It will come as no surprise to those of you who have paid attention, but conservative blogger and third-tier right wing radio host Hugh Hewitt is a hypocrite. For the last year and a half Hewitt pushed the candidacy of Mitt Romney, the guy who is supposedly a financial wizard that ended up spending $1.1 million for each delegate he earned in his ultimately fruitless run for the presidency. A core part of Hewitt’s flackery was that questions about religion were beyond the pale. Any sort of inquiry into a church’s unorthodox practices was decried as religious bigotry by Hewitt. Simply asking if Romney believed that Jesus would come to America - an element of Mormon theology - was just liberal bias.
Of course in the case of the media hyping the words of Senator Obama’s former pastor - words Sen. Obama has rejected, denounced, and disavowed - Hewitt unsurprisingly has a whole new position:
(after playing a clip of Jeremiah Wright)
Hugh Hewitt: What kind of level of detail ought Barack Obama to be expecting to come forward with? I think he ought to answer each and every one of these clips, and respond in detail to them.
All the furor over Spitzer’s stupid antics this week, and the cons always show us who the real professional whores are. (via)
My favorite part of Hewitt’s hackery is that he framed his argument as a preemptive action against liberal criticism of mormonism when everyone else on the planet knew that it was right-wing evangelicals who had and would have the biggest problems with Romney’s religion.
Are you really unable to tell the difference between a question/statement about a religious belief versus a political belief?
Asking about someone’s beliefs about Jesus is the same as asking someone about their beliefs concerning drugs, prisons, AIDS, and/or terrorism (comments made by Wright)?
Are you really unable to tell the difference between a question/statement about a…
nice Republican white man’s…
…religious belief versus a…
…scary, boogity, boogity, black man’s black, black…
…political belief?
You’re welcome!
If you “rejected, denounced, and disavowed” you mean put in charge of one of his committees, then sure!
Fuck You, Quaker — there was nothing racist about my comment.
I didn’t think you were dumb enough to buy into Oliver’s inability to see the difference between asking about Jesus and asking about prisons or the cause of 9-11.
I’m sorry to see I was mistaken.
C’mon, JWG. Quit insinuating and tell us what really bothers you about what Rev. Wright’s opinions.
Oh, and I’ll take the speed with which we reached this point…
…as evidence that I’m quite on the mark.
Just imagine what could happen if a few Christians actually read the Gospels for once in their lives and it dawned on them that Jesus was a “hate-filled” radical who said things like, “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”
Oliver, I have to confess I am troubled by Wright’s statements and Obama’s response. I know nothing about the various branches of Christianity or the relationship between Christians and their Church or Church Leaders.
I would hope that I would protest against a rabbi that said something 1/10th as problematical against any group. Leave a synagogue, try to find a new rabbi, form a new synagogue. The rabbis I hear often talk about the various projects they participate in with various local Muslim groups. They support Israel and encourage us to do so, but never in ways that slur Palestinians.
That said, I rarely attend synagogue, so wtf do I actually know? Probably not much.
jerry, I recommend M. J. Rosenberg on “The Irrelevance of Obama’s Minister.”
I think that Barack Obama “ought to answer each and every one of these clips, and respond in detail to them,” right after McCain does so for all the hateful and bigoted things that John Hagee and Rod Parsley have said about Catholics, gay people and Muslims. And not a moment sooner.
Quaker apparently believes you cannot question the wackjob beliefs of a black Pastor without it being related to racism of some sort.
Jerry Falwell wags his finger at the television and says homos and fornicators helped 9/11 happen and there’s swift condemnation for it.
Call out Jeremiah Wright for saying the United States was to blame for the 9/11 attacks and your racist for doing so.
Was there some kind of crazy bizarro life lesson that I missed somewhere in the last 37 years?
One has to admit there is a little bit of a double standard here. Obama is getting kid glove treatment regarding what Wright has said. To be honest, that’s the way it SHOULD BE. Because Obama is not responsible for what Wright says.
That is unless of course you’re John McCain and you’re constantly being called out about what Hagee has said in his past. Because John McCain IS responsible for what John Hagee says. Right Oliver?
“Are you really unable to tell the difference between a question/statement about a religious belief versus a political belief?”
That’s hilarious. Hasn’t the right wing spent the last 20 years or so arguing that their religious beliefs should be taken seriously as matters of public policy and politics? I was watching TV last night and stopped on some religious station talk show on which the guest was arguing for the Biblical inspiration and foundation of the Constitution and the free market economy. Indeed, he argued, less government and lower taxes were Biblically based positions. Hewitt’s pre-emptive defense of Romney’s Mormonism was a response to just that kind of thinking on the right, although he framed in the guise of defending Romney from the religious intolerance of the left. The evangelical right have so blurred the lines between politics and faith that Romney was forced to make the case that he was still one of them, even if his politics matched their politics.
What’s interesting in the case of Wright is that Obama has totally distanced himself from Wright’s distinctly political views, while supporting Wright’s notion of a “social gospel” which as far as i can tell amounts to helping the poor and supporting your community. You have a problem with that?
Too easy, Jay.
When the good Reverend Falwell blamed Americans for 9/11, he said it was because our tolerance of homosexuals and abortionists so displeased his God that our invisible curtain of protection was pulled back. In short, he said the attacks were the fault, conveniently, of people Jerry Falwell doesn’t like.
Jeremiah Wright? I’m having trouble tracking down a precise quote, but it seems to me he’s saying that the actions of the United States government might have provoked malign forces against us.
Only one of these is a crazy idea, Jay.
Now let’s get to the real point. I gave SaveFarris several opportunities to answer this question and he declined. Since you have decided to weigh in, maybe you’re willing to have a go:
Why are Mr. Obama’s opponents so eager for us to hear Jeremiah Wright’s most controversial sermons?
Any ideas, Jay?
Jerry Falwell wags his finger at the television and says homos and fornicators helped 9/11 happen and there’s swift condemnation for it.
Call out Jeremiah Wright for saying the United States was to blame for the 9/11 attacks and your racist for doing so.
Lemme see, here. Nope, I condemn them both. The only real difference between the two is that Falwell had a much bigger tent and people who should know better took him seriously. When Wright has his own University, then we can talk.
The only real difference between the two is that Falwell had a much bigger tent
And that Bush, McCain, Lott, Ashcroft, …. … … … weren’t members of Falwell’s congregation.
Jeremiah Wright? I’m having trouble tracking down a precise quote, but it seems to me he’s saying that the actions of the United States government might have provoked malign forces against us.
He called the United States “terrorists” and said the 9/11 attacks were just the “chickens coming home to roost.”
Yes, that’s a totally un-crazy thing to say.
Why are Mr. Obama’s opponents so eager for us to hear Jeremiah Wright’s most controversial sermons?
Probably for the same reason that Senator McCain’s opponents are making sure they know about John Hagee’s controversial statements Quaker. It’s good political fodder.
Why should Wright get a pass on the controversial things he has said, simply because he’s black?
Thanks Quaker for the link. I think I disagree with Rosenberg on this one. I think there’s a difference between being an Israeli Hawk or even a Likudnik (neither of which describes me), and repeatedly making the most outrageous racial claims against the Palestinians. I can put up with one, just as I work with conservatives, but not the other.
I could agree with Meir Kahane on some issues, but not on many or most issues, and I could never attend his synagogue.
Rosenberg may wish to engage in the fun, work, and mitzvah of starting a new congregation.
Wright AND Rabbis are presumably our spiritual, philosophy, and thought leaders. Cultural critics. Wright IS different from most other surrogates in this way. I had thought “Audacity of Hope” was a stellar title, but it shows Wright’s impact on Obama.
What’s interesting in the case of Wright is that Obama has totally distanced himself from Wright’s distinctly political views, while supporting Wright’s notion of a “social gospel” which as far as i can tell amounts to helping the poor and supporting your community. You have a problem with that?
I know it’s controversial, and lots of people like to separate the art from the artist (eg. Ezra Pound and anti-semitism, Lindbergh/Ford and Naziism, …) but yes, I do have a problem with distancing from part of someone’s views while embracing or supporting others. For one, it makes the mistake of assuming the person is irreplaceable. Is there no other Church leader or person qualified that can take Wright’s place in the movement? And two, a Senator embracing one while rejecting others makes it easier for others to embrace both.
Not to godwin the thread, but it’s said of Mussolini, at least he got the trains to run on time. (Which is a myth of its own.)
Probably for the same reason that Senator McCain’s opponents are making sure they know about John Hagee’s controversial statements Quaker. It’s good political fodder.
Good, Jay. You’re a little better than halfway there. Now why is it good political fodder?
I don’t know that parishioners owe a duty to denounce, repudiate, disavow, whatever every stupid comment that their minister makes. Allegedly Obama wasn’t even there the day he made that speech.
It should be noted that different religious traditions treat their spiritual leaders differently. In the sacramental Christian traditions, while a priest has authority and sacramental offices, it is a bishop who is in charge ultimately to make sure that doctrine is followed. A bishop is owed great deference whereas a priest merely respect.
In the Protestant churches, practices vary. Some demand obedience to the minister; some allow the faithful to blow the minister off without cause. In the Unitarian Church, there is supposedly a “Rule of 17″: at any given time, there are 17 people in a given church who want the minister fired immediately for 17 different reasons.
Summary: Obama is not his preacher’s keeper. And saying “God Damn America” is just equal time. If America is engaged persistently in predatory evil, fraud or injustice, America has damned itself and any God who exists is just keeping the box score.
“He called the United States ‘terrorists’ and said the 9/11 attacks were just the ‘chickens coming home to roost.’
Yes, that’s a totally un-crazy thing to say.”
Yes. Yes it is.
Osama didn’t just decide one day to attack the United States because he picked a country at random, he had reasons. For instance, the United States asked the Afghans to helps them defeat the Russians saying they would help rebuild the country afterward. However, once the war was over and Afghanistan no longer held any strategic value, the United States abandoned Afghanistan. And that’s just one of many reasons he had. And this is only part of why Osama is still determined to attack the United States.
(On a side note, whether or not you agree with these reasons, and most are crap, it is important to note that he had reasons. If you understand his reasoning, you can combat the threat better.)
The CIA calls 9/11 blowback. If you were paying attention, and I mean really paying attention, you would realize the United States isn’t an innocent victim here.
Also, thanks for the additional info, Jay. That made it easier to track down what Jeremiah Wright said.
Here’s Wright:
And here’s Falwell:
He called the United States “terrorists” and said the 9/11 attacks were just the “chickens coming home to roost.”
Calling the whole of the United States “terrorists” is hyperbolic and regrettable. Although it sounds like you’re saying that no American should ever have to be slapped with such a label simply by virtue of being an American.
We have “terrorists” at work in our American military right now. They don’t employ the same tactics as al-Qaida, but we’ve already seen American “terrorists” court-martialed for their acts of “terrorism.” (And good for us, for finding and punishing them.)
As to the second part of that, the military, I believe, employs the term “blowback.” My God! The military must be crazy!
Quaker, I’m not going to play little baby games, ok? You think it’s because or racism. Yippee. That’s a big shock to think that liberals would believe that the only reason why Obama’s opponents would go after his association with Wright and what Wright has said ONLY because he’s black.
I see it as a way to score political points against an opponent who has a spiritual advisor that makes wacky statements and gives awards to guys like Louis Farrakhan.
Summary: Obama is not his preacher’s keeper.
I agree. But let that be a word of wisdom to those who were just aghast that John McCain would associate himself with a guy like John Hagee. Of course, using Quaker logic, it’s perfectly ok to attack that association because Hagee is a fat ass redneck Pastor from Texas and not a black Pastor from Illinois.
Quaker, I’m not going to play little baby games, ok?
What a shame. Another one declines to answer. Jay and SaveFarris both came so close. Jay says bringing Wright’s controversial statements into the spotlight is “good political fodder” and Farris says it “tells us something about what Obama believes.”
So close, but they just can’t bring themselves to admit what they think–or cynically would like the rest of us to think.
Why is this “good fodder”? What does it “tell us”?
Why is this “good fodder”? What does it “tell us”?
It’s good fodder because it can be spun as Obama supporting the notion that America deserved to be attacked on 9/11. That Obama is anti-American, or at least not proud of being American.
Doesn’t require any mention or allusion to his race.
Wright isn’t needed for that, Sean. The ‘wingers have been playing that card against all Democrats for the last seven years.
You’re very close, but no. It’s an important part of the narrative that Wright is Obama’s “mentor and spiritual advisor.” Those who bring Wright to our attention rarely neglect to mention that it’s an “afrocentric” church.
And your final sentence is exactly what I’m trying to tease out. JWG, SaveFarris, and Jay have all studiously avoided any mention or allusion to his race. I think, on the contrary, that’s precisely why so many people want us to look at Wright–he’s the stand-in for allusions to race.
And your final sentence is exactly what I’m trying to tease out.
Then I think you’re reading it precisely not as I intended it, and perhaps showing some of your own bias.
I mean that one need not be racist or even thinking of Obama’s race to make fodder out of his pastor’s comments.
To attribute any criticism of a black person to racism is, in it’s own way, racist. I’m reminded of a someone I met ages back who, when we were introduced, basically started with “I’m gay, you gonna make something of it?” It was actually a completely irrelevant fact to me but the person was very difficult to deal with because they presumed any comment made about them stemmed from the other person’s homophobia. If I said she was a bit rude it wasn’t because she was accosting me (someone she’d only just met and hadn’t had any opportunity to give offense even if I had wanted to) but because I was prejudiced.
The difference between Hagee and Wright?
Wright is Obama’s pastor and has been for decades. McCain went on bended knee for Hagee’s endorsesment.
I mean that one need not be racist or even thinking of Obama’s race to make fodder out of his pastor’s comments.
You are far more willing than I to credit Mr. Obama’s critics with good will and good intentions. I’m not asking for narrow possibilities here. I’m asking why these video clips of Wright suddenly seem to be everywhere. They are “good fodder” because they “tell us something about what Obama believes.”
If we needed to know what Mr. Obama believes, we can look at clips of Mr. Obama speaking. Instead, we’re being asked to evaluate Mr. Obama’s beliefs on the basis of someone else’s words. What impression of Wright would critics like us to transfer to Mr. Obama?
Qiab: What impression of Wright would critics like us to transfer to Mr. Obama?
I would think that is obvious. Certainly if it weren’t, then those who want us to get some impression of Obama are over estimating us because we wouldn’t “get” what they are insinuating.
But my point remains, no racism need be involved on the part of folks who would use Wright’s comments to tarnish Obama.
Is it involved? Would those folks draw attention to Wright’s comments if Obama wasn’t black? I dunno. Maybe. But nobody can claim it is with legitimacy. Since race isn’t the subject of Wright’s comments it isn’t part of this issue. At least, not until Obama’s defenders claim it is and that makes me think (inthis case) it’s more a matter of the defenders playing victim than the other side being racist.
And that Bush, McCain, Lott, Ashcroft, …. … … … weren’t members of Falwell’s congregation.
Never said they were.
That’s a big shock to think that liberals would believe that the only reason why Obama’s opponents would go after his association with Wright and what Wright has said ONLY because he’s black.
I musta dozed off and missed that part.
I’m reminded of a someone I met ages back who, when we were introduced, basically started with “I’m gay, you gonna make something of it?”
The correct response would be “Well, I am now.
You are a chairitable fellow, Sean.
You are a chairitable fellow, Sean.
In a forum where discussion amongst clearly erudite folks can rapidly degenerate into tirades of “Shut up. Just shut up.” “you are a fucking moron”, “fucking shoot yourself. You are a waste of life” and continually refusing to address teh others actual point, well, someone should be.
Although I prefer the word “rational”.
You’re both right. The purpose of this mocktroversy is to let Americans that aren’t quite paying attention to things paint their own meaning into these comments. If the person is racist, they see a black nationalist closely affiliated with Obama. If the person is a conspiracy theorist, they see evidence of a Manchurian candidate whose views have been exposed to light. If the person is Christian, these comments separate Obama and his church from the “mainstream” of X-tian thought.
Whoever released these comments is playing the American public for stupid. The fact is, a wide swath of the public are susceptible to stuff like “John Kerry faked his medals” and “Al Gore said he invented the Internet”. A large portion of the public IS stupid (Hi J, JWG and farris!). A charitable reading is that they aren’t paying attention and vote on emotion and not facts.
That’s how they roll.
I’m asking why these video clips of Wright suddenly seem to be everywhere.
For the exact same reason the things that John Hagee has said were plastered all over the place.
You’re doing a very good job of side-stepping that comparison. Basically, you’re saying, “Wright should get a pass because he’s black” because you’re CERTAIN that the only reason these clips of Wright are being shown is because of racism.
Of course, the only person who truly benefits from this stuff coming out at this time, is Hillary Clinton. But no Democrat would ever do anything like that. Oh no. Just wouldn’t happen! And if they did it certainly wouldn’t be because of racism.
Yes. Yes it is.
Crazy agreeing with crazy. Shocking.
The people who think the moon landing was faked all think they’re rational human beings too.
because you’re CERTAIN that the only reason these clips of Wright are being shown is because of racism.
Do I correctly interpret your emphasis to mean you DON’T think racism is involved?
And if they did it certainly wouldn’t be because of racism.
Do I correctly interpret your sarcasm to mean to DO think it was because of racism?
Head… spinnning….
Me: “Yes. Yes it is.”
Jay: “Crazy agreeing with crazy. Shocking.”
So the CIA is crazy? Is that your argument?
Name one right wing multi-millionaire “preacher” who hasn’t said worse. Bunch of fucking hypocrites.
You’re doing a very good job of side-stepping that comparison. Basically, you’re saying, “Wright should get a pass because he’s black” because you’re CERTAIN that the only reason these clips of Wright are being shown is because of racism.
Side-stepping? Your comment here is the first time anyone has brought it up to me. Further, your paraphrase of my position is way wide of reality.
But finally, at the end, you get to the point. Yes, I am certain the only reason these clips of Wright are being shown is because of racism. Those who insist these clips “tell us something about what Obama believes” either believe or pretend to believe that Wright is an “angry black man who hates white people,” and therefore Mr. Obama must be also.
I think this is what Quaker is trying to point out.
Haw!
Thanks, Z. Amanda’s headline cracked me up.