The Teflon President.2

On a different note, who invented this idiotic acronym "MSM"? It makes it look as if the phrase is spelled "main stream media" or "MainStream Media". Is "mainstream media" really so long and painful to type that we need an acronym for it?

Given the press' willingness to play along with previous attempts to drag the campaign into nonsensical trivilaities, maybe this is a sign that we are going to start holding partisan pundits accountable for their attempts to Swift Boat. The only people who have an interest in keeping this story alive is the conservative media and the Clinton campaign. The public is already bored with the story and it appears to have done little to Obama's campaign.

We need to challenge partisan pundits on why they are keeping stories alive, what their motives are, and whether this kind of endless discussion about a candidate's preacher--who the candidate eloquently explained--is good for the country.

Krauthammer cares because he has been on the frontlines of promoting the war and economic policies that have gotten us into the current mess. As a cheerleader for the administration and conservative movement, I'd want to talk about something else too.

"I can't help that Krauthammer picked today to write a column making an interesting and important point. I should have ignored it because of the calendar?"

Frankly, I don't much care what Krauthammer chose to write today -- I don't expect much from him anyway. I just found it sad that on your first post touching on race today you were inspired to write by what Krauthammer wrote instead of, say, David Brooks.

Again, I think Brothers K is instructive here -- it's all about our comportment towards our brothers and sisters and our God.

Sorry if this sounds lecture-y -- the post just struck me as strange. Also wanted to apologize for saying you were whining. After I pushed "Post", I realized that was inappropriate.

I didn't think Brooks's column was very good today. I'll be on the lookout for MLK-related commentary that strikes me as saying something fresh or interesting. Post something here if you see it.

Daniel: "...partisan pundits accountable for their attempts to Swift Boat."

Ah, the new, er, meme: "Swift Boating = pointing to truths inconvenient to Barack Obama's presidential campaign."

With the actual Swift Boat thing, there was real doubt as to whether the allegations were true. Nobody is saying that the things being attributed to Jeremiah Wright are untrue.

The Wright stuff is important not least because it suggests in Obama a comfort with a kind of left-wing radicalism, even bigotry, that would potentially be reflected in the kind of people he would appoint within his administration. If Huckabee were the GOP nominee, would it be Swift-boating for gays to point to his past statements about homosexuality as something that deserves closer consideration, as a guide to his thinking? I don't think so at all. Perfectly legitimate.

If it were a three-week, all-out, nonstop drumbeat despite Huckabee giving a eloquent speech explaining his beliefs, then yes.

Obama never gave any such explanation. He snowed you with tu quoques, and being the dutiful guilty, white liberal you are, you ate it up.

Someone's going to have to explain to me what's so offensive about 'chickens coming home to roost'.

As someone who lives in an area where people actually say 'Chickens coming home to roost', that doesn't mean someone deserved what happened to them, just that an outside observer could see that their behavior was tempting fate.

I know some people on the right likes to think that any suggestion that our behavior contributed to 9/11 is somehow treason, but I didn't think people were that dumb. We did tempt fate by constantly interfering in the middle east, thinking we were save because they had no money or armies not under our nominal control, and fate bit us in the ass.

Oh, and while we're at it, someone's going to have to explain to me why it's offensive to suggest that God would damn a country for treating a significant minority of its population like less than human. That behavior would, indeed, seem to be in violation one of the two most important commandments. Theologically it's a bit silly, as countries aren't people and can't be damned or saved, but whatever.

And someone's going to have explain to me how Iran can be 'evil' for supporting terrorism and repression right now, but American can't be 'damned' for supporting vigilantism and repression during Jim Crow.

Someone's going to have to explain to me what's so offensive about 'chickens coming home to roost'.....Oh, and while we're at it, someone's going to have to explain to me why it's offensive to suggest that God would damn a country for treating a significant minority of its population like less than human.

I'm pretty sure the American electorate will explain it all for you in November.

But this argument is a neat example of why Obama's eloquent speech failed to put the Wright issue to rest. On the one hand, the Left wants to give Barack a pass because he acknowledged, albeit only in a vague and general way, that Wright's statements were offensive. On the other hand, Barack's supporters are trying to make the case that those comments were not, in fact, offensive.

Lot's of luck making that case in the general election.

Well said, Simon, both times. Who was it here the other day who said that the meaning of the Wright affair is that Obama's not going to be able to be Cliff Huxtable anymore. Doesn't mean he won't win, but it only means that he's not going to be able to run on the image he has worked to cultivate. The record won't support it. Which was Krauthammer's point.

"Oh, and while we're at it, someone's going to have to explain to me why it's offensive to suggest that God would damn a country for treating a significant minority of its population like less than human."

Good question--we should ask Obama why he voted Against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, especially when he heard testimony that yes, in fact victims of botched abortions were being exposed, and yes, the act specifically stated that this was not meant to affect Roe v. Wade.

"If Huckabee were the GOP nominee, would it be Swift-boating for gays to point to his past statements about homosexuality as something that deserves closer consideration, as a guide to his thinking? I don't think so at all. Perfectly legitimate."

Naturally I disagree, Rod. Because they aren't Huckabee's "past statements"; they comprise his CURRENT views on gays - the ones he used in the CURRENT campaign - that he would change the Constitution to ensure unequal treatment of gay people before the law.

Besides, Huckabee's statements were his own. Wright's statements are not Obama's.

"Viewpoint" is an early Sunday morning show that is aired by NBC 4 (Washington, D.C. area). I happened to catch last week - three African-American ministers (actually one was a theology professor at Howard) were interviewed about Jeremiah Wright.

I thought they should change the name of the show to "Samepoint" because each one had the identical perspective on Wright, that he was "speaking in a prophetic voice." The interviewer, in this case Pat Lawson Muse, rather obliquely raised the issue of the controversial sound bites without pressing too hard for a response. As someone said recently, "A lie repeated often enough begins to sound like truth."

Jeremiah Wright is many things, some of them positive. But he is not a prophet if prophet is defined as a truth-teller, and, before he retired he was doing his congregants a great disservice. If we can't distinguish between genuine prophets and men like the fictional Elmer Gantry (part decent man, part seducer, part carnival huckster) then we are in trouble.

Also, the views of the candidate are different from the views of his preacher.

Except that THIS candidate has specifically fingered his preacher as a principal shaper of his views.

You always obscure that rather salient point, Daniel, even after it's been pointed out to you time and again. Why is that? Why the self-deception?

Because it is, ultimately, unconvincing?

Your own candidate's words and actions aren't convincing?

Yeah, that's the guy you really want to get behind.

what you all think is the Christian's responsibility vis-a-vis public discourse

I guess I would start with finding out the truth. Lots of National press figures have spent lots of time showing the same YouTbue loops. These news organizations know little or nothing about the history of the man or his church. As Matt noted above, the local Chicago papers and people lke Martin Marty who live there and know the full context werent the ones upset over this.

Once we know the real facts we need to judge if there is reason for mercy in our judgments. Maybe reflect on what Jesus would do. If you then think its a case of the moneylenders in the temple then you ought to join in condemnation or asking for further examination of that candidate. If there is cause for mercy or if all the facts are not available then I think you ought to try to move it somewhere else.

That said, this is pure politics. Dont confuse this with Christianity.

Steve

No, your argument is unconvincing.

It's not so much an argument as a stated fact from YOUR candidate. Wright is one of Obama's principal influences. He's repeatedly said this in his books, one of which he named after a sermon Wright gave. Ipse dixit, dude.

DavidTC,

Since you seem to have the inside dope on what God's attitude is toward the USA, enlighten us as to what His attitude is toward, say, Russia, China, India, Germany, Japan to name just five of the good many countries whose records of treating certain people as less than human are even more extensive than the record of the bad old USA.

Should God damn those countries, too?

I'm sure He won't decide until He's heard what *you* have to say....

"I hate Obama. Why don't you?" - Charles Krauthammer