| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Dick Morris has a new column that says, "Will the Gospel According to Jeremiah Wright sink the Obama candidacy? Not very likely." Morris argues that Obama can manage the controversy, and claims to be able to foresee just how it will develop:
As the controversy matures, he can increasingly depict those who fan its flames as trying to live in the past and re-fight the civil wars of race that have divided America.
I'm not buying it. A candidate who is best friends with - who takes his children to be taught by the preachings of - a pastor who preaches, "God damn America" - can never be elected President of the United States. Nowhere near a majority of the American public will ever vote for a leader who is best friends with a man who preaches "God damn America." The notion is absurd. It's over.
But look at the bind this puts the Democrats in. Obama is the winner of the popular vote in the primaries so far. If the Dems don't nominate him, it could lead to a massive implosion of the party, as many Dems will feel that the will of the people was ignored.
There's still a chance that the Dem voters in the remaining primaries will take their responsibility very seriously, and will destroy Obama by voting heavily for Hillary.
If that doesn't happen, the Dems will be forced to nominate the most snake-bitten - i.e. fatally cursed - candidate in American Presidential history.
How did it happen? The MSM has tilted the playing field in favor of the Dems for years, refusing to criticize them, refusing to examine their faults. So the truth about Obama's pastor remained hidden, when it should have come out a year ago. The result is a Democratic Presidential candidate who has all but won his party's nomination - yet can't stand up to the inevitable scrutiny.
MSM's support of the Dems is unearned, and therefore essentially false. False support is dangerous. And in this case, it's brought the Dems close to massive implosion.
Update 3-25-08: Victor Davis Hanson has a new article which supports a similar view:
Over the past four days, I asked seven or eight random (Asian, Mexican-American, and working-class white) Americans in southern California what they thought of Obama's candidacy - and framed the question with, "Don't you think that was a good speech?" The answers, without exception, were essentially: "Forget the speech. I would never vote for Obama after listening to Wright." In some cases, the reaction was not mild disappointment, but unprintable outrage.
..Where are we now? At the most fascinating juncture in the last 50 years of primary-election history. Superdelegates can't "steal" the election from Obama's lock on the delegate count. And they can't easily debase themselves by abandoning Obama after their recent televised confessionals about abandoning Hillary.
#1
#2Great post, A.M.
Are these pastors any different from many of the imams and mosques discussed in this blog?
I think there is a difference. Wright isn't preaching that his congregation should be thinking of doing physical harm to anyone; whereas many imams do.
The influence of Pastor Wright is reflected in the recent comments of Michelle Obama. She is responsible for bringing her husband into a predominently African-American church and expose him to anti-American and anti-white agenda. This brings everything into context and clarity to the issue.
Additionally, it was interesting that he brought into the speech his grandmother's prejudice disregarding the fact that she and her daughter (his mother) raised him because his father abandoned him.
Give the Clinton's their due: when they attended their church services, it was a multi-racial one. Bill Clinton was lauded as 'America's First Black President. but Pastor Wright attacked Hillary Clinton despite the Clintons great ties to the black community. Now Hillary's African-America longtime associates and 'friends' have been systematically 'jumping ship (like rats) in favor of Barack. What does that say about friendship, loyalties, as well as racism?
I think the Clintons are totally shell=shocked and are now afraid to respond or attack Barack.
But my main questions for the American voters are these:
What does this say for Barack's charcter, moral fibre, and core values?
Should we elect anypne (including spouse) who is part of a racist and anti-American church, club, or organization?
Should such churches be allowed a tax-exempt status?
Doesn't true equality dictate that all should be under the same standards and scrutiny?
Are these pastors any different from many of the imams and mosques discussed in this blog?