Robert Novak, on why the Jeremiah Wright problem is not going to go away:
Obama adviser Susan Rice, appearing on MSNBC immediately after the press club spectacle, was visibly unhappy as she disavowed any responsibility for Wright. Soon after, while campaigning in Wilmington, N.C., Obama hardly seemed exercised about Wright, saying merely, "He does not speak for me." Advisers then urged the candidate to react more firmly.He did so the next day, in Winston-Salem, N.C., calling Wright's performance "divisive and destructive." But Wright's anti-American slanders at the press club were only a repetition of sermons that had not aroused such a disavowal. The difference was that with every word Monday heard over national cable television, Obama no longer could slough off the preacher's words as having been taken out of context.
Over the past two years, Obama on occasion has appeared with Wright and praised him as a valued counselor and dear friend of the family. The title of his best-selling book "The Audacity of Hope" is from a Wright sermon. But Obama on Tuesday summarily dismissed the man who used to be his spiritual mentor as a "pastor," just as Wright had dismissed him as a "politician."
Nobody knows whether Obama's performance has damaged his candidacy permanently, but his supporters hope the issue is out of the news. The difficulty is that Jeremiah Wright, thrown under the bus by his former parishioner, can reemerge any time he wishes and renew discussion of the Democratic presidential front-runner's real identity.
David Broder asks: Why did Obama ever like Wright in the first place? And:
But he insisted that the preacher most Americans met through TV clips this past month was not the same man who brought him into Christianity 20 years ago. Voters who do not find that persuasive are not likely to accept Obama's current words as anything more than political positioning.
I think Obama is lying, and is 75 percent of the political phony Jeremiah Wright said the other day that he is. Jeremiah Wright did not turn into some racialist kook yesterday. As far as I can tell, whether you love him or hate him, Rev. Wright has been the same man for a very long time. It was useful to young Barack Obama, fatherless and conflicted about his race and his class status, to leave the Ivy League and attach himself to a loudmouth Southside preacher/race man. Radical chic and all that. I doubt Obama would be where he is today if not for Jeremiah Wright.
Do I believe that Obama shares all of Wright's views? No. But I don't think he finds them offensive, or even all that objectionable, despite his positioning at the moment. Look, Wright is a buffoon, but I can understand why he feels used by Obama, who was happy to be associated with him when it was good for Obama's career, but when not, not. Don't misread me; I'm not defending Wright's incredibly vain and selfish sabotaging of Obama's campaign.I think Mike Huckabee was onto something too when he said today:
"His (Obama's) campaign is not being derailed by his race, it's being derailed by a person who doesn't want him to prove that we have made great advances in this country," Huckabee told reporters.Wright has claimed AIDS was created by the U.S. government to kill "people of color" and that the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were spurred by the United State's "terrorism" against minorities at home and abroad.
"Jeremiah Wright needs for Obama to lose so he can justify his anger, his hostile bitterness against the United States of America," Huckabee said.
Nevertheless, you know that old saying that character is what you do when nobody is looking? Well, national voters weren't looking in on Barack Obama when he was sitting in those pews all these years taking in Wright's crackpottery when he could have been at any number of black churches instead. It is not unfair, it seems to me, to contemplate the idea that the measure of Obama's character with regard to Wright's toxic teaching is how he reacted to those views expressed when distancing himself from them wasn't necessary to the advancement of his political career.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Franklin Evans:
You say that Graham has been more influential than Wright by a factor of 1,000? Heavens, you're resorting to a level of hyperbole that would make Michael Moore proud. By the time this election is over, no one will deny the sizable impact of Wright's influence, especially should his reputation as Obama's "spiritual mentor" (according to Sen. Obama himself) sink the latter's chances at getting to the WH.
Perhaps that is the rude awakening which you are referring to. Let's hope it is not fatal for the Obama kool-aid drinkers.
You reject my so-called "private/public fallacy" On what grounds? Or is that asking too much?
Mel, in terms of raw numbers of people, I think 1,000 is a most restrainedly conservative usage. Or, perhaps, you reject the implicit assumption that the vast majority (I want to write all) of the televangelists and mega-church leaders are Graham's direct heirs. If you do, or have another specific reason for finding my estimate hyperbolic, I 'm all eyes.
Graham was every bit as much a "spiritual mentor" to LBJ (and others) as Wright was (and is no longer?) to Obama. If Obama's "influences" are fair game for public debate, then so are Graham's influence with the powers that were in his day. Citing that they were made in private, if you'll forgive a bit of annoyance on my part, makes no sense in light of the clandestine recording of Obama's "bitter" remarks in a meeting otherwise closed to the general public and the media. I'd call that clear evidence of the double standard Moyers describes.
Thanks, Mel for attacking Moyers. That should be sufficient reason to dismiss anything he says.
Three cheers!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Graham#Controversy
"In 1994, H.R. Haldeman's diaries revealed that Graham had taken part in conversations speaking of "Jewish domination of the media." The allegations were so at odds with Graham's public image that most did not believe his account, and Jewish groups paid little attention. Graham released a statement denying that he talked "publicly or privately about the Jewish people, including conversations with President Nixon, except in the most positive terms." He said, "Those are not my words."[14]
In 2002, however, newly declassified "Richard Nixon tapes" confirmed remarks made by Graham to President Nixon three decades earlier. Captured on the tapes, Graham agreed with Nixon that Jews control the American media, calling it a "stranglehold" during a 1972 conversation with Nixon.[24] "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain,"[25] said Graham, agreeing with Nixon's comments about Jews and their influence in American life. Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, including A.M. Rosenthal, saying they "swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he tells Nixon, "They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country."[24] These remarks were considered highly controversial by some Jewish leaders such as Abraham Foxman, who characterized them as anti-Semitic.[14]
When the tapes were publicly released, Graham apologized for his remarks, stating, "[A]lthough I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made ... They do not reflect my views, and I sincerely apologize for any offense caused by the remarks,"[26] and "If it wasn't on tape, I would not have believed it. I guess I was trying to please... I went to a meeting with Jewish leaders and I told them I would crawl to them to ask their forgiveness."[27] According to Newsweek magazine, "[T]he shock of the revelation was magnified because of Graham's longtime support of Israel and his refusal to join in calls for conversion of the Jews."[27]"
I have always had a healthy respect for Billy Graham, having grown up with his participation in the spiritual, cultural and political life of my nation.
That said, and I hope it is taken at face value, by current standards now that he has been proven capable of making what some (who? does it matter?) consider an egregious mistake, he should be dismissed as a crackpot.
In our politically correct universe, being wrong is no longer an opportunity for dialogue and learning. It is a ticket to the fact track towards being branded evil.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.