Thanks for adding this Dusty- now people who may read my post (below this one) can hear the whole speech for themselves. Then they can reread it through the link in my post, download it, and share it with others.
Damn great speech-the man took the issue head on and showed what leadership can really be.
I missed the speech, it was on very early here. I went to his site and found it was on a YouTube, complete…so I just wanted to share it with others than might have missed it.
Does it interfere with your post Ken? I can remove it, if so.
It’s an impressive speech, as I knew it would be, given Obama’s intelligence, temperament, and rhetorical skills. I have some quibbles*, still, but Obama gave the best defense of his sticking with Wright as I suppose could be given.
* Saying, for example, that he could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could disown his white grandmother. I always find this sort of equation unpersuasive. Grandmothers come with the family; Obama chose Wright and chose to continue to attend his Church after, he admits, he heard comments that he calls wrong, divisive, racially charged, inexcusable; that express what he calls “a profoundly distorted view of this country”, that “denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation” and “rightly offend white and black alike.” He chose to bring his children into this Church, to hear these words with him, to let them taint his children’s mind and souls. Obama, with his ivy league education and long experience could no doubt listen to Wright’s sermons and separate out the crap from the good but little children?
Nor would he have had to disown Rev. Wright. He could have been lifelong friends with the man. There were things he could have done that fell far short of disowning him. He could have found a Church that likewise engaged in good social services, preached social change without divisiveness and hate. He didn’t need to disown Wright to refuse to let his hate influence his family or to refuse to support such hate, or to seek out Wright’s guidance at every point in his candidacy. A man who harbors opinions such as Obama describes would seem a poor choice to help run a campaign that, by his own description, has been, from it’s inception, about uniting not dividing, about healing not inciting, about hope not hate.
As I say, his speech was as good a defense of what I see as Obama’s failings (not Wright’s) in this whole 20 year relationship but, ultimately, even his grand, sweeping, uplifting rhetoric fails to persuade me.
He’s right, though. The issue of race cannot, or should not, be swept under the rug but needs to be aired and discussed but rationally, ala Obama, sans the hate-filled Wright. In this sense, perhaps it is well that Obama has erred on the side of supporting hate until that hate became a public issue nationwide. We are at least talking.
Craig, I think what bothers me the most about your comment is how you spent the bulk of it focused on Rev. Wright.
This speech was about race in America. It was about the great racial divide that still spans the American landscape, decades after it should of ended.
He began it with acknowledging that he is a son of a black Kenyan Man and a white Kansas woman. He knows both sides of the race issue and he spoke to it at length, with, as an example, the remarks about his white grandmothers fear of black men, and her use of racial slurs…even with him at her side.
His speech was, for me, about both sides of the race issue. If you read the transcript it makes more sense perhaps..or it could be that as a rightwing white male, you merely choose to focus on the Rev. Wright issue still.
And I think thats sad..because you missed the bulk of his message. I think his speech ranks right up there with MLK’s I have a dream speech.
Sorry, but the problem, in my opinion, wasn’t one speech (”‘that’ speech” as you put it) by Wright, at which Obama and his family was not in attendance. The problem is Wright’s version of liberation theology, in which secular politics is intentionally and inextricably fused with sacred piety and lived faith. The anger and hate is endemic to his brand of liberation theology in which, underneath every sermon seethes rage and hatred born of the reiteration of white injustice and black victimhood and which is on such vivid display in these overtly offensive sermons. It may break out in particularly offensive terminology only from time to time but the basic distortion, to use Obama’s word describing Wright’s political views, is in his heart every time he mounts the pulpit and his politics inform every sermon. He’s made a life’s study of such theology and spent a thirty year career honing it. I do not believe that Obama could have spent 20 years as a regular attender of Wright’s church and been unaware of it or been ignorant of how it warps the views of those who listen and respond.
But, in fact, we don’t have to guess whether Obama ever heard his pastor’s incendiary sermons. He graceously tells us that he did in his speech today. That he was aware of Wrights politics and opinions and kept on keeping on supporting him and actively seeking out his counsel.
Nor was it in just one sermon that such hate broke out. In Obama’s speech — the speech you say you listened to twice — Obama admits that he DID hear offensive, divisive, distorted sermons so simply saying “Obama and his children were not in church the day Wright gave ‘that’ speech” will not due. He was there. He says that he’s been a regular attender with his wife and children. That FYI just won’t fly.
You’re right. Friends ARE the family we choose but I would not choose to be friends with David Duke, nor would I support him with my contributions. He would not officiate my wedding or baptize or influence my children. Every one of my friends is deeply flawed, as am I myself, but no one whose world-view is so warped with hate as Rev. Wright’s is, would be my pastor, let alone life or campaign adviser.
As for disappointing you with spending the bulk of my comment focused on Wright, well, okay, but that was a thread throughout the speech, something he had to speak to and speak to in such a way as to finally finish Rev. Wright as an issue in his campaign. I don’t think he succeeded. Certainly not for me, anyway.
I do not question Obama’s being positioned, by his background, to know both sides of the race issue. That was not and never was my concern through this whole Wright debacle. He may be the best man in the nation to carry on a nationwide discussion on racism in America and I said above, at the end, that some good may come of his decision to err on the side of sticking so close to Wright for so long. I hope it does.
But it doesn’t speak well, to me, to the judgment of the man, Obama, tieing himself to such a radical Church for so many years and making such a radical Pastor to be a constant advisor to his political run for president. I can’t imagine what he could possibly have been thinking. If he thought this wouldn’t come out at some point, he’s naive. If he thought it wouldn’t damage his particular campaign, being run on hope and unity rather than hate and division, he’s even more hopelessly naive. Did he really think this wouldn’t hurt him with white moderates? Does he really think he can win without white moderates? Politically, this was bone-headed.
As for Martin Luther’s “Dream” speach, it doesn’t even come close for me but that’s a matter of individual opinion, I suppose.
Nor am I saying that no one should vote for Obama on account of Rev. Wright. I won’t be voting for him in any case based solely on his policy preferences — his connection to Rev. Wright is wholly irrelevant to my voting decision.
In short, I listened to the speech once and read through the transcript twice, once to my wife, who, by the way, still plans on voting for Obama, so isn’t a matter of having missed ANY of the speech. It was a matter of focussing on what I view as Obama’s biggest problem relating to Rev. Wright.
I guess, not at all surprisingly, you won’t be agreeing with me, and that’s fine. I’m just speaking to what I see as Obama’s biggest problem at the moment.
Your speaking as a rightwing white male that is focused on Wright. Nothing more, nothing less. Somehow I expected more out of a comment by you Craig, addressing the bulk of the speech, instead of concentrating on Wright like every other rightwing white person.
Wright isn’t going to be on his cabinet, and if Clinton is elected I doubt Ferraro will be on hers.
No one is perfect as Obama said today. But we don’t stop caring for someone simply because they are imperfect and they espouse words or thoughts we don’t agree with.
Will he have a problem with white folks like you that focus entirely on the words of someone else? Probably, but I don’t think he was speaking to folks like that. Those folks already have their minds made up.
I do not think white moderates will be as heavy handed as you are Craig, and they will consider what Obama is made of..not Rev Wright..Btw..your not moderate on many issues, you are right of the center.
As I said on another thread..I still haven’t figured out if I will vote for him yet..even though I really thought this speech was excellent.
If the idiot Pat Buchanan could see his way clear to saying this was a good speech..well..I rest my case.
Very well, Dusty. As I wrote above, I think Obama is perhaps the best person in America today to lead Americans in a discussion of race in America today. His life experiences and education and finely honed rhetorical skills outfit him, perhaps uniquely, for that task — certainly among those running for president in 2008.
In his speech, he hit on important policy issues and related them to race in America but went beyond race — any one race or even two. His speech evinced a sharp eye for public opinion and the issues that we face as a nation: corporate shenanigans, the problems posed to workers by the global economy and free trade, the need for greater integration of schools and the infrastructural problems faced in poor communities. He raised issues that I was a bit surprised (pleasantly, I might add) to hear from a black candidate: like the frustrations of whites over what many whites view as reverse discrimination and illegal immigrants and all, as well as the importance of self-reliance. I think this was a particularly smart move by Obama. As I said up front in my first comment: this was an impressive speech on many levels.
And I am not faulting Obama for the words of Rev. Wright. I fault him for making Wright such a close long-term influence and supporting him and his particular brand of hatred for most of his entire political career.
And, in my comments above, I said that he did not have to give up his friendship. Surely you read that. I said specifically that he could have been friends but taken care not to support divisive hatred and racialism and constant victimhood preached by Wright and he should never have allowed his children to have come under the influence of a man whose politics he claims to so reject. It has nothing to do with friendship; it has to do with whom he chose to be his influence. Well, obviously Wright won’t be on his cabinet but what makes you think he wouldn’t have been Obama’s adviser if none of this had ever come out? And if he chose Wright for his adviser for so long, knowing as he said in this speech that Wright’s politics were warped and totally at odds with his own, who WILL Obama choose to be his advisers. What makes you think he’ll choose any better in the future? It’s not about Wright, for me, it’s about Obama’s choices over 20 years and more in relation to Wright.
And I admitted that my mind was made up as to whom to vote for. Obama wasn’t ever going to win my vote, no matter what he said today and there probably wasn’t anything he could have said differently that would have erased Obama’s judgment in this matter as a concern of mine, so, you’re right on that count. But I hope these comments speak somewhat to what you were expecting from me but missed earlier. I think Obama’s an impressive candidate, in spite of the Wright flap, and I think he’d be an admirable President if elected but nothing he said today has made me agree with his policies.
I guess, politically, nothing would please me more than for Obama to spend years going around the country giving presentations on, just to suggest one title: Inconvenient Racism, with professionally prepared slide shows and documentaries. It would please me if he’d win the Peace Prize for his efforts and his efforts helped smooth over the racial problems still present among and between all Americans. He’d be even better than Al Gore, I think, because he’d be more balanced in his presentation and more persuasive because he can both praise what is praiseworthy and criticize what is blameworthy on all sides of the issue. I just don’t think the presidency is the best place for him to best do what he does best…bring people together. His policies will forever divide us.
On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
I consider it to be an affirmation that Obama is his own man. Advisor can mean many things..correct? You assume that Wright had a huge influence on Obama’s political views and I don’t see that based on how Obama has spoken about many things.
As for your vote..I assume you will vote for Weathervane McCain? The man that today..couldn’t tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shia?
The Vice-Presidency, on the other hand, would be ideal for that task. He could guide President McCain on racial issues as well as make his Vice-Presidency about bringing the races together. I think McCain would go along with it, too. You know how he loves to piss off conservatives by reaching across to liberal democrats to co-sponsor bills that drive conservatives around the bend. McCain could bill himself as another Abraham Lincoln by reaching across the party-lines by having Obama be V-P and some of Obama’s advisers on his cabinet in domestic policy positions.
As an added bonus, if aging John McCain should ever become incapacitated or, God forbid, die, Obama would become president.
Finally, Clinton wouldn’t have a chance against a McCain-Obama ‘08 candidacy if they played it right and, after McCain’s second term, Obama would be unstoppable for President in 2016!
No, Dusty, I do think Obama is his own man. I certainly don’t think he holds Wright’s more incendiary views. That’s not the issue. For me, it’s a political issue, namely, how does being so long and so closely tied to Wright play to Americans? It was, as I said, politically bone-headed, in my opinion. I don’t think he was a strong influence but that doesn’t mean that the relationship won’t make white Americans less, rather than more likely to vote for him.
But I do take your point: I want a president to listen to many different points of view, people who will argue as strongly as possible for different points of view as long as the President is able to choose wisely the best alternative. But I wouldn’t want a president to, say, choose a David Duke-type adviser just because I think he’d be strong enough in his own opinions not to be influenced by him. It wouldn’t be smart.
I think there is a better chance of snowballs in hell Craig than for Obama to be anyone’s VP, especially a warmongering Republican like McCain, who seems even less educated on economics than Obama.
Like I said, I am not convinced that I should vote for him yet. In the primary I voted for Kucinich who was still on the CA ballot.
As for McCain not knowing Shiite from Sunni, that’s not the case. He didn’t confuse them, he told the truth: Iranian Shia are aiding Al Qaeda Sunni and there’s plenty of evidence to support that. I don’t know who’s confused here but it wasn’t McCain.
And you might read another post by Mr. Benen about the Wright issue Craig, if your so inclined. He is actually a moderate, unlike me, and very good at making his points on the topic. If you read it, let me know what you think ok?
Maybe McCain is repeating it because, you know, per the link I gave you and the evidence contained therein, it’s actually true. I don’t see anything in that first link proving that it isn’t. Mere assertions. But the link I gave you evidences aid given to Al Qaeda by Iran. Well, we know that Iran is aiding the main Shiite militia in Iraq. So, again, I don’t see anything other than a moderate Carpetbagger being uninformed, not McCain.
Now on to the second. Gerson can speak for himself, I’m sure but you asked my opinion so here goes. I happen to agree with Gerson in this: nothing Obama says or does can erase the hate of Wright’s sermons. He’s done lots of fine social ministry that’s helped many people.Fine. Wright’s to be commended for that but that’s not the problem. The problem is the man’s theological and political radicalism, a worldview that Obama rejected in the strongest terms. He said it better than I can. The good he did can and does give a fuller picture of Wright but it doesn’t erase the bad shit he said any more than saying “The NAZIs made the trains on time erases the evil done by the NAZIs. The good and the bad co-exist in the complex person that is Rev. Wright but they both exist, in the same person, all the time. The good doesn’t erase the bad, doesn’t make the bad any better. The bad is still as bad as it ever was and just as worthy of criticism. And it is Obama’s tolerance of the bad and support of it with his contributions that brings criticism to Obama.
Nor does anything Obama say, erase the fact that Obama chose to make his spiritual home a Church were hate was preached, and to make his spiritual father-figure and confidant, and pastor to his children the black radical liberal whose preached worldview is as warped and toxic as that of a David Duke. Obama made him a part of his campaign. Again, If McCain had the likes of a David Duke on his campaign and a 20 year relationship that he distanced himself from only after that Duke’s objectionable opinions became publicly known and if McCain retained and continued membership in an organization that for 30 years promulgated and supported white-supremacist hate, whatever other good work they might have done in their community, no amount of speeches by McCain distancing himself from or condemning Duke’s opinions could cleanse the stain of that relationship from him, not when it becomes known that, indeed, McCain knew all about the guys beliefs and only dumped him from his campaign when those beliefs became known. I don’t know how many ways to say it. Neither the Carpetbagger nor Sullivan (nor, I suspect, you, Dusty) would let me or anyone else who supports McCain forget about that relationship or let me get away with minimizing that relationship as the Carpetbagger does. But, in fact, you wouldn’t have to remind me because, under those conditions, I wouldn’t be defending McCain’s 20 year relationship with a David Duke type. I wouldn’t vote for McCain under those circumstances and nobody else should, either.
As for Sullivan, mentioned in the second link, he just flat out is wrong about Gerson’s article when he says, “According to Gerson, nothing Obama can say now can remove the taint of some of Wright’s worst moments, and nothing else that Wright has said and done for the good can be weighed in the balance. This from a man who flaunts his Christianity as a job credential.” Read Gerson’s article, Dusty. Then read it again. Then quote me where Gerson says that or anything like that. Right. You can’t. You can’t because Gerson says nothing like that. It’s a figment of Sullivan’s imagination.
Why, then, Carpetbagger follows up Sullivan’s error with “Quite right” is beyond me. No. Sorry Carpetbagger. Quite wrong.
Carpetbagger then is wrong when he follows that with, “By Gerson’s reasoning, Obama sat in Wright’s pews, which necessarily and permanently disqualifies him from national office.” Again, quote for me, please, Dusty, where Gerson says that Obama’s relationship with Wright necessarily or permanently disqualifies him from national office. Right again. You can’t because Gerson, again, says nothing even remotely to that effect. Carpetbagger quotes and approves of Sullivan’s error and follows with another of his own.
This from a moderate? I’ll take your word for it because, based upon these two articles, I’m not impressed enough to investigate Carpetbagger’s politics any more thoroughly than to read these two posts but a man who reasons in this manner is no one that I’d link to.
Next, Carpetbagger follows up with this:
Second, Gerson seems fundamentally confused about what Obama had to say about Wright yesterday. As Gerson sees it, Obama is “tolerant” of Wright’s “anti-Americanism.” Perhaps Gerson should listen to the speech again…What Gerson perceived as “tolerance” was anything but.
Carpetbagger should stop and think just for a minute of Obama sitting through twenty years of hateful world-view bullshit that Obama says he disagrees with in no uncertain terms. And in spite of that, stays in that Church with his wife and two children and makes Wright a spiritual and political adviser. If that isn’t tolerance of Wright’s anti-Americanism, what on earth would one call it? I can’t think of a more appropriate word for it. Tolerance, by definition, isn’t agreement with another’s opinion; it is sitting for twenty years through another’s repeated expression of opinions with which one disagrees. Obama’s actions were the perfect illustration of tolerance.
Then, this:
Jerry Falwell blamed Americans for 9/11 and told a national television audience — 48 hours after the attacks, while rescue crews were still looking for survivors — that we deserved the attacks. John McCain sucked up to him shamelessly, stood alongside him, and announced that Falwell was no longer an “agent of intolerance.”
Again, McCain sought out political support after repeated public criticism of those guys, on the one hand, and Obama gave twenty years of his membership and attendance and his offerings to Wright — without, so far as I know, saying a single word in criticism of Rev. Wright until people began investigating Obama’s relationship with Wright. I see quite a large gulf between those two and find such equivalences less than satisfactory because, even were one to agree with Carpetbagger that these are similar, so what? Does Gerson’s hypocrisy in any way prove that Gerson isn’t right about Obama and Wright? Can’t he be wrong about McCain and Bush but right about Wright? Of course he can.
Criticizing Gerson’s silence about McCain and failure to quit Bush’s campaign doesn’t make Obama right for the much closer relationship with Wright over a much longer period of time. Tu quoque (i. e., arguing “Oh, yeah, well your guy did THIS”) is a fallacy because it only diverts attention from the point without actually defending the point.
Now, frankly, I was dismayed when McCain made overtures to Hagee and the others mentioned but, even as Carpetbagger acknowledges, McCain didn’t crawl into bed with them or support any of those three for any period of time (or at all, so far as I know). McCain didn’t belong to their Churches, support any of their ministries and made none of them his adviser or sunday school teacher to his kids. But I do think he was wrong to do it even to the limited degree that he did.
But, as I wrote yesterday, I don’t think anyone should NOT vote for Obama for president based upon Wright’s hatred if one agrees strongly that Obama’s policies are right and he’s the man to push them. Even less should anyone not vote for McCain because of Falwell, Hagee and Parsely if one agrees with McCain’s policies and thinks he’s the man to push them. But that doesn’t make them immune from criticism.
The criticism of Bush and Pat Robertson is more apt, I think, and Bush deserves said criticism.
But Carpetbagger asks where Gerson’s column condemning Bush and McCain but fails to mention that Gerson did acknowledge Bush’s and other Republican politicians’ connection to Falwell and others. Okay, it’s not a column denouncing those relationships but it’s hardly an omission of those relationships or an apology for them, other than to point out, quite correctly, that neither Bush nor McCain supported any of those wackos for twenty years as Obama did Wright.
In the end, contrary to what Sullivan and Carpetbagger suggest, I think that for Gerson, as for me, what disqualifies Obama for the presidency is NOT Rev. Wright or his relationship to him; it’s something much closer to Obama than Wright is: Obama’s liberal policies.
Excuse me Craig..but the Weekly Standard quoting other Weekly Standard pieces aren’t irrefutable evidence that Sunni’s and Shia’s are working together..gimme a break ok?
McCain sought out Hagee’s endorsement by Hagee’s own admission.
Obama is not liberal..he is a moderate..where do you get that he is liberal?
Well, I said “evidence” not “irrefutable proof” but refutation does require some counter evidence or argument.
No need to tell me about McCain seeking Hagee’s endorsement since I noted McCain’s reaching out to Hagee above. But reaching out for support is in no way in nearly the same league with the 20 year relationship Obama has had with Wright, adopting him as his pastor, spiritual mentor and advisor. Come on, Dusty. A little perspective. And McCain had spoken out publicly against the Dobsons, Falwells and Hagees of the world. Obama…not so much until the press sniffed out Wright’s noxious and obnoxious opinions. No comparison in my mind.
What makes me think Obama is a liberal?
His 100% rating from Planned Parenthood for his support of abortion rights, family planning services, and requiring health insurance coverage for female contraceptives, and from NARAL.
His pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 through cap-and-trade.
His support for a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
His opposition to NAFTA.
His notion that a corporation must pay its employees enough so that they can afford to send their children to college.
His strong support of unions.
Unions’ strong support of him.
I realize we have, perhaps different criteria for judging where a candidate is on the sliding scale from left to right but there’s just no doubt in my mind that Obama’s a liberal.
P. S.: I tried leaving this same comment with links to every one of those points about Obama’s liberalism but my comment was banished to some black hole in the internet so I removed the links. If you question one of these points, I’ll try leaving another comment with links to those points that you want more info on.
And McCain had spoken out publicly against the Dobsons, Falwells and Hagees of the world.
Look Craig, on the religion front..McCain has kissed every extreme fundi preachers butt and asked for their endorsement since the day he started running for the job of El Presidente, this time around, evidently your thinking of his last run at the job. That doesn’t seem to bother you, nor will it keep you from voting for him.
You are going to twist this crap about Wright around to suit your agenda..so whatever Craig..
As far as judging Obama liberal because Planned friggin Parenthood gives him a 100% rating is laughable..but its your set of rosecolored glasses not mine.
As a liberal, I can tell you..Obama ain’t one ok? Take it or leave it, but your out there. I know too many folks who are registered Republican and believe in choice, unions, NAFTA is a nightmare, unions aren’t the bane of our existence and making our cars more efficient and less polluting to think for one minute that makes them a liberal too. In fact, your whole set of criteria really bothers me enough that I no longer wish to have this conversation with you.
Your hitting neocon territory here with your points on what makes a liberal. But conservatives always label anyone moderate as a liberal.
I like this quote: Although Conservatives are a legitimate branch of the GOP who have made many positive contributions, this wing of the party has allowed itself to be dominated by extremists and social moralists that marginalize Lincolnian principles.
Besides, not all the links in the Weekly Standard article are to other WS articles, there’s plenty that link other sources and even the Weekly Standard articles that are linked in that article are full of links to other sources. It won’t quite do to dismiss the evidence I linked to by saying it’s just links to other Weekly Standard articles. That’s not the case at all.
There’s a big difference between not opposing all abortion for any reason and opposing any restrictions on abortion for any reason. You don’t get a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood without being a liberal. While most Americans want abortions to be available under some circumstances (i. e., most would oppose making abortions illegal altogether), most Americans favor some restrictions on abortion.
And I can live with being called a social moralist; heck, I’m a former pastor; it’s our job description to make moral comment on social issues. In fact, I find that to be a compliment. Thanks.
And what, exactly have I twisted. Put another way, exactly what have I not quoted correctly, taken out of context, misreported? I’d really like to know because, as far as I know, I’ve reported everything I’ve written accurately. You disagree with my opinion and that’s fine, but I take some fair amount of umbrage at being told I’m twisting things.
I never said unions are the banes of our existence but, like 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, you don’t get strong union support without being a liberal in my opinion.
But since you don’t want to continue that conversation, I’ll say good night. I had no intention of making you upset. I’m sorry my opinions on the subject so disturb you but, like you, I think what I think.
So everyone that thinks NAFTA is a clusterfuck is a liberal? That is just one of your points that is outrageous. Guess most of the folks in Ohio are liberal then..jeez, never considered that one.
Your extreme conservative views make it seem that anyone that doesn’t take your pov is a liberal. That is utterly ridiculous and without merit. I could show you thousands of southern gentlemen that will vote Republican in Nov that appreciate unions…love them in fact. You generalize and then make it impossible to be anything but a liberal if anyone supports a cause or position that isn’t full on neocon. To me, neocon means there isn’t a grey area..its all black or white..no middle ground. They are narrow-minded to the extreme.
Yes, I said neocon..only a neocon would be so staunchly anti-union without taking into account that unions helped shape this nations labor laws. I didn’t say you have to love them, just appreciate their history and how they affected our nation at a time when children were made to work instead of going to school for the love of pete! But to you..supporting unions and people’s right to unionize makes you a liberal..freaking amazing logic there.
The twisting comes from your line about McCain and all the sick extreme rightwing preachers he has gone out of his way to beg for an endorsement this election season, you had the audacity to say he spoke out publicly about them! Wright is out there, but not anymore than any of those friggin wingnuts you named like: Dobson, Falwell and Hagee. And McCain courted those guys! He actually courted them! He spoke out against them not this election season..but the last one he ran in Craig..hence his name Weathervane McCain..talk about a liar and a charlatan. He is as phony as a three dollar bill.
Iraq is twice the size of Idaho..yet we haven’t been able to accomplish squat there in five friggin years, other than removing Saddam, and destroying their country and infrastructure Craig.
McCain will have us there in perpetuity. He will attack Iran, you can bank on that.. Afghanistan broke the back of the Soviet Union..Iraq will be our Waterloo financially.
And this is the man you want to lead our nation..its another Bush, just older.
I disagree that we have not accomplished anything other than removing Saddam. Iraqis have established a Constitution which establishes their own form of parliamentary republic by their own hands, they’ve elected their own leaders, they’ve gained the right to disagree with their governors without fear of being tortured and killed for that disagreement. They’ve established a means of changing their government by their action rather than by the death of a tyrant only to be replaced by another. I don’t think these things are squat unless, by ’squat’ one means ‘considerable progress at replacing a tyranny with a representative republic’. None of that would have been possible without removing Saddam. The other side of that is, all of that has been made possible by our removing Saddam.
We’ve also managed to inflict quite a bit of damage on Al Qaeda in Iraq. It seems that foreign fighters are not only entering Iraq in smaller quantities but they are also leaving Iraq in larger quantities. Of course they’re dying in Iraq in rather satisfying quantities. Sunnis are turning against AQ and whipping AQ’s asses in rather satisfying quantities as well.
As for attacking Iraq, one thing I’ve learned is that predicting future actions of politicians is a rather perilous practice but I could make the same prediction about Obama and Pakistan, based upon his own rhetoric if the Pakistani government doesn’t move with sufficient seriousness against Al Qaeda in their border regions. He’’s suggested pulling most of the troops out of Iraq but re-attacking if Al Qaeda should be found to be setting up bases in Iraq. However, I don’t actually tell anyone to take anything to the bank regarding what any of the candidates in the race will actually do if they become president.
But yes, I think withdrawing from Iraq regardless of the Iraq government’s ability to achieve and maintain a stable peace in their own country would be rather bad for the US as well as the region so McCain is the man that I want to lead our nation.
I would also consider any judges appointed by either Obama or Clinton to be less satisfactory as well. I have no confidence that McCain would unfailingly appoint conservative judges and SCOTUS Justices of the caliber that Bush has but I am certain that neither Obama nor Clinton would. I would be far less pleased with any that either of the Democratic hopefuls would appoint than with any that McCain would be likely to appoint.
You can disagree all you want Craig, its your right. A Constitution? Oh please..they can’t even agree on simple laws, or regulations to run their fucking country. They have accomplished NONE of the things BushCo set for them over three years ago dude! They have elected leaders that can’t agree on a fucking thing. Their courts are kangaroo courts that have been shown to be worthless and not even close to resembling a normal court of law by all standards. It’s one of the most corrupt governments in existence..and their human rights abuses are legendary at this point.
I won’t even address or read the rest of your ridiculous and delusional points. Your first paragraph tells me all I need to know about you and your pov.
Ridiculous? Delusional?Jeez, Dusty, it’s always such a pleasure to chat with you because I can count on you to always take the high road, rhetorically speaking. By the way, I was being facetious, there.
I am tired of everything being skewed as leftwing bullshit Craig..when I know for a fact that many moderate Republicans believe as I do on many issues.
Right Craig..and Toner called Murtha a leftwing anti-war activist too..give me a fucking break. That woman wouldn’t know a liberal if he/she backed a car over her.
“The only votes that come up are votes that are purposely designed to divide people,” he said. “It’s true that if I’m presented with a series of votes like that, I’m more likely to fall left of center than right of center. But as president, I would be setting the terms of debate.”
The blog post also noted that Hillary and Obama only voted 10 times differently on major issues. Next your going to tell me Hillary is a liberal.
If this is the article in which you say Toner calls Murtha a leftwing anti-war activist, I’ve got some very bad news for you. Perhaps you’d better sit down for this because it will be a rather severe shock to your system: Toner calls Murtha no such thing. The quote is:
As Democratic Congressional leaders escalate their challenge to the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq, one of the most influential players will be that unlikely darling of the antiwar left, Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania.
You will note, please, that Toner does not call him an antiwar lefty. She says that Murtha is an “unlikely darling of” the antiwar left. Why do you suppose she calls Murtha the unlikely darling of the left? Well, I’ll tell you. It’s because Murtha is not a liberal or a lefty and Toner is quite aware of that. Unlikely as it would, under ordinary circumstances, be for Murtha to be the darling of the left, Toner is saying, he is their darling precisely because he called for a withdrawal from Iraq asap and because he’s pushed amendments to bills that would make sustaining the war impossible. So if that’s your proof that Toner doesn’t know a liberal when he or she backs his or her car over her, you’d better go looking for more proof because that’s just gone right up in smoke!
“The only votes that come up are votes that are purposely designed to divide people,” he said. “It’s true that if I’m presented with a series of votes like that, I’m more likely to fall left of center than right of center.”
Why is that, do you suppose, other than that he’s more comfortable with left of center than right of center? But even that doesn’t make a very convincing case for believing that no matter what votes came up, he wouldn’t have voted exactly as he did? It’s a quote that proves nothing about where on the political scale he sits. What you need to do, Dusty, to show that he’s anything but a liberal is to show, by quoting his own policy statements for what he plans to do when in the White House, that he is a centrist and not a liberal.
As for Hillary, what makes you think she’s not a liberal? Because she voted for and supported the war before she decided to be against the war? That makes her a flip-flopper, not a centrist. You need to look at her votes, or her own policy statements from her web page to show, from what she plans to do once in the White House, that she’s a centrist and not a liberal. If her first crack at Hillary-care is any indication, yes, I’d peg her as a liberal. However, I’ve not looked through her policy statements carefully enough to be able to say whether I think that she’s a liberal or not.
Perhaps Janny Scott is no better able to recognize a progressive than Toner is able to recognize a liberal but Janny says this about Obama:
The new senator, Barack Obama, was a progressive Democrat in a time of tight Republican control.
Now perhaps Obama is a bit too pragmatic for some progressives’ taste. My reading in The Nation regarding Obama tends to confirm that, I think, yet they’ve chosen Obama as most likely to create and sustain “a progressive majority and an actual mandate for progressive change.” For example, the New York Times article that I linked to here says that he showed a knack for achieving bipartisan consensus but, really, in a place tightly controlled by Republicans, how else could a progressive get anything done at all? He would have been reduced to constant and futile opposition otherwise. He could settle for trying to move things a bit further in his direction or simply vote “Nay!” to every Republican sponsored bill and see every thing he tried to do go up in smoke.
My point is that if Obama is the president in ‘08, he’ll likely have a Democrat controlled Congress and a nation deeply dissatisfied with Republican governance and would, therefore, have less need to move to the center in order to get his policy preferences put in place. Perhaps he wouldn’t have enough votes to do whatever pleased the Democrats in Congress and himself so he would have to do some reaching out to less conservative Republicans to achieve cloture on his policies but he would not have nearly the need to reach out across the aisle. Translation, he could afford to be more liberal in most cases than he had to be in Illinois precisely because he’ll have a Congress Party majority.
As for Hillary, this may not prove that she’s a progressive but it certainly indicates that she has a pretty clear interest in promoting progressivism:
Looking to establish a “progressive infrastructure” to rival that of American conservatism, Clinton played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding of former Clinton administration chief of staff John Podesta’s Center for American Progress
“Played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding” doesn’t sound like mere tokenism to me. It sounds like she wanted to fight conservative “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” fire with progressive “Left Wing” fire.
I have nothing more to add to this conversation Craig..unless you attempting now to call me a friggin liar..I will say it again
Obama is not a progressive. He might, as millions of other americans do, subcribe to some of the same ideologies we progressives have..but the man is not a progressive in the meaning of the word.
I will not respond to you again on this thread..on this topic.
Liar? Perish the thought. I pointed out that that, if that was the article in which you claim Toner called Murtha an antiwar leftist activist, you are quite obviously wrong. There’s a big difference between my saying that you have wrongly interpreted Toner’s article and calling you a liar.
And you can assert your position all you want but unless you actually prove your position from, you know, actual, verifiable evidence, your assertions count for nothing in a debate setting.
That’s all I’ve said. If you think I’ve called you a liar, you’ve done an even poorer job of reading my comments than you did of reading Toner’s article.
This is starting to sound personal. I’m monitoring this thread, and I’ll close the comments if I think you guys are forgeting the BIO golden rule: Attack the position all you want, but never attack the poster/commentor. Not negotiable.
I refuse to give you the last word on this Craig..its a subjective thing in my book. You can hold liberal views and still not be a Liberal. Its degrees imho.
National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator.
But a bit of context here: National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes).
National Journal’s vote ratings became an issue in the 2004 general election, when Republicans used the magazine’s ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal senator of 2003 to label the then-Democratic nominee as the “most liberal senator” — even though that was his rating for just that one year, when (like Obama did) he missed quite a few Senate votes due to being on the presidential campaign trail.
Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine’s most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006.
Another question that might come up is why the magazine released its voting ratings now — just days before Super Tuesday. In fact, the magazine says it full congressional ratings won’t come out until March. But, according to the editor in a Q&A published in the magazine: “Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season.”
As for McCain, the magazine says that he didn’t vote frequently enough in 2007 to get an overall rating. Per National Journal, “He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59.”
And like with Obama’s overall liberal score, rivals and critics could possibly seize on McCain’s social rating….
March 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Thanks for adding this Dusty- now people who may read my post (below this one) can hear the whole speech for themselves. Then they can reread it through the link in my post, download it, and share it with others.
Damn great speech-the man took the issue head on and showed what leadership can really be.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I missed the speech, it was on very early here. I went to his site and found it was on a YouTube, complete…so I just wanted to share it with others than might have missed it.
Does it interfere with your post Ken? I can remove it, if so.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Not in the least- I’m glad it’s up there.
I listened to the speech on the radio on the way to work this morning and it really made my day start out great.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I have watched it twice. It’s very moving. If he is nothing else..he is a great orator.
I still haven’t decided who to vote for in the general. I was a Kucinich, then Edwards supporter.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Wow.
For all the people who claim that politicians never take risks or show who they really are, well, Boom! Here it is….
March 18th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Damn Skippy Jet
He laid it out there..
March 18th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
It’s an impressive speech, as I knew it would be, given Obama’s intelligence, temperament, and rhetorical skills. I have some quibbles*, still, but Obama gave the best defense of his sticking with Wright as I suppose could be given.
* Saying, for example, that he could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could disown his white grandmother. I always find this sort of equation unpersuasive. Grandmothers come with the family; Obama chose Wright and chose to continue to attend his Church after, he admits, he heard comments that he calls wrong, divisive, racially charged, inexcusable; that express what he calls “a profoundly distorted view of this country”, that “denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation” and “rightly offend white and black alike.” He chose to bring his children into this Church, to hear these words with him, to let them taint his children’s mind and souls. Obama, with his ivy league education and long experience could no doubt listen to Wright’s sermons and separate out the crap from the good but little children?
Nor would he have had to disown Rev. Wright. He could have been lifelong friends with the man. There were things he could have done that fell far short of disowning him. He could have found a Church that likewise engaged in good social services, preached social change without divisiveness and hate. He didn’t need to disown Wright to refuse to let his hate influence his family or to refuse to support such hate, or to seek out Wright’s guidance at every point in his candidacy. A man who harbors opinions such as Obama describes would seem a poor choice to help run a campaign that, by his own description, has been, from it’s inception, about uniting not dividing, about healing not inciting, about hope not hate.
As I say, his speech was as good a defense of what I see as Obama’s failings (not Wright’s) in this whole 20 year relationship but, ultimately, even his grand, sweeping, uplifting rhetoric fails to persuade me.
He’s right, though. The issue of race cannot, or should not, be swept under the rug but needs to be aired and discussed but rationally, ala Obama, sans the hate-filled Wright. In this sense, perhaps it is well that Obama has erred on the side of supporting hate until that hate became a public issue nationwide. We are at least talking.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Craig, Obama and his children were not in church the day Wright gave ‘that’ speech. Just an FYI there ok?
I am Hillary is still friends with Geraldine Ferraro even though her words were divisive and ugly as well.
Friends are the family we get to choose..at least in my book. And no one is perfect last time I checked.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Craig, I think what bothers me the most about your comment is how you spent the bulk of it focused on Rev. Wright.
This speech was about race in America. It was about the great racial divide that still spans the American landscape, decades after it should of ended.
He began it with acknowledging that he is a son of a black Kenyan Man and a white Kansas woman. He knows both sides of the race issue and he spoke to it at length, with, as an example, the remarks about his white grandmothers fear of black men, and her use of racial slurs…even with him at her side.
His speech was, for me, about both sides of the race issue. If you read the transcript it makes more sense perhaps..or it could be that as a rightwing white male, you merely choose to focus on the Rev. Wright issue still.
And I think thats sad..because you missed the bulk of his message. I think his speech ranks right up there with MLK’s I have a dream speech.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Dusty,
Sorry, but the problem, in my opinion, wasn’t one speech (”‘that’ speech” as you put it) by Wright, at which Obama and his family was not in attendance. The problem is Wright’s version of liberation theology, in which secular politics is intentionally and inextricably fused with sacred piety and lived faith. The anger and hate is endemic to his brand of liberation theology in which, underneath every sermon seethes rage and hatred born of the reiteration of white injustice and black victimhood and which is on such vivid display in these overtly offensive sermons. It may break out in particularly offensive terminology only from time to time but the basic distortion, to use Obama’s word describing Wright’s political views, is in his heart every time he mounts the pulpit and his politics inform every sermon. He’s made a life’s study of such theology and spent a thirty year career honing it. I do not believe that Obama could have spent 20 years as a regular attender of Wright’s church and been unaware of it or been ignorant of how it warps the views of those who listen and respond.
But, in fact, we don’t have to guess whether Obama ever heard his pastor’s incendiary sermons. He graceously tells us that he did in his speech today. That he was aware of Wrights politics and opinions and kept on keeping on supporting him and actively seeking out his counsel.
Nor was it in just one sermon that such hate broke out. In Obama’s speech — the speech you say you listened to twice — Obama admits that he DID hear offensive, divisive, distorted sermons so simply saying “Obama and his children were not in church the day Wright gave ‘that’ speech” will not due. He was there. He says that he’s been a regular attender with his wife and children. That FYI just won’t fly.
You’re right. Friends ARE the family we choose but I would not choose to be friends with David Duke, nor would I support him with my contributions. He would not officiate my wedding or baptize or influence my children. Every one of my friends is deeply flawed, as am I myself, but no one whose world-view is so warped with hate as Rev. Wright’s is, would be my pastor, let alone life or campaign adviser.
As for disappointing you with spending the bulk of my comment focused on Wright, well, okay, but that was a thread throughout the speech, something he had to speak to and speak to in such a way as to finally finish Rev. Wright as an issue in his campaign. I don’t think he succeeded. Certainly not for me, anyway.
I do not question Obama’s being positioned, by his background, to know both sides of the race issue. That was not and never was my concern through this whole Wright debacle. He may be the best man in the nation to carry on a nationwide discussion on racism in America and I said above, at the end, that some good may come of his decision to err on the side of sticking so close to Wright for so long. I hope it does.
But it doesn’t speak well, to me, to the judgment of the man, Obama, tieing himself to such a radical Church for so many years and making such a radical Pastor to be a constant advisor to his political run for president. I can’t imagine what he could possibly have been thinking. If he thought this wouldn’t come out at some point, he’s naive. If he thought it wouldn’t damage his particular campaign, being run on hope and unity rather than hate and division, he’s even more hopelessly naive. Did he really think this wouldn’t hurt him with white moderates? Does he really think he can win without white moderates? Politically, this was bone-headed.
As for Martin Luther’s “Dream” speach, it doesn’t even come close for me but that’s a matter of individual opinion, I suppose.
Nor am I saying that no one should vote for Obama on account of Rev. Wright. I won’t be voting for him in any case based solely on his policy preferences — his connection to Rev. Wright is wholly irrelevant to my voting decision.
In short, I listened to the speech once and read through the transcript twice, once to my wife, who, by the way, still plans on voting for Obama, so isn’t a matter of having missed ANY of the speech. It was a matter of focussing on what I view as Obama’s biggest problem relating to Rev. Wright.
I guess, not at all surprisingly, you won’t be agreeing with me, and that’s fine. I’m just speaking to what I see as Obama’s biggest problem at the moment.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Your speaking as a rightwing white male that is focused on Wright. Nothing more, nothing less. Somehow I expected more out of a comment by you Craig, addressing the bulk of the speech, instead of concentrating on Wright like every other rightwing white person.
Wright isn’t going to be on his cabinet, and if Clinton is elected I doubt Ferraro will be on hers.
No one is perfect as Obama said today. But we don’t stop caring for someone simply because they are imperfect and they espouse words or thoughts we don’t agree with.
Will he have a problem with white folks like you that focus entirely on the words of someone else? Probably, but I don’t think he was speaking to folks like that. Those folks already have their minds made up.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I do not think white moderates will be as heavy handed as you are Craig, and they will consider what Obama is made of..not Rev Wright..Btw..your not moderate on many issues, you are right of the center.
As I said on another thread..I still haven’t figured out if I will vote for him yet..even though I really thought this speech was excellent.
If the idiot Pat Buchanan could see his way clear to saying this was a good speech..well..I rest my case.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Very well, Dusty. As I wrote above, I think Obama is perhaps the best person in America today to lead Americans in a discussion of race in America today. His life experiences and education and finely honed rhetorical skills outfit him, perhaps uniquely, for that task — certainly among those running for president in 2008.
In his speech, he hit on important policy issues and related them to race in America but went beyond race — any one race or even two. His speech evinced a sharp eye for public opinion and the issues that we face as a nation: corporate shenanigans, the problems posed to workers by the global economy and free trade, the need for greater integration of schools and the infrastructural problems faced in poor communities. He raised issues that I was a bit surprised (pleasantly, I might add) to hear from a black candidate: like the frustrations of whites over what many whites view as reverse discrimination and illegal immigrants and all, as well as the importance of self-reliance. I think this was a particularly smart move by Obama. As I said up front in my first comment: this was an impressive speech on many levels.
And I am not faulting Obama for the words of Rev. Wright. I fault him for making Wright such a close long-term influence and supporting him and his particular brand of hatred for most of his entire political career.
And, in my comments above, I said that he did not have to give up his friendship. Surely you read that. I said specifically that he could have been friends but taken care not to support divisive hatred and racialism and constant victimhood preached by Wright and he should never have allowed his children to have come under the influence of a man whose politics he claims to so reject. It has nothing to do with friendship; it has to do with whom he chose to be his influence. Well, obviously Wright won’t be on his cabinet but what makes you think he wouldn’t have been Obama’s adviser if none of this had ever come out? And if he chose Wright for his adviser for so long, knowing as he said in this speech that Wright’s politics were warped and totally at odds with his own, who WILL Obama choose to be his advisers. What makes you think he’ll choose any better in the future? It’s not about Wright, for me, it’s about Obama’s choices over 20 years and more in relation to Wright.
And I admitted that my mind was made up as to whom to vote for. Obama wasn’t ever going to win my vote, no matter what he said today and there probably wasn’t anything he could have said differently that would have erased Obama’s judgment in this matter as a concern of mine, so, you’re right on that count. But I hope these comments speak somewhat to what you were expecting from me but missed earlier. I think Obama’s an impressive candidate, in spite of the Wright flap, and I think he’d be an admirable President if elected but nothing he said today has made me agree with his policies.
Craig R. Harmon
March 18th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Hey, Dusty. Pat Buchanan has nothing on me. The first words from my keyboard were in praise of the speech.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I guess, politically, nothing would please me more than for Obama to spend years going around the country giving presentations on, just to suggest one title: Inconvenient Racism, with professionally prepared slide shows and documentaries. It would please me if he’d win the Peace Prize for his efforts and his efforts helped smooth over the racial problems still present among and between all Americans. He’d be even better than Al Gore, I think, because he’d be more balanced in his presentation and more persuasive because he can both praise what is praiseworthy and criticize what is blameworthy on all sides of the issue. I just don’t think the presidency is the best place for him to best do what he does best…bring people together. His policies will forever divide us.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Ah Craig..do you see this as just fluff:
On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.
I consider it to be an affirmation that Obama is his own man. Advisor can mean many things..correct? You assume that Wright had a huge influence on Obama’s political views and I don’t see that based on how Obama has spoken about many things.
As for your vote..I assume you will vote for Weathervane McCain? The man that today..couldn’t tell the difference between a Sunni and a Shia?
March 18th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
The Vice-Presidency, on the other hand, would be ideal for that task. He could guide President McCain on racial issues as well as make his Vice-Presidency about bringing the races together. I think McCain would go along with it, too. You know how he loves to piss off conservatives by reaching across to liberal democrats to co-sponsor bills that drive conservatives around the bend. McCain could bill himself as another Abraham Lincoln by reaching across the party-lines by having Obama be V-P and some of Obama’s advisers on his cabinet in domestic policy positions.
As an added bonus, if aging John McCain should ever become incapacitated or, God forbid, die, Obama would become president.
Finally, Clinton wouldn’t have a chance against a McCain-Obama ‘08 candidacy if they played it right and, after McCain’s second term, Obama would be unstoppable for President in 2016!
March 18th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
And if McCain did die or become incapacitated, not only would Obama become President, Speaker of the House Pelosi would become Vice-President.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
No, Dusty, I do think Obama is his own man. I certainly don’t think he holds Wright’s more incendiary views. That’s not the issue. For me, it’s a political issue, namely, how does being so long and so closely tied to Wright play to Americans? It was, as I said, politically bone-headed, in my opinion. I don’t think he was a strong influence but that doesn’t mean that the relationship won’t make white Americans less, rather than more likely to vote for him.
But I do take your point: I want a president to listen to many different points of view, people who will argue as strongly as possible for different points of view as long as the President is able to choose wisely the best alternative. But I wouldn’t want a president to, say, choose a David Duke-type adviser just because I think he’d be strong enough in his own opinions not to be influenced by him. It wouldn’t be smart.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I think there is a better chance of snowballs in hell Craig than for Obama to be anyone’s VP, especially a warmongering Republican like McCain, who seems even less educated on economics than Obama.
Like I said, I am not convinced that I should vote for him yet. In the primary I voted for Kucinich who was still on the CA ballot.
Good night Craig.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Good night, Dusty!
March 19th, 2008 at 10:54 am
As for McCain not knowing Shiite from Sunni, that’s not the case. He didn’t confuse them, he told the truth: Iranian Shia are aiding Al Qaeda Sunni and there’s plenty of evidence to support that. I don’t know who’s confused here but it wasn’t McCain.
March 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Craig, you might buy that ..but I dont..I think this guy has it right about Weathervane McCain and his ‘faux paux”:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheCarpetbaggerReport/~3/254418025/14944.html
Money line for moi:
The explanation is far less plausible when McCain makes the same mistake and pushes the same bogus argument four times in two days.
March 19th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
And you might read another post by Mr. Benen about the Wright issue Craig, if your so inclined. He is actually a moderate, unlike me, and very good at making his points on the topic. If you read it, let me know what you think ok?
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheCarpetbaggerReport/~3/254387928/14943.html
March 19th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I shall read but it shall have to be later. I shall get back to you.
Craig R. Harmon
March 19th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
lol..can’t ask anymore than that Craig!
March 20th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Maybe McCain is repeating it because, you know, per the link I gave you and the evidence contained therein, it’s actually true. I don’t see anything in that first link proving that it isn’t. Mere assertions. But the link I gave you evidences aid given to Al Qaeda by Iran. Well, we know that Iran is aiding the main Shiite militia in Iraq. So, again, I don’t see anything other than a moderate Carpetbagger being uninformed, not McCain.
Now on to the second. Gerson can speak for himself, I’m sure but you asked my opinion so here goes. I happen to agree with Gerson in this: nothing Obama says or does can erase the hate of Wright’s sermons. He’s done lots of fine social ministry that’s helped many people.Fine. Wright’s to be commended for that but that’s not the problem. The problem is the man’s theological and political radicalism, a worldview that Obama rejected in the strongest terms. He said it better than I can. The good he did can and does give a fuller picture of Wright but it doesn’t erase the bad shit he said any more than saying “The NAZIs made the trains on time erases the evil done by the NAZIs. The good and the bad co-exist in the complex person that is Rev. Wright but they both exist, in the same person, all the time. The good doesn’t erase the bad, doesn’t make the bad any better. The bad is still as bad as it ever was and just as worthy of criticism. And it is Obama’s tolerance of the bad and support of it with his contributions that brings criticism to Obama.
Nor does anything Obama say, erase the fact that Obama chose to make his spiritual home a Church were hate was preached, and to make his spiritual father-figure and confidant, and pastor to his children the black radical liberal whose preached worldview is as warped and toxic as that of a David Duke. Obama made him a part of his campaign. Again, If McCain had the likes of a David Duke on his campaign and a 20 year relationship that he distanced himself from only after that Duke’s objectionable opinions became publicly known and if McCain retained and continued membership in an organization that for 30 years promulgated and supported white-supremacist hate, whatever other good work they might have done in their community, no amount of speeches by McCain distancing himself from or condemning Duke’s opinions could cleanse the stain of that relationship from him, not when it becomes known that, indeed, McCain knew all about the guys beliefs and only dumped him from his campaign when those beliefs became known. I don’t know how many ways to say it. Neither the Carpetbagger nor Sullivan (nor, I suspect, you, Dusty) would let me or anyone else who supports McCain forget about that relationship or let me get away with minimizing that relationship as the Carpetbagger does. But, in fact, you wouldn’t have to remind me because, under those conditions, I wouldn’t be defending McCain’s 20 year relationship with a David Duke type. I wouldn’t vote for McCain under those circumstances and nobody else should, either.
As for Sullivan, mentioned in the second link, he just flat out is wrong about Gerson’s article when he says, “According to Gerson, nothing Obama can say now can remove the taint of some of Wright’s worst moments, and nothing else that Wright has said and done for the good can be weighed in the balance. This from a man who flaunts his Christianity as a job credential.” Read Gerson’s article, Dusty. Then read it again. Then quote me where Gerson says that or anything like that. Right. You can’t. You can’t because Gerson says nothing like that. It’s a figment of Sullivan’s imagination.
Why, then, Carpetbagger follows up Sullivan’s error with “Quite right” is beyond me. No. Sorry Carpetbagger. Quite wrong.
Carpetbagger then is wrong when he follows that with, “By Gerson’s reasoning, Obama sat in Wright’s pews, which necessarily and permanently disqualifies him from national office.” Again, quote for me, please, Dusty, where Gerson says that Obama’s relationship with Wright necessarily or permanently disqualifies him from national office. Right again. You can’t because Gerson, again, says nothing even remotely to that effect. Carpetbagger quotes and approves of Sullivan’s error and follows with another of his own.
This from a moderate? I’ll take your word for it because, based upon these two articles, I’m not impressed enough to investigate Carpetbagger’s politics any more thoroughly than to read these two posts but a man who reasons in this manner is no one that I’d link to.
Next, Carpetbagger follows up with this:
Carpetbagger should stop and think just for a minute of Obama sitting through twenty years of hateful world-view bullshit that Obama says he disagrees with in no uncertain terms. And in spite of that, stays in that Church with his wife and two children and makes Wright a spiritual and political adviser. If that isn’t tolerance of Wright’s anti-Americanism, what on earth would one call it? I can’t think of a more appropriate word for it. Tolerance, by definition, isn’t agreement with another’s opinion; it is sitting for twenty years through another’s repeated expression of opinions with which one disagrees. Obama’s actions were the perfect illustration of tolerance.
Then, this:
Again, McCain sought out political support after repeated public criticism of those guys, on the one hand, and Obama gave twenty years of his membership and attendance and his offerings to Wright — without, so far as I know, saying a single word in criticism of Rev. Wright until people began investigating Obama’s relationship with Wright. I see quite a large gulf between those two and find such equivalences less than satisfactory because, even were one to agree with Carpetbagger that these are similar, so what? Does Gerson’s hypocrisy in any way prove that Gerson isn’t right about Obama and Wright? Can’t he be wrong about McCain and Bush but right about Wright? Of course he can.
Criticizing Gerson’s silence about McCain and failure to quit Bush’s campaign doesn’t make Obama right for the much closer relationship with Wright over a much longer period of time. Tu quoque (i. e., arguing “Oh, yeah, well your guy did THIS”) is a fallacy because it only diverts attention from the point without actually defending the point.
Now, frankly, I was dismayed when McCain made overtures to Hagee and the others mentioned but, even as Carpetbagger acknowledges, McCain didn’t crawl into bed with them or support any of those three for any period of time (or at all, so far as I know). McCain didn’t belong to their Churches, support any of their ministries and made none of them his adviser or sunday school teacher to his kids. But I do think he was wrong to do it even to the limited degree that he did.
But, as I wrote yesterday, I don’t think anyone should NOT vote for Obama for president based upon Wright’s hatred if one agrees strongly that Obama’s policies are right and he’s the man to push them. Even less should anyone not vote for McCain because of Falwell, Hagee and Parsely if one agrees with McCain’s policies and thinks he’s the man to push them. But that doesn’t make them immune from criticism.
The criticism of Bush and Pat Robertson is more apt, I think, and Bush deserves said criticism.
But Carpetbagger asks where Gerson’s column condemning Bush and McCain but fails to mention that Gerson did acknowledge Bush’s and other Republican politicians’ connection to Falwell and others. Okay, it’s not a column denouncing those relationships but it’s hardly an omission of those relationships or an apology for them, other than to point out, quite correctly, that neither Bush nor McCain supported any of those wackos for twenty years as Obama did Wright.
In the end, contrary to what Sullivan and Carpetbagger suggest, I think that for Gerson, as for me, what disqualifies Obama for the presidency is NOT Rev. Wright or his relationship to him; it’s something much closer to Obama than Wright is: Obama’s liberal policies.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Excuse me Craig..but the Weekly Standard quoting other Weekly Standard pieces aren’t irrefutable evidence that Sunni’s and Shia’s are working together..gimme a break ok?
McCain sought out Hagee’s endorsement by Hagee’s own admission.
Obama is not liberal..he is a moderate..where do you get that he is liberal?
March 21st, 2008 at 12:42 am
Dusty,
Well, I said “evidence” not “irrefutable proof” but refutation does require some counter evidence or argument.
No need to tell me about McCain seeking Hagee’s endorsement since I noted McCain’s reaching out to Hagee above. But reaching out for support is in no way in nearly the same league with the 20 year relationship Obama has had with Wright, adopting him as his pastor, spiritual mentor and advisor. Come on, Dusty. A little perspective. And McCain had spoken out publicly against the Dobsons, Falwells and Hagees of the world. Obama…not so much until the press sniffed out Wright’s noxious and obnoxious opinions. No comparison in my mind.
What makes me think Obama is a liberal?
His 100% rating from Planned Parenthood for his support of abortion rights, family planning services, and requiring health insurance coverage for female contraceptives, and from NARAL.
His pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 through cap-and-trade.
His support for a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
His opposition to NAFTA.
His notion that a corporation must pay its employees enough so that they can afford to send their children to college.
His strong support of unions.
Unions’ strong support of him.
I realize we have, perhaps different criteria for judging where a candidate is on the sliding scale from left to right but there’s just no doubt in my mind that Obama’s a liberal.
P. S.: I tried leaving this same comment with links to every one of those points about Obama’s liberalism but my comment was banished to some black hole in the internet so I removed the links. If you question one of these points, I’ll try leaving another comment with links to those points that you want more info on.
March 21st, 2008 at 1:07 am
And McCain had spoken out publicly against the Dobsons, Falwells and Hagees of the world.
Look Craig, on the religion front..McCain has kissed every extreme fundi preachers butt and asked for their endorsement since the day he started running for the job of El Presidente, this time around, evidently your thinking of his last run at the job. That doesn’t seem to bother you, nor will it keep you from voting for him.
You are going to twist this crap about Wright around to suit your agenda..so whatever Craig..
As far as judging Obama liberal because Planned friggin Parenthood gives him a 100% rating is laughable..but its your set of rosecolored glasses not mine.
As a liberal, I can tell you..Obama ain’t one ok? Take it or leave it, but your out there. I know too many folks who are registered Republican and believe in choice, unions, NAFTA is a nightmare, unions aren’t the bane of our existence and making our cars more efficient and less polluting to think for one minute that makes them a liberal too. In fact, your whole set of criteria really bothers me enough that I no longer wish to have this conversation with you.
Your hitting neocon territory here with your points on what makes a liberal. But conservatives always label anyone moderate as a liberal.
I like this quote: Although Conservatives are a legitimate branch of the GOP who have made many positive contributions, this wing of the party has allowed itself to be dominated by extremists and social moralists that marginalize Lincolnian principles.
http://moderaterepublican.net/id1.html
March 21st, 2008 at 1:08 am
And yes…I find you to be a social moralist.
Goodnight.
March 21st, 2008 at 1:12 am
Besides, not all the links in the Weekly Standard article are to other WS articles, there’s plenty that link other sources and even the Weekly Standard articles that are linked in that article are full of links to other sources. It won’t quite do to dismiss the evidence I linked to by saying it’s just links to other Weekly Standard articles. That’s not the case at all.
March 21st, 2008 at 1:28 am
Dusty,
There’s a big difference between not opposing all abortion for any reason and opposing any restrictions on abortion for any reason. You don’t get a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood without being a liberal. While most Americans want abortions to be available under some circumstances (i. e., most would oppose making abortions illegal altogether), most Americans favor some restrictions on abortion.
And I can live with being called a social moralist; heck, I’m a former pastor; it’s our job description to make moral comment on social issues. In fact, I find that to be a compliment. Thanks.
And what, exactly have I twisted. Put another way, exactly what have I not quoted correctly, taken out of context, misreported? I’d really like to know because, as far as I know, I’ve reported everything I’ve written accurately. You disagree with my opinion and that’s fine, but I take some fair amount of umbrage at being told I’m twisting things.
I never said unions are the banes of our existence but, like 100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood, you don’t get strong union support without being a liberal in my opinion.
But since you don’t want to continue that conversation, I’ll say good night. I had no intention of making you upset. I’m sorry my opinions on the subject so disturb you but, like you, I think what I think.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:00 am
So everyone that thinks NAFTA is a clusterfuck is a liberal? That is just one of your points that is outrageous. Guess most of the folks in Ohio are liberal then..jeez, never considered that one.
Your extreme conservative views make it seem that anyone that doesn’t take your pov is a liberal. That is utterly ridiculous and without merit. I could show you thousands of southern gentlemen that will vote Republican in Nov that appreciate unions…love them in fact. You generalize and then make it impossible to be anything but a liberal if anyone supports a cause or position that isn’t full on neocon. To me, neocon means there isn’t a grey area..its all black or white..no middle ground. They are narrow-minded to the extreme.
Yes, I said neocon..only a neocon would be so staunchly anti-union without taking into account that unions helped shape this nations labor laws. I didn’t say you have to love them, just appreciate their history and how they affected our nation at a time when children were made to work instead of going to school for the love of pete! But to you..supporting unions and people’s right to unionize makes you a liberal..freaking amazing logic there.
The twisting comes from your line about McCain and all the sick extreme rightwing preachers he has gone out of his way to beg for an endorsement this election season, you had the audacity to say he spoke out publicly about them! Wright is out there, but not anymore than any of those friggin wingnuts you named like: Dobson, Falwell and Hagee. And McCain courted those guys! He actually courted them! He spoke out against them not this election season..but the last one he ran in Craig..hence his name Weathervane McCain..talk about a liar and a charlatan. He is as phony as a three dollar bill.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:04 am
Dusty,
This really is pointless. It is not I but you who are twisting my words. I won’t do this any more. I’ll apologize for upsetting you and be done.
March 21st, 2008 at 2:05 am
Iraq is twice the size of Idaho..yet we haven’t been able to accomplish squat there in five friggin years, other than removing Saddam, and destroying their country and infrastructure Craig.
McCain will have us there in perpetuity. He will attack Iran, you can bank on that.. Afghanistan broke the back of the Soviet Union..Iraq will be our Waterloo financially.
And this is the man you want to lead our nation..its another Bush, just older.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 am
I disagree that we have not accomplished anything other than removing Saddam. Iraqis have established a Constitution which establishes their own form of parliamentary republic by their own hands, they’ve elected their own leaders, they’ve gained the right to disagree with their governors without fear of being tortured and killed for that disagreement. They’ve established a means of changing their government by their action rather than by the death of a tyrant only to be replaced by another. I don’t think these things are squat unless, by ’squat’ one means ‘considerable progress at replacing a tyranny with a representative republic’. None of that would have been possible without removing Saddam. The other side of that is, all of that has been made possible by our removing Saddam.
We’ve also managed to inflict quite a bit of damage on Al Qaeda in Iraq. It seems that foreign fighters are not only entering Iraq in smaller quantities but they are also leaving Iraq in larger quantities. Of course they’re dying in Iraq in rather satisfying quantities. Sunnis are turning against AQ and whipping AQ’s asses in rather satisfying quantities as well.
As for attacking Iraq, one thing I’ve learned is that predicting future actions of politicians is a rather perilous practice but I could make the same prediction about Obama and Pakistan, based upon his own rhetoric if the Pakistani government doesn’t move with sufficient seriousness against Al Qaeda in their border regions. He’’s suggested pulling most of the troops out of Iraq but re-attacking if Al Qaeda should be found to be setting up bases in Iraq. However, I don’t actually tell anyone to take anything to the bank regarding what any of the candidates in the race will actually do if they become president.
But yes, I think withdrawing from Iraq regardless of the Iraq government’s ability to achieve and maintain a stable peace in their own country would be rather bad for the US as well as the region so McCain is the man that I want to lead our nation.
I would also consider any judges appointed by either Obama or Clinton to be less satisfactory as well. I have no confidence that McCain would unfailingly appoint conservative judges and SCOTUS Justices of the caliber that Bush has but I am certain that neither Obama nor Clinton would. I would be far less pleased with any that either of the Democratic hopefuls would appoint than with any that McCain would be likely to appoint.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 am
You can disagree all you want Craig, its your right. A Constitution? Oh please..they can’t even agree on simple laws, or regulations to run their fucking country. They have accomplished NONE of the things BushCo set for them over three years ago dude! They have elected leaders that can’t agree on a fucking thing. Their courts are kangaroo courts that have been shown to be worthless and not even close to resembling a normal court of law by all standards. It’s one of the most corrupt governments in existence..and their human rights abuses are legendary at this point.
I won’t even address or read the rest of your ridiculous and delusional points. Your first paragraph tells me all I need to know about you and your pov.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:53 am
Ridiculous? Delusional?Jeez, Dusty, it’s always such a pleasure to chat with you because I can count on you to always take the high road, rhetorically speaking. By the way, I was being facetious, there.
Good night, Dusty.
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I am tired of everything being skewed as leftwing bullshit Craig..when I know for a fact that many moderate Republicans believe as I do on many issues.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Well, Dusty, you may not agree with me that Obama is a liberal but the New York Times seems to think that he is. I’ll let you battle it out with them.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Right Craig..and Toner called Murtha a leftwing anti-war activist too..give me a fucking break. That woman wouldn’t know a liberal if he/she backed a car over her.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Guess you missed this part of the article Craig:
“The only votes that come up are votes that are purposely designed to divide people,” he said. “It’s true that if I’m presented with a series of votes like that, I’m more likely to fall left of center than right of center. But as president, I would be setting the terms of debate.”
The blog post also noted that Hillary and Obama only voted 10 times differently on major issues. Next your going to tell me Hillary is a liberal.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Dusty,
If this is the article in which you say Toner calls Murtha a leftwing anti-war activist, I’ve got some very bad news for you. Perhaps you’d better sit down for this because it will be a rather severe shock to your system: Toner calls Murtha no such thing. The quote is:
You will note, please, that Toner does not call him an antiwar lefty. She says that Murtha is an “unlikely darling of” the antiwar left. Why do you suppose she calls Murtha the unlikely darling of the left? Well, I’ll tell you. It’s because Murtha is not a liberal or a lefty and Toner is quite aware of that. Unlikely as it would, under ordinary circumstances, be for Murtha to be the darling of the left, Toner is saying, he is their darling precisely because he called for a withdrawal from Iraq asap and because he’s pushed amendments to bills that would make sustaining the war impossible. So if that’s your proof that Toner doesn’t know a liberal when he or she backs his or her car over her, you’d better go looking for more proof because that’s just gone right up in smoke!
Why is that, do you suppose, other than that he’s more comfortable with left of center than right of center? But even that doesn’t make a very convincing case for believing that no matter what votes came up, he wouldn’t have voted exactly as he did? It’s a quote that proves nothing about where on the political scale he sits. What you need to do, Dusty, to show that he’s anything but a liberal is to show, by quoting his own policy statements for what he plans to do when in the White House, that he is a centrist and not a liberal.
As for Hillary, what makes you think she’s not a liberal? Because she voted for and supported the war before she decided to be against the war? That makes her a flip-flopper, not a centrist. You need to look at her votes, or her own policy statements from her web page to show, from what she plans to do once in the White House, that she’s a centrist and not a liberal. If her first crack at Hillary-care is any indication, yes, I’d peg her as a liberal. However, I’ve not looked through her policy statements carefully enough to be able to say whether I think that she’s a liberal or not.
March 26th, 2008 at 1:52 am
Perhaps Janny Scott is no better able to recognize a progressive than Toner is able to recognize a liberal but Janny says this about Obama:
Now perhaps Obama is a bit too pragmatic for some progressives’ taste. My reading in The Nation regarding Obama tends to confirm that, I think, yet they’ve chosen Obama as most likely to create and sustain “a progressive majority and an actual mandate for progressive change.” For example, the New York Times article that I linked to here says that he showed a knack for achieving bipartisan consensus but, really, in a place tightly controlled by Republicans, how else could a progressive get anything done at all? He would have been reduced to constant and futile opposition otherwise. He could settle for trying to move things a bit further in his direction or simply vote “Nay!” to every Republican sponsored bill and see every thing he tried to do go up in smoke.
My point is that if Obama is the president in ‘08, he’ll likely have a Democrat controlled Congress and a nation deeply dissatisfied with Republican governance and would, therefore, have less need to move to the center in order to get his policy preferences put in place. Perhaps he wouldn’t have enough votes to do whatever pleased the Democrats in Congress and himself so he would have to do some reaching out to less conservative Republicans to achieve cloture on his policies but he would not have nearly the need to reach out across the aisle. Translation, he could afford to be more liberal in most cases than he had to be in Illinois precisely because he’ll have a Congress Party majority.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:35 am
As for Hillary, this may not prove that she’s a progressive but it certainly indicates that she has a pretty clear interest in promoting progressivism:
“Played a formative role in conversations that led to the 2003 founding” doesn’t sound like mere tokenism to me. It sounds like she wanted to fight conservative “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” fire with progressive “Left Wing” fire.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I have nothing more to add to this conversation Craig..unless you attempting now to call me a friggin liar..I will say it again
Obama is not a progressive. He might, as millions of other americans do, subcribe to some of the same ideologies we progressives have..but the man is not a progressive in the meaning of the word.
I will not respond to you again on this thread..on this topic.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Liar? Perish the thought. I pointed out that that, if that was the article in which you claim Toner called Murtha an antiwar leftist activist, you are quite obviously wrong. There’s a big difference between my saying that you have wrongly interpreted Toner’s article and calling you a liar.
And you can assert your position all you want but unless you actually prove your position from, you know, actual, verifiable evidence, your assertions count for nothing in a debate setting.
That’s all I’ve said. If you think I’ve called you a liar, you’ve done an even poorer job of reading my comments than you did of reading Toner’s article.
Have a great day!
March 26th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
This is starting to sound personal. I’m monitoring this thread, and I’ll close the comments if I think you guys are forgeting the BIO golden rule: Attack the position all you want, but never attack the poster/commentor. Not negotiable.
Thanks.
March 26th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I refuse to give you the last word on this Craig..its a subjective thing in my book. You can hold liberal views and still not be a Liberal. Its degrees imho.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx
National Journal magazine is reporting that Obama was the most liberal senator of 2007, according to the vote ratings it does every year for members of Congress. Clinton, meanwhile, ranks as the 16th most-liberal senator.
But a bit of context here: National Journal used 99 Senate votes in 2007 as the basis for its rankings, and because he was on the presidential campaign trail, Obama missed a third of those votes. (According to the magazine, Obama voted the liberal way 65 out of 66 votes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted the liberal way in 77 out of her 82 votes).
National Journal’s vote ratings became an issue in the 2004 general election, when Republicans used the magazine’s ranking of John Kerry as the most liberal senator of 2003 to label the then-Democratic nominee as the “most liberal senator” — even though that was his rating for just that one year, when (like Obama did) he missed quite a few Senate votes due to being on the presidential campaign trail.
Indeed, while Obama ranks as the magazine’s most liberal senator of 2007, his ranking was 16th in 2005 and 10th in 2006.
Another question that might come up is why the magazine released its voting ratings now — just days before Super Tuesday. In fact, the magazine says it full congressional ratings won’t come out until March. But, according to the editor in a Q&A published in the magazine: “Back in December, we decided that we would publish the ratings of the presidential candidates as soon as they became available, rather than wait until our annual Vote Ratings issue on March 8. We thought it would be irresponsible to keep those scores under wraps during the height of the presidential primary season.”
As for McCain, the magazine says that he didn’t vote frequently enough in 2007 to get an overall rating. Per National Journal, “He missed more than half of the votes in both the economic and foreign-policy categories. On social issues, which include immigration, McCain received a conservative score of 59.”
And like with Obama’s overall liberal score, rivals and critics could possibly seize on McCain’s social rating….
March 27th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Dusty,
I’ll give you last word.
Craig R. Harmon
March 27th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Thank you
March 27th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Jet,
Yes, Ma’am.