reasonably infer that although Obama does not share this man's views on many things, they are also not deal breakers for him. This is actually very much in keeping with how Obama has presented himself: as someone who is willing to look past differences to work together for things on which there is agreement. If Obama plays his cards right, he will be able to hold this relationship up as precisely the sort of thing which shows that he really does have a different way of doing politics. Instead of reacting as partisans have been acting for the last couple of decades and storming out with angry denounciations in the face of ideas and opinions which are offensive to him, Obama has been willing to stick around and find areas where they can work together for the good of the community.

I think what it will come down to is that if you are the sort of person who says, "some things are deal breakers and I cannot work with someone who has crossed that line" you will represent the old, worn out way of doing politics. While Obama's way will be seen as evidence of a new, more productive way of doing things.

Or at least that's how I'd advise Obama to handle it if I were one of his advisors. I wonder if there's an opening on the team? Then again, I don't think I'm ready to sell my soul for some cash just yet :)

Although this sort of stuff is obviously something which Rev. Wright does every so often, I'm pretty sure that he has other, more useful and interesting things to say much of the time, which by all indications is what Obama has been drawn to.

This is what I was thinking. If Rev. Wright is saying crazy things on a weekly basis, and Obama is choosing to attend his church, then I think people are right to question his views. But it's more than likely that the Rev. Wright's crazy ideas are getting all of the press and attention, and the other 95% of the things he thinks/say are being ignored.

I really like the minister at my church, but I only agree with about 50% of his theological views. He doesn't share his political views because his congregation is a mix of Republican and Democrats.

"I don't think Hillary should be expected to defend or condemn this decision."

Strange that you don't expect Hillary to defend something her church does but you support Waldman's call for Obama to defend the actions of his pastor. Why this double standard?

And why was your old priest's "teachings on economic justice" something you "needed to hear" and yet not his messages about homophobia? Strange dichotomies, Rod.

"People still seem reluctant to acknowledge, though, the thing I said yesterday: that Wright's views are not extraordinary or "unorthodox" among black Americans." -- John Derbyshire

It occurs to me that most white Americans (including myself) have no idea what it's like in a "black" church at all. We tend to assume it's just like a "white" Protestant church, but with more singing and dancing, because that's what we see in TV shows and movies. (Damn me for stereotyping, but when someone says "black church," the first image I get is Elwood Blues dancing down the aisle.) The sermons in our own churches have been so watered down, it'll come as quite a surprise to most whites to hear what a very popular minister like Wright delivers from the pulpit.

This is just one of many interesting moments that will come along if Obama gets the nomination, where non-black Americans are going to forced to become aware of black American life.

Then given what's coming out, this story won't end on a high note.

What's "AFAIK" Derek???

"there was this one elderly pastor who preached constantly about "homophobia," and directly contradicted Catholic teaching on the matter. Constantly"

This must be some crazy city or East Coast thing. I've never lived in a town of more than a thousand people and I've never lived on the coast. I've never heard a priest do what you're talking about. I know it happens as I've heard of Catholics on the East Coast who mention it, but never experienced it for myself.

So what you all are saying is that you wish Obama to make a greater distance from his minister than he already has (withdrew Rev Wright from giving the invocation when Obama announced his candicacy for President)? What if the situation was his prep school's roomate, someone whom he met at 18 instead of 26 and even though they agreed on many things, the roomate was a conservative radio talk show host in Chicago (smaller platform) and he stated hateful things once in a while during his show, should the same separation occur? Should Obama not listen to the show, not find a position on the campaign that would keep him from trying to help in his own way or have any contact at all? I know I have friendships that were made over 20 years ago where I agree with their basic principals, but not their rhetoric and yet we still participate and celebrate the big events in each other's life. Can you really mean that Obama should not have the same relationships in his life and would he be the man he is now without learning to parse other's beliefs and work with the good?

General:
I don't know about Obama buying into the Rev. Wright's world view but it seems to have caught on with Mrs. Obama. She and Wright could be mistaken for an echo chamber conversation. I wonder what he and she talk about over breakfast, their conflicting world and US views.
Sincerely, J R Dittbrenner