Re: Obama's speech today

http://corner.nationalrevie
w.com/post/?q=NDU5ZTZmMDBlNDg2YWUwZjg5ZTM0NDVkY2FlMDBmM2Q=

MoveOn Move In   [Stanley Kurtz]

Obama’s speech was thoughtful, powerful, and to many will
be persuasive. But on behalf of what exactly has this
persuasive power been deployed? We’re being asked to adopt
an attitude of relative complacency toward a man who takes
just about the most radical and profoundly troubling stance
toward his own country that an American can take.

One false equivalence after another is being drawn between,
say, Geraldine Ferraro’s comments or opponents of
affirmative action, on the one hand, and Jeremiah Wright’s
remarks, on the other. Wright’s view of America is
rejected as mistaken, and insufficiently hopeful about the
country’s potential to change. Yet in the end Wright is
embraced, accepted, and even to a degree justified. Wright
has some basis for what he says, yet also makes mistakes,
we’re told, and are then reminded that the same can be
said for opponents of affirmative action or proponents of
welfare reform. Well, at some broad level, everyone has good
points and also makes mistakes, but there is such a thing as
a false equivalence, as we learned, say, during the Cold
War, when apologists for communism argued that the two big
powers were roughly equal forces for good and evil in the
world.

Obama is persuasive because he’s sincere. You wonder how
he could have sat for twenty years in Wright’s
congregation listening to his minister’s shocking
radicalism without leaving. Obama explains it here. He sees
some exaggeration and excessive pessimism in Wright’s
stance, yet he also sees the authentic voice of
African-American pain. And this led Obama to tolerate,
excuse, and dismiss for decades what ought not to have been
tolerated, excused, or dismissed. This, unfortunately, is
exactly how elite liberals come to countenance the sort of
anti-American radicalism they ought to stand up and fight
instead.

Remember when we were hearing about the need to purge
Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd from the Democratic
Party? Obama is the polar opposite of all that–and in a
devilishly clever way. Rather than move the Democrats away
from the Michael Moores or Jeremiah Wrights, Obama buys
absolution for them from the rest of the country. No, Obama
does not fully agree with Jeremiah Wright, but the
Democratic Party under Obama will be complacent about its
Michael Moore wing. That’s why the MoveOn types are so
excited about Obama. There will be plenty of the most
left-leaning appointees staffing the federal bureaucracy and
set into judgeships under Obama, and all of it will be
smoothed over by speeches about national healing and
understanding pain. Under Obama, the Michael Moore-MoveOn
wing, far from being purged, will be in the catbird seat,
and all because they’ve found the perfect spokesman.

Obama says he’s too close, and too personally indebted to
Wright, to break with him. But how did he get close to
Wright to begin with? Wright could not have taken up so huge
a space in Obama’s life unless Obama had let Wright in.
And Obama let Wright in because of Wright’s sermons, not
in spite of them. Obama may not have agreed with Wright’s
solutions, or even with his final judgements, but something
about Wright’s anger had to have attracted Obama–had to
have seemed tantalizingly "authentic." From the
beginning, Obama had to have been sufficiently attracted to
Wright’s excesses to forgive them. Then he sought to draw
closer. In this positive attraction to anti-American anger
(even if that anger is not quite entirely shared) Obama
embodies the sensibilities of the elite academic radicals
that are his real heritage and milieu.

Far from pulling a Hubert Humphrey or a Tony Blair and
casting the radical left out of the party, Obama seems to
see his job as getting the rest of the country to adopt a
stance of relative complacency toward the most egregious
sorts of anti-Americanism–all under the guise of achieving
national unity. The real precedent here is Jimmy Carter
sitting next to Michael Moore at the Democratic National
Convention. Does Carter endorse everything Michael Moore
says? I doubt it. If pressed, would Carter in fact condemn
some of what Moore has said? Most likely. But in the end,
Carter stood with Moore and put an acceptable face on what
should in fact be considered unacceptable. Of course, even
that doesn’t begin to compare to Obama’s decades-long
association with Wright, and his decision, for years, to
place Wright at the core of his political identity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and
dramatic release to date
Get the Free Trial
ht
tp://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w

Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups
/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256729
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/s
ubscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/un
subscribe.cfm?user=22184.15789.5

Jimmy Carter sits next to Michael Moore at the DNC and
shouldn't have?
Obama is fostering a decades long association with Wright...
oooo
bogey man!!!

What about the GOP's decades long association with the
following Pat
Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh?

All far right, bug-fuck, nutters and they are still part of
the
Republican establishment. Nobody in the GOP is going to say
anything
about dismissing them from the rolls, people in the
proverbial glass
house should not throw stones.

tat for tat, troll.


-- 
will

"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie Fisher

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and
dramatic release to date
Get the Free Trial
ht
tp://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w

Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups
/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256744
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/s
ubscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/un
subscribe.cfm?user=22184.15789.5

As with the entire brand of politics you embrace, this
microscopic
examination of the faults of one man makes me feel smaller
for having
read it.

Dude. Did you not hear the speech. We can continue to do
politics like
this. But if we do nothing will get solved. You will spew
this stuff
and I will filter it. Some blacks will be angry and some
whites will
be fearful. The rick will get richer and the rest of us will
continue
to lose ground. Can you really not see that tail wagging the
dog?

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM, sam morris <bytorngmail.com> wrote:
> http://corner.nationalrevie
w.com/post/?q=NDU5ZTZmMDBlNDg2YWUwZjg5ZTM0NDVkY2FlMDBmM2Q=
>
>  MoveOn Move In   [Stanley Kurtz]
>
>  Obama's speech was thoughtful, powerful, and to many
will be persuasive. But on behalf of what exactly has this
persuasive power been deployed? We're being asked to adopt
an attitude of relative complacency toward a man who takes
just about the most radical and profoundly troubling stance
toward his own country that an American can take.
>
>  One false equivalence after another is being drawn
between, say, Geraldine Ferraro's comments or opponents of
affirmative action, on the one hand, and Jeremiah Wright's
remarks, on the other. Wright's view of America is rejected
as mistaken, and insufficiently hopeful about the country's
potential to change. Yet in the end Wright is embraced,
accepted, and even to a degree justified. Wright has some
basis for what he says, yet also makes mistakes, we're told,
and are then reminded that the same can be said for
opponents of affirmative action or proponents of welfare
reform. Well, at some broad level, everyone has good points
and also makes mistakes, but there is such a thing as a
false equivalence, as we learned, say, during the Cold War,
when apologists for communism argued that the two big powers
were roughly equal forces for good and evil in the world.
>
>  Obama is persuasive because he's sincere. You wonder
how he could have sat for twenty years in Wright's
congregation listening to his minister's shocking radicalism
without leaving. Obama explains it here. He sees some
exaggeration and excessive pessimism in Wright's stance, yet
he also sees the authentic voice of African-American pain.
And this led Obama to tolerate, excuse, and dismiss for
decades what ought not to have been tolerated, excused, or
dismissed. This, unfortunately, is exactly how elite
liberals come to countenance the sort of anti-American
radicalism they ought to stand up and fight instead.
>
>  Remember when we were hearing about the need to purge
Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd from the Democratic
Party? Obama is the polar opposite of all that–and in a
devilishly clever way. Rather than move the Democrats away
from the Michael Moores or Jeremiah Wrights, Obama buys
absolution for them from the rest of the country. No, Obama
does not fully agree with Jeremiah Wright, but the
Democratic Party under Obama will be complacent about its
Michael Moore wing. That's why the MoveOn types are so
excited about Obama. There will be plenty of the most
left-leaning appointees staffing the federal bureaucracy and
set into judgeships under Obama, and all of it will be
smoothed over by speeches about national healing and
understanding pain. Under Obama, the Michael Moore-MoveOn
wing, far from being purged, will be in the catbird seat,
and all because they've found the perfect spokesman.
>
>  Obama says he's too close, and too personally indebted
to Wright, to break with him. But how did he get close to
Wright to begin with? Wright could not have taken up so huge
a space in Obama's life unless Obama had let Wright in. And
Obama let Wright in because of Wright's sermons, not in
spite of them. Obama may not have agreed with Wright's
solutions, or even with his final judgements, but something
about Wright's anger had to have attracted Obama–had to have
seemed tantalizingly "authentic." From the
beginning, Obama had to have been sufficiently attracted to
Wright's excesses to forgive them. Then he sought to draw
closer. In this positive attraction to anti-American anger
(even if that anger is not quite entirely shared) Obama
embodies the sensibilities of the elite academic radicals
that are his real heritage and milieu.
>
>  Far from pulling a Hubert Humphrey or a Tony Blair and
casting the radical left out of the party, Obama seems to
see his job as getting the rest of the country to adopt a
stance of relative complacency toward the most egregious
sorts of anti-Americanism–all under the guise of achieving
national unity. The real precedent here is Jimmy Carter
sitting next to Michael Moore at the Democratic National
Convention. Does Carter endorse everything Michael Moore
says? I doubt it. If pressed, would Carter in fact condemn
some of what Moore has said? Most likely. But in the end,
Carter stood with Moore and put an acceptable face on what
should in fact be considered unacceptable. Of course, even
that doesn't begin to compare to Obama's decades-long
association with Wright, and his decision, for years, to
place Wright at the core of his political identity.
>
>
>  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and
dramatic release to date
Get the Free Trial
ht
tp://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w

Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups
/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256757
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/s
ubscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/un
subscribe.cfm?user=22184.15789.5