Replies to This Debate

Permalink Reply by Justin on March 20, 2008 at 4:12pm

I would add that there also seems to be a double standard in regards to the rhetoric of religious leaders. I admit that I discovered this clip by way of Stephen Colbert, but here is Jerry Fallwell on Pat Robertson's 700 Club right after September 11th. Reverend Wright has been criticized for saying "the chickens have come home to roost" in regards to the attacks in 2001. It should be noted that Ron Paul, in a Republican debate last year also pointed to American Foreign Policy towards the Middle East as a catalyst for the terrorist attack. Ask yourself if Fallwell's comments aren't more insidious than Wright and remember that more than a few politicians accept the support of Fallwell and Robertson, Presidents included. Frank Schaeffer, the son of an evangelical pastor, has written two good articles about this as well.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Davison on March 28, 2008 at 11:25pm

Thanks for the debate. Justin's video of Robertson and Falwell could easily be a spoof on SNL without changing a single word of dialogue. I had a nice chuckle watching it.

I guess the point I'd like to make is - I haven't actually watched or listened to Rev. Wright's statements because not only do I not wish to focus on negativity and controversy (which only serves to sell airtime between now and "Omega Tuesday" in Pennsylvania) but I also find his statements to be irrelevant. Wright's not running for President, Obama is.

Religion doesn't have much of a place in politics, but when religion does surface on the political scene it's usually in the form of fundamentalism, because only fundamentalists are in the business of trying to change other people's views on life, God, our personal decisions and our spiritual selves. And fundamentalism often appears clownish and warped.

I am not sure if Wright falls into this fundamentalist category, but as I mentioned above, I could really care less what he believes. Doesn't affect the war in Iraq or healthcare or our status abroad or our sinking economy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by CPD on March 29, 2008 at 1:10am

Hey Paul, couldn't agree more. I suppose that the answer to the question of this Debate (Why does this matter?) is not because there is any actual relevance to what someone besides the candidate says, but that it matters because people think it matters. I just read a hilarious and insightful article by the Rolling Stone political reporter, Matt Taibbi, that I highly suggest people read. It's about how we American voters react to political rhetoric, scandals, etc. Here's a little bit of it:

"But whether or not any of Wright's "controversial" statements have any validity at all is beside the point. The point is that a country that had any balls at all — that was secure enough in its patriotic self-image to stare vicious criticism right in the face and collectively decide for itself, in a state of sober reflection, what part of it was bullshit and what wasn't — such a country wouldn't do what it did in the case of the Wright flap, which is to panic instantly, collectively leap off the ground in terror like a bunch of silly bitches, and chase the criticism away in a torch-bearing mob with its eyes averted without even bothering to talk about what was actually said. Yet naturally this is what was done in this case; the very first response of the entire national media apparatus was to denounce Wright as a kind of living disease and shriekingly demand that Obama do the same."

The sad fact of the matter is that it doesn't seem to take any actual substantive "scandal" or "controversy" to infect and distract the minds of voters. You're right that any of this nonsense -- whatever surrogates or campaign supporters and aids say and are fired for, who and why the candidates have to "denounce and reject" -- makes a damn bit of difference with regards to actual issues that we should care about and debate solutions for, like all the ones you mention. Yet, all it takes is a phony email and a little repetition on Fox News or any Cable News network and now it turns out that "nearly a quarter of white Democrats (23%) who hold a negative view of Obama believe he is a Muslim". The extremely useful Pew Research Center had to waste their time asking people about that. And, wait a minute, if Taibbi is right and we're all a bunch of sensitive reactionaries, I wonder how the person being polled reacts when he/she is asked if they think Obama is Muslim.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by carol hamel on May 6, 2008 at 12:29am

It doesn't matter except to the other Candidates and white voters. Isn't this a Political convenience....for 20 years he sat under this preaching and only felt the need to disavow it now?

Are we a bunch of sheep to believe that Obama never heard the things that Rev. Wright has had to say over these twenty years? Obama has called him his "mentor."

Now he disavows him?

In my view of it this seems too little, too late. How can one befriend the type of person Rev. Wright is and strengthen that bond over the course of 20 years, including at your own wedding, the baptism of your children and your events in local politics without agreeing with what is being offered?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by CPD on May 6, 2008 at 2:58am

Great, I was hoping that I could engage someone about this. I agree that it does "matter" to the other candidates (because they can exploit the "scandal" for their own benefit, by playing to the fears of white America) and to some white voters, as I couldn't care less.

I have problems with the fact that this has taken up so much media attention in the past months. It seems only good fodder for the media and serves only to distract the voters from political issues that actually effect us.

It seems, though, that you do transfer your distaste for Reverend Wright's comments over to Obama. I apologize if I am reading this wrong. After watching Wright on The Journal with Bill Moyers the other week, and getting a chance to see some of those clips within their full context, I find it difficult to dismiss the man entirely as we all seem to have been doing. Here's what Bill Moyers had to say as a follow up. He offers a sober perspective on the whole matter -- illuminating the double standard concerning the way we judge black preachers and white ones, and just giving his opinion on Wright himself.

I understand your distaste, but I don't see the necessary connection between looking up to another person as a mentor figure and agreeing with everything he believes in. We can all agree that Barack Obama, whether we support his candidacy or not, is a highly intelligent, widely read person with a unique personal story. It's clear after reading his books that he forms his outlook through a number of sources and experiences, and like anyone, his opinions about issues and life are his alone. Why shouldn't we assume that Obama can't find personal faith and a sense of community from his former pastor, while simultaneously holding different views about the country? And I'm not sure which of Reverend Wright's soundbites would translate into policy matters to begin with.

I put this debate on here, because I do want to understand why this Wright business has stuck around so long -- in the media and in the consciousness of voters. Would love to hear what you think.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by carol hamel on May 6, 2008 at 9:08pm

My distaste is for Obama's denial of the influence that Wright may have had on his own belief system. I mean really one cannot sit through the sermons of a Pastor without becoming somewhat brainwashed. I would have had more respect had he acknowledged this rather than disavow him.
Personally, I don't trust Obama one bit but he may be the less of the two evils in this case.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Romain Levesque on May 6, 2008 at 5:12pm

Right ON Billy Jack!!!!!!! I agree 100%

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by carol hamel on May 6, 2008 at 9:11pm

I agree to0 Rome - this is just another distraction and more ammunition for Clinton.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by carol hamel on May 6, 2008 at 9:09pm

As usual Billy you hit the nail on the head :)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sir Andrew on May 7, 2008 at 1:03am

The vitriol the IrReverend Wright spouted from the pulpit did nothing to "serve the community". It simply stirred up hate and strengthened racial tensions.

And the reason this Scandal matters is that Barack Obama has always claimed to try to "keep the campaign about issues" and not just a contest of "race". Then we find out that his pastor is racist swine, and that he's been going to this same church for years. Do you see the problem now?

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2