March 19, 2008

Obama: The Pummeling by Perceptive Pundits Proceeds (with the Candidate Inadvertently Pitching in)

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 2:31 pm

The reaction to yesterday’s speech Philadelphia folly delivered by the candidate I refer to as BOOHOO (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” Obama) continues to pour in (Text and video are here at his campaign site).

Victor Davis Hanson at National Review:

An Elegant Farce

Barack Obama’s Tuesday sermon was a well-crafted, well-delivered, postmodern review of race that had little to do with the poor judgment revealed in Obama’s relationship with the hateful Rev. Wright, much less the damage that he does both to African Americans and to the country in general.

….. Obama is right about one thing: We are losing yet another opportunity to talk honestly about race, to hold all Americans to the same standards of public ethics and morality, and to emphasize that no one gets a pass peddling vulgar racism, or enabling it by failing to disassociate himself from its source — not Rev. Wright, not even the eloquent, but now vapid, Barack Obama.

__________________________________________________

Charles at Little Green Footballs utters the fundamental truth that renders the rest of what BOOHOO had to say totally irrelevant:

And please note that Obama admits he was lying when he said he never heard Rev. Wright utter these “fierce criticisms.” Are we supposed to just glide right past that?

Update, 11:00 p.m. — ABC’s reporting confirms the obvious point that Charles mentioned, and then some:

Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on America’s racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s controversial sermons.

Similarly, Obama also has only recently given a much fuller accounting of his relationship with indicted political fixer Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a longtime friend, who his campaign once described as just one of “thousands of donors.”

Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.

Uh, not exactly.

__________________________________________________

Now, from BOOHOO himself, in April 2007:

In an interview with ABC News Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., called for the firing of talk radio host Don Imus. Obama said he would never again appear on Imus’ show, which is broadcast on CBS Radio and MSNBC television.

“I understand MSNBC has suspended Mr. Imus,” Obama told ABC News, “but I would also say that there’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude.”

Obama said he appeared once on Imus’ show two years ago, and “I have no intention of returning.”

….. “He didn’t just cross the line,” Obama said. “He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women — who I hope will be athletes — that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment. It’s one that I’m not interested in supporting.”

Though every major presidential candidate has decried the racist remarks, Obama is the first one to say Imus should lose his job for them.

But he has no problem exposing his daughters to the racism of the Reverend Wright, and wouldn’t dream of — in fact, won’t even consider (“I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.”) — disassociating himself from the Rev. Wright.

__________________________________________________

IBDeditorials also gets to the vapid solutions Obama offered yesterday:

Rather than break ties with his demagogic, anti-American pastor, Barack Obama used a speech on race to excuse his behavior and sweep the controversy under the rug. Passing the buck is not very presidential.

….. Reacting to being linked with a bigoted conspiracy theorist by lecturing the nation on race is like disgraced ex-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer responding to his getting caught patronizing an international prostitution ring by giving a speech on the female physique.

The supposed divide between black and white is not the issue here; Obama’s longtime association with Jeremiah Wright is.
This is a man who believes the U.S. government formulated the HIV virus to commit genocide against blacks and that it is also responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

….. The solutions? Expanded government for one, of course. But while Obama concedes that “the erosion of black families” is “a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened,” he fails to understand what “Wealth and Poverty” author George Gilder knew back in 1981 (that “since 1964 ….. a vast expansion of the welfare rolls that halted in its tracks an ongoing improvement in the lives of the poor, particularly blacks, and left behind ….. a wreckage of broken lives and families worse than the aftermath of slavery.”)

__________________________________________________

Rick Moran is all over the lousy solutions, too:

Obama began the speech with a reference to the Founding Fathers who wanted to form a more perfect union in creating the Constitution. He built upon this theme in a way that would have the Founders turning over in their graves; that the way to that “more perfect union” was through massive government intervention in the daily lives of American citizens.

More than at any other time in this campaign, Obama forcefully and without qualification endorsed across the board government intervention in every aspect of the lives of American citizens. This includes the prospect of joining whites and blacks together in a “victimhood coalition” to fight the enemy.

And who might that enemy be? Generally speaking, it is conservatives who are at the bottom of every problem enunciated by Obama during his 35 minute speech. Not once did Obama blame government policies for the problems of African Americans, low and middle income whites, or any other identity group he wished to bring into his victim coalition. Government is not only blameless, but statist solutions are the only way to fix what ails us, according to Obama.

Rush, as expected, was on a roll (at the end) about the speech yesterday:

America, I think, for the most part (there are, of course, exceptions to this) has transcended race. There’s so much evidence of that that I don’t even want to waste time citing it. But Barack Obama’s church hasn’t. Barack Obama’s church has not transcended race nor has it transcended hate. Barack Obama has not spoken out about that until now, and as a good politician, he doesn’t want to be left behind so he has to speak out about it. This speech was an act of political necessity, not courage. This was an act of political necessity.

Share

9 Comments

  1. There was also this at the National Review:

    Charles Murray wrote, “Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I’m concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant—rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we’re used to from our pols…. But you know me. Starry-eyed Obama groupie.”

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjI3MWMyOGFkNmQ2MGFjNzRhYzYwMGVhZWJhMjcyOGM=

    I would encourage everyone to read the speech and/or watch the video. Video is available via Tom’s link to lgf.

    Comment by Tony B. — March 19, 2008 @ 2:55 pm

  2. #1, he did have some good observations. Too bad the lies and his associations long-term pastoral relationship with a raging racist make him unfit.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 19, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

  3. There were no lies, and guilt by association seems rather un-American, don’t you think?

    Comment by Tony B. — March 19, 2008 @ 5:30 pm

  4. #3, What LGF cited was, objectively, a slam-dunk lie.

    And what about a 20-year mentoring relationship with a racist pastor (make that likely two, possibly even three) don’t you understand? I clarified comment 2, and appreciate, the nudge.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 19, 2008 @ 9:51 pm

  5. Slam-dunk? Tom, you’ve linked to an unsubstantiated claim at LGF. I honestly don’t understand the post.

    Are you comfortable calling a man a liar based on nothing more than this blogger’s say-so? That’s what you’ve done.

    As for the 20-year relationship, well, read the speech. He laid it out from the heart.

    Comment by Tony B. — March 19, 2008 @ 11:03 pm

  6. #5, you missed the confirmation of the obvious by ABC I added to the LGF link at 11.

    ABC extends the “substantiation” well beyond the obvious that Charles pointed out.

    And you’re questioning of the messenger himself when you should know bleeping well that the messenger is telling the truth is getting very old.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 19, 2008 @ 11:22 pm

  7. I did miss that, although I don’t see where ABC makes the case any better than LGF did.

    ABC also brought up Rezko. Did you happen to see what the conservative Chicago Tribune wrote on March 16? If not, you should read the whole thing, but this jumped out:

    “The most remarkable facet of Obama’s 92-minute discussion was that, at the outset, he pledged to answer every question the three dozen Tribune journalists crammed into the room would put to him. And he did.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0316edit1mar16,0,2616801.story

    Comment by Tony B. — March 20, 2008 @ 1:31 am

  8. Obama’s Statement Condemning Pastor’s Sermons

    Obama is just saying what he thinks people want to hear; he probably told the “pastor” that he was going to apologize, but doesn’t mean it; similar to what his economic advisor told the Canadian Ambassador about NAFTA;

    …if he felt so offended all these years, why did Obama remain a member of this church?

    …Is Obama saying as an African-American he did not attend service every weekend? I find that hard to believe!

    …I am sure that if I were so upset/offended by the pastor’s “…inflamatory and appalling…” views, he would not be the pastor at my wedding.

    …If Obama was SO offended of this pastor’s philosophy, how and why did the pastor’s sermons inspire his book title and book?

    …Bull…this gentleman has been Obama’s mentor, daily guidance counsel, pastor at his wedding, and the “church” is presumed to be a primary financial backer of Obama’s career; and now presidential campaign.

    …I am not buying this “condemnation” and the press is not being objective and is giving Obama another “free” ride. After 20 years of supporting the pastor and church, Obama suddenly has a “change of heart?” I DON’T THINK SO! So much for “change”

    …I think if this church and pastor were investigated, you would find Obama linked to this church, which is linked to Nation of Islam Organization, and both religious organizations are located in the same State district Obama use to represent.

    “…the enemy of my enemy is my friend…”

    look how Obama treats his poorest constituents> ..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP-YoB5mnZs

    Comment by js — March 21, 2008 @ 5:58 am

  9. #8 js, that is a very good vid.

    Comment by TBlumer — March 21, 2008 @ 8:30 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.