What's Good For The Goose…
Posted March 20th, 2008 by Da King
When Barack Obama gave his speech about race and racism the other day, he more or less fessed up to one thing…that he was not being honest when he said he had never heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright make racist, hate-filled, anti-american statements. Here's Obama Version 1 versus Obama Version 2:
VERSION 1 (the evasion):
"The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."
VERSION 2 (the truth):
"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."
Good. I'm glad we cleared that up. The fact that Obama covered up initially is troubling, but at least we can move on now. Btw, Mr. Obama, none of my pastors or priests (I can't speak for the rabbis) have ever made any racist statements along the lines of Rev. Wright for me to disagree with. Any pastor or priest I've ever heard give a sermon tended to talk about God and scripture, not how America gave AIDS to Africa, how whitey keeps blacks in poverty, the United States of KKKA, or how we deserved 9/11. That stuff seems a little off-topic to me. Some have told me I don't understand the culture in black churches. I admit I've only attended a handful of black services, but I haven't heard anything like Rev. Wright in those either.
The other question Obama needed to address in his speech was why he attended Wright's church for 20 years and why Wright was his advisor and friend, given Wright's racist rhetoric. In this regard Obama failed miserably (but in very eloquent fashion. The man sure can give a speech). Obama said Wright's inflammatory statements were not the full content of Wright's character. While I am certain that is true, so what ? I mean, there was certainly more to Don Imus than a guy who made a tasteless racist joke, but Barack Obama was quick to call for Imus' resignation last year. Here's Obama on that issue:
“There’s nobody on my staff who would still be working for me if they made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group. And I would hope that NBC ends up having that same attitude,” - Barack Obama in an ABC interview, April 11, 2007
Obama also told ABC that he would never appear on Imus' show after hearing Imus make the 'nappy-headed hos' remark. There was no call for wider understanding from Obama on the Imus incident, and remember, Imus was JOKING. Rev. Wright wasn't. It seems what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.
Obama was basically saying that we all know people who make racist comments when he said he could no more disown Wright than he could the black community, and by talking about his white grandmother fearing black men on the street. That's why Obama's speech included a synopsis of the history of race in america, from slavery to the civil rights movement. Obama even used Wright's age as a justification of Wright's attitudes. I'd call that speech Obama's racial "kitchen sink" strategy.
Obama does have a rather unique viewpoint, since he grew up in both black and white cultures, and Obama is right that we've all heard racial statements made from time to time. That is inescapable.
But the thing is, Obama kept going back for more, and didn't disavow it until the you-know-what hit the fan. Along that line, Obama's website just recently removed a testimonial from Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
And the latest Gallup national poll has Hillary in the lead.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I like your reference to a "kitchen sink" strategy. The more I read this speech the more I wonder if that wasn't exactly what Barack was trying to do. He covered it all quite well and continued to do it over and over.
The fact that he admitted that he had been lying about not knowing that Wright spoke in a very racist manner told me that he was ready to tell the truth but hadn't been ready until he just had to do it.
The more I read peoples' anyalyses of this speech and the whys and wherefores the more convinced I become that the man is to be feared because he well may be more racist than most of us.
This morning I read Kathleen Parker's weekly opinion piece about that speech and it makes about as much sense as any of those I have read. Of course, I agree with Mrs. Parker on most of her writings but this time I just can't find anything to disagree with her about.
Obama is trying to use racism and that old white guilt thing to gain some votes. He may not be racist himself, but the fact that he listened to Wright all those years and then said he didn't hear anything worries me about him. At least, he finally came clean and that could be a plus for him but not in my opinion.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Liberals & Dims treat blacks like children, constantly talking about their sophomoric temper tantrums right in front of them with euphuisms like "black anger."
[This is especially humerous when white Dims do it in front of black audiences with an affected black southern accent like Algore and Comrade Hillary have done.]
Back to B. Hussein Obama. In his speech the other day, he tried to make the argument that, because of the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow [both institutions of the Dim Party, by the way], the Negro has the right to be permanently ill-mannered and stupid and that society must continue to accommodate such behavior — starting, of course, by electing BO as president. You see, BO is supposed to be "post-racial."
How patronizing. This is the bigotry of soft expectations taken to the extreme. It's a cancer in the mind set of our guilt-ridden liberals and it is the number one factor in keepin gthe blacks down.
But then again, as has been noted before, this is probablem the aim — keep the Negro chained to the dim Plantation of Government Dependency.
Of course, this is poision to the black community, keepijng them separated from the greater society by their highten sense of victimhood coupled with their irrational anger and resentment.
Now don't kid yourself. The world is not going to stand still while the Negro wallows in his memories of past greviences, both real and imaginary. The Latino community couldn't care less about this exaggerated sense of black victinhood, and neither could the Orientials or anyone else …only the guilt ridden liberals.
If the blacks continue down the path set forth for them by the likes of B. Huseein Obama, the bigot Rev. Wright, and liberals/Dims, they will become even more isolated in the most open society on earth. And this will happen while recent immigrants like the Latinos, Orientials, Indians, etc.continue to move ahead of them.
And for all this, the blacks can thank the Dims & the liberals, two of the most destructive groups America has ever seen.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Apparently, there is this plot of right wing thinking, where one of the axes is "the imaginary axis". I cannot comprehend it.
I just don't see how anything you cited by Reverend Wright is racist of the scale of your citation of Don Imus calling black female college athletes "nappy headed hoes". That pejorative term means "whores", by the way.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
King simply repeats the talking points of the wingier part of the wingers.
Just think about what's happening in real time.
A sizeable portion of Americans who watched or listened to Obama's speech saw and heard it as a profoundly honest new approach to our troubled racial history. Even some more honest conservatives. A breath of new fresh air, so to speak. Daring in it's frankness.
A tiny minority, predictably the same minority that still supports Bush and the Bush Doctrine, with all that entails, only heard white guilt manipulation, lying, poor judgment, and a miserable failure.
For years now I have been pointing out the dual narratives that always come about whenever conservatives are proven to be guilty of criminality, lying about wars of choice, or shredding the Constitution because of Islamofascists. Dual narratives are always spun out when truth and empirical evidence clearly demonstrate the failings of conservative leaders and the Republican party.
That's what is going on right now with the Obama speech about race. Obama is now the biggest threat to the anti-American conservative movement. Not Hillary.
He's not a Muslim, he did not go to a madrassa school, he's not a closet Islamic extremist, he doesn't wear turbans. But those narratives, all false, still exist in the winger's world….and they will continue to exist in the winger's world til the bitter end.
We, indeed, live in the information age. What America has yet to find out, though they are catching on, is we also live in the disinformation age.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Its funny the Reverend would accuse anyone of spouting talking points…..but
Obama is getting what he deserves. He knew this was going to be a problem at some point. Then it came out and he tried to minimize it and said he had never heard it before. Obviously he had. His handling of the situation has been dismal.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Vince take: How patronizing. This is the bigotry of soft expectations taken to the extreme. It's a cancer in the mind set of our guilt-ridden liberals and it is the number one factor in keepin the blacks down.
I've said it a thousand times before, if the Dooms allowed the black constituency to become independent………….they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Since someone has to be held accountable, it might as well be the right-wing of the spectrum. Just keep doling out social entitlements, keep the spirits low, and the votes will keep pouring in. And should a black individual prosper, within the conservative ranks, they don't count. This corrupt mentality continues to get handed down from generation to generation, spoiling the feasability of any youth breaking through. The party of gloom and doom will not tolerate escape.
Rev:
A sizeable portion of Americans who watched or listened to Obama's speech saw and heard it as a profoundly honest new approach to our troubled racial history. Even some more honest conservatives. A breath of new fresh air, so to speak. Daring in it's frankness.
The sizeable portion of America afforded Obama a second chance to come clean and take a few hits. Instead, he opted to blame the ways of society, stump the need for more social programs, and avoid any responsibility for getting caught up in this pickle. I haven't run into a conservative Obama supporter yet, but the "children of the corn" are now a dwindling number. They sold their souls to the unknown, but must now distance themselves from the Known. By refusing his chance at redemption, he sealed his own fate.
Rev said:
A tiny minority, predictably the same minority that still supports Bush and the Bush Doctrine, with all that entails, only heard white guilt manipulation, lying, poor judgment, and a miserable failure.
One does not have a very wide view when gazing through binoculars. What you call a "minority" has all but erased a double digit preference over Hillary Clinton, bumped PA further away, evened up NC, and that's just for starters. Even on Politico, a predominantly liberal venue, I continue to be entertained by the ambiance of gloom and the reality of the terminal prognosis of Obama's candidacy. The CNN and MSNBC bodyguards can only stand by helpless and witness the toppling of their chosen one. It's real and the only question that still exists is…………….will you acknowledge this state of denial?
The Doomocrats were so desperate to regain control and they looked for the right "gimmick" to do the trick. The thought of setting a precedent with the first woman or black nominee seemed surefire, yet they left out one small detail………………does the candidate have substance? They could have presented Chris Rock and Rosie O'Donnell and still accomplished what they have to this point.
I've been asked many times if I would support a woman or minority for the presidency and I always considered it a stupid question. The answer is always yes because gender, nor race, can influence a decision based on sound values. This is life in the conservative mentality however, it's the superficial things that stimulate my far-left friends. It is very evident in their primary process.
March 21st, 2008 at 8:04 am
To all,
Our Rev's words illustrate the purpose of Obama's speech. Obama designed his speech to move the conversation away from the Obama/Wright issue and onto the larger issue of race in america. Our Rev is doing his small part to assist in that movement. It's an old tactic called 'changing the subject'. That's why my comments on Obama's speech were mostly confined to the original subject of the Obama/Wright issue. I recognize the tactics of a very smart politician like Obama when I see them.
That doesn't mean I didn't see the larger racial points Obama was making, and making eloquently. I did. There was much value in them, and Obama is a logical person to make those points, since he has feet in both white and black culture. I just would have preferred to hear Obama give such a speech when it was not completely self-serving for him to do so. I do not consider Obama to be a racist, although his comments yesterday about his grandmother being a "typical white person" aren't going to help that perception any. Basically, I think Obama found a Chicago home at Trinity United Church that gave him some street cred as a community organizer back in the day, and also an identity in the community. The church was an instrument used by Obama to perform his job. That required him to look the other way when Rev. Wright made his race-based anti-american sentiments, sentiments that were apparently shared by a sizeable portion of the church community. Since looking the other way in the face of such incendiary speech as Wright engaged in doesn't play too well for a presidential candidate and opens him up to questions on his leadership and credibility, Obama was forced to come up with an alternate explanation, and thus his race speech was born.
More and more, I am coming to see Obama as a purely political animal, just the kind he claimed not to be at the outset of this presidential campaign. His campaign has now circulated a picture of Rev. Wright with Bill Clinton at a White House function. How cheap and cynical is that ? Does Obama think we are so stupid that we can't recognize the difference between that and Obama's 20 year association with Wright as his pastor and mentor ? Apparently so.
March 21st, 2008 at 8:48 am
There is only one reason that Obama supported Trinity and Wright for 20 years, and that is because he shares Wright's views. Common sense will tell you that two people don't become as close as Obama and Wright unless they share some important things in common, one of which is a "world view." Obama is a fickle hypocrite, who, when the going gets tough, abandons his close friends for political expediency.
He's in a tight spot, since he has to appeal to whites to be a national player, while being careful not to appear "too white" to blacks who have been indoctrinated into the "blame whitey, hate whitey" propaganda that is preached in so many disfunctional black churches today.
As Grandma used to say, "You lay down with dogs, and you're gonna get up with fleas."
Seems like in twenty years of exposure to the rantings of the Wright Reverend, Obama might have heard this biblical classic;
"As ye sow, so shall ye reap."
Someone telling me that I don't understand the "culture" of the black church, as an excuse for Wright's comments, might as well pee down my back, and tell me that I don't understand that it's raining. I understand the "culture" of the black church and self-proclaimed spiritual and community leaders like Wright, Jackson, Sharpton and Farrakhan. I also understand the terms race hustler, hypocrite and political expediency. And now, thanks to recent events, so does the rest of the nation.
March 21st, 2008 at 9:28 am
Balladeer — your song is one of truth and reality and it is one that is resonating across the country.
+++
Can the Dims be so dim as to give this an america-hater & two-faced race hustler like B. Hussein Obama their nomination?
+++
But one has to give BHO credit in one sense. Only he could make Comrade Hillary look patriotic and America-loving by comparsion.
March 21st, 2008 at 11:29 am
King said: Does Obama think we are so stupid that we can't recognize the difference between that and Obama's 20 year association with Wright as his pastor and mentor ? Apparently so.
I'm not so sure he thinks we're all stupid, more so than trying to maintain his core of drones. After, these individuals took the hook, line, and sinker before they even questioned what he represeneted or accomplished. They were so eager for the shiny new car, but never even cared that the engine had a rod knock. Yes King, hopefully the majority will see that there is a difference between a casual encounter at a social function and a life-long relationship on more than willing grounds.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
King.,
Let me explain the way it works to you. White people used to call black people niggers. Then they got together and decided not to use that word anymore. Now when a black person says or does something that a white person doesnt agree with they call them a racist but what they really mean is nigger. The fact that you would accuse a minority of being racist proves you are a racist by calling them a nigger. Got it King? If not I sugggest you go to you tube, watch and listen to the sermons of the Rev. J.D. Manning a very influential gentlemen in NYC. Dont feel bad King I too used to think that statements minorities made were just as racist as things I heard from whites but I now understand that if I question anything a minority says I am indeed a racist. It certainly makes things simple. If certain people say or do something I know it must be right.
March 22nd, 2008 at 9:30 am
"…but I now understand that if I question anything a minority says I am indeed a racist."
Hey Angry, that's what political correctness is all about!
Anyone who abides by the dictates of pc has been de-balled.
March 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Ghost you are half way home.
I have also learned from repeated verbal beatings from my compasionate white compadres that if I question not the intent but the actual consequences of various govenrment programs to improve the quality of life for minorities that I am a racist. The same charges were made against Patrick Moynihan(not that I any way put myself in his class) when he questioned the consequences of the very government policies that he helped passed. His facts and statistics were ignored and he was branded a racist. It was the old ignore the issues and attack the messenger. As we all know a racist is to be ignored.
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
angry conserv,
Thanks for the heads up. I think we can expand upon your comments a little, and make the following blanket statement:
Conservative policies are all racist and evil, while liberal policies are all wonderful and good (even if they don't work, and most don't).
Somewhere in almost every long political argument I've ever had with a diehard liberal, after their arguments are destroyed, they call me a racist in some way (even after, like our Reverend, they use racist arguments themselves). It's the final refuge of their illogical minds. When all else fails, use hate.
March 22nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
"…. if I question not the intent but the actual consequences of various govenrment programs to improve the quality of life for minorities that I am a racist."
I'm afraid it's worse than that, Angry.
If you're Caucasian, ergo you’re a racist …. at least according to the Scripture of Liberalism.
As for your compassionate white "compadres," they are guilt ridden. They secretly [subsonsciously] beat their chests over being born Caucasian, accept anything the "people of color" dish out, and attack, like wild hissies, heretics like you for not toeing the politically correct line. [You see many such fools posting here.]
Of course, the rest of the world with the exception of Western Europe — the Orientials, Indians, South Americans, etc — look at these guilt ridden whites as having a mental disorder. They can't figure why these pampered snots grovel in the gutter and
hate their own race, their male sex, and their country, America — the greatest country that ever was.
But, Angry, it is not all a mental disorder. Many, if not most, of these poor devils have been brained washed by the public schools they were forced to attend and by the general culture to feel guilty about being an American, about being white. This is a fact. The cancer of Liberalism [actually, Socialism] has spread through our institutions.
In any event, I am glad that you are not brainwashed and are prepared to speak out. You are a man of the future, as the tyranny of Political Correct is collapsing all around us. It won't be long before it is fully discredited.
March 22nd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Actually the most recent gallop poll now has Obama in the lead. I think Obama was pretty clear, he said he has heard some controversial things from Wright, but he did NOT hear what is being blasted all over the networks over and over again.
What was so refreshing was he was open and honest. meanwhile those on the right try to dig deep to find any loop hole to spin it a different way.
March 22nd, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Ghost, what you are talking about with Angry is a thing that many of us refer to as "white guilt". Liberals who support all that PC crap seem to think that whites are indeed wholly to blame for slavery in this country. They fail to understand that blacks captured blacks to sell into slavery in the beginning.
The thing about "white guilt" that bothers me most is that for some reason these PC believers really do believe that they are guilty for slavery. They want to blame me for that also but I refuse to accept that blame. I was born more than 65 years after the Civil War so I can't be guilty of all that. I don't think there are very many, if any ex-slaves running around today so we don't really owe the blacks that descended from them one thing. It is so hard to understand how they are so willing to allow blacks of today, and it isn't a large group of them that are involved, to accuse us of being guilty of something and owing them something.
I just can't accept that "white guilt" thing but both Wright and Obama seem to understand it and are trying to use it to force whites to do something for them. Obama says that if we don't elect him we are all wrong because only that act can bring this nation to anti-racism. Huh????
March 23rd, 2008 at 5:38 am
You’re right Roy not to accept the “white guilt” burden. It’s a fraud. To do so would either mean you have 1) a mental disorder (fear of envy) or 2) been intimidated into it by the nagging tongues of the Left.
People should feel guilty for wrongs THEY have done, not for who and what they you are or what you have achieved. .
As to this latte rpoint, liberals and their bigots like Wright & Obama say people are poor because others are not. This is socialism, and it's as backward as saying some peole are sick with cancer because I am not. That is, my health does not lead to your sickness.
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
For every victim there must be someone that is responsible.
Throughout Americas history the white male ruling class has not only oppressed and enjoyed the fruits of others labor in this country but is the main cause for poverty and repression throughout the world. It is not enough to identify all the groups that have been harmed but we must accept our responsibilty as the inheritors of the evil system. By dividing society into groups and identifying their greviences it is a necessary step towards empowering the groups victimized and having them strip the power and fruits from those that oppressed them to assure that it will not continue. By embracing equal outcome and the needed preferences for those groups we are taking the necessary action to assure that the unequality will not continue.
And my professors thought I slept through class.
March 24th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Ah ! I think you've nailed it angryc. So then, slavery and racism is encoded into my DNA, and even though I've never practiced either, and my ancestors were not even in this country during slavery, I am nevertheless guilty, due to the color of my skin. Golly, liberalism makes such perfect sense, doesn't it ?
Btw, as a member of the ruling class, where do I go to get my mansion and my riches ? Is there a website, an 800 number, or what ? I must not be on the mailing list.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:40 am
King,
This link is for you.
The article, "Liberal Mania: Crazy in a Bubble" reminds me of what goes on when the libs & Dims post in response to things you write.
http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12945
March 25th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Vince,
"liberal mania," defining mania as "…characterized by disorderly speech and thinking, by impulsive movements, and by excessive emotion."
As good a definition as any. That was an excellent link. I was watching when Chris Wallace interviewed Bill Clinton and Clinton had his red-faced meltdown. What an embarassing display that was for a former US president. And the crazy part was, every liberal I knew blamed Wallace and called Wallace all sorts of names, when all Wallace was doing was the exact same type of interview that he does with everybody. Bubba was the one who acted the fool. Perfect example of liberal mania, or perhaps 'raving illogical hatred'. They even chew up their own kind if they move one step out of line, as with Lieberman, Ferraro, and even Hillary Clinton. The loony left blogs are crucifying Hillary right now for trying to defeat the anointed one.
March 27th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
King,
I need your advise.
As you know, the mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick, has been charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, and malfeasance in office.
According to the rule of political correctness, is this like a B. "Hussein" Obama thing where we're instructed not to use the mayor's first name, "Kwame," because it might imply something?
And, can we mention that Kwane is Dim and a Negro to boot or is that out of bounds, too?
I'm just askin'. Please advise.
March 27th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
From what I can surmise so far on Kwame Kilpatrick:
I think it's alright to use his first name, but we shouldn't mention that he's a Dem, because the mainstream media hardly ever does. Kwame is a politician without a party if you listen to them. Since Kwame is a black mayor of a big city, that's historic (because he's a Dem. It wouldn't be historic if he was a Republican. Then he'd be an uncle Tom), so it's okay to mention that he's black.
That's the best I can do, Vince. I'm still working on this political correctness thing myself.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Thanks