Have you ever known anyone for 20 years? Have you ever known anyone whose apparent attitude on somethign you consider important evolved over time to a point where you couldn't accept it?

Chris, where is the slightest bit of evidence that Wright's views are "new" or recently "evolved"? Please point to one substantive comment Wright made over the weekend that revealed a previously unexposed "view" of his. There are no such comments. We knew he held all of these views a month ago. Obama knew it -- at least a month ago -- and yet "could not disown" Wright. Then 5 weeks later Obama decided that, yes, he could disown Wright -- despite nothing new substantively.

So what _did_ Obama cite of substance that caused him to change his mind? He cited Wright's AIDS comments, his terrorism comments, and his Farrakhan comments from over the weekend; but of course these were all comments we have heard Wright make before. And, yet, Obama completely changed his tune on Wright from Sunday (Chris Wallace) to Tuesday.

The only "new" comment Wright made was to say that Obama was "just a politician." But that was not a substantive comment about Wright's views, which were already known -- to everyone except Obama, apparently -- before the weekend.

Why is Obama talking about Wright's AIDS comments and the like as if that somehow had an influence on his decision to drop Wright?

I am surprised you don't. Everyone you ever met you evaluated their entire spectrum of beliefs before you allowed them to become part of your life.

This, of course, is a red herring. Wright was an integral part of Obama's life, not just "part" of Obama's life. Obama told us so.

where is the slightest bit of evidence that Wright's views are "new" or "evolved"?

You just said about five posts ago you agreed that his views had evolved.

So what _did_ Obama cite of substance that caused him to change his mind?

Obama cited that after making this speech seven years ago (and not repeatedly, or it would have turned up on more video) that was one thing, but to seek out this attention, and go before the press liek that - that's differnt. Did you watch what Obama said?

I don't see there';s any point in discussing it further because you will agree out of one side of your mouth and then ask a question of me already answered. There's nothing in your latest post that my #2441 doesn't address.

This, of course, is a red herring. Wright was an integral part of Obama's life, not just "part" of Obama's life. Obama told us so.

This, of course, is a nitpick. The substance of my question is there. You are just being a typical politician.

Interesting. I see Ted Rall is encouraging Cathy Lanier, chief of D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department, to arrest George W. Bush on charges of torture and murder.

Interesting. I see Ted Rall is encouraging Cathy Lanier, chief of D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department, to arrest George W. Bush on charges of torture and murder.

If she took Ted Rall seriously, I think she'd be the first. We're talking about a guy, after all, who compared the rally when Columbine reopened to a Nazi rally and suggested that the school should've left some blood stains as a warning to future bullies.

If she took Ted Rall seriously, I think she'd be the first. We're talking about a guy, after all, who compared the rally when Columbine reopened to a Nazi rally and suggested that the school should've left some blood stains as a warning to future bullies.

Regardless of the source, it's an interesting idea. And Aristotle did think men had more teeth than women...

Beyond that, there was a long list of other conditions, including how far allied troops could go into what had been German territory. As such, your assumption is factually wrong.

The terms were dictated. The Germans agreed *unconditionally* to sign an Armistice Treaty, and went to Compiegne to sign whatever the Allies wanted. That the Allied powers didn't demand total occupation of the country is simply by-the-by.

No one doubts that the Nazis (and other German nationalists) exploited the T of V to their advantage, sowing bitterness in Germany.

Oh come on now.

The Nazis did not "sow bitterness" in Germany the bitterness was there - all Germans across the political spectrum were disgusted by that treaty. If you do not see that the German grievances about Versailles were almost all legitimate then you are looking at this in a completely one-eyed manner. Not only did they not respect German self-determination, they went out of their way to trample on it. Reparations were just the icing on the cake.

I simply do not understand how you can say that that Treaty was in any way "necessary" - unless you mean in terms of British and French public opinion. It was certainly not "necessary" to deal with Germany.

As for your elderly friend - the people he should really blame are the army in Flanders, the navy in Kiel, and much of the general German population, for their stunning naievety. But it's natural for people to blame the government ("November Criminals") rather than themselves - although they DID blame themselves to a large extent. As for this "propaganda" I think you are greatly misled - the German government did NOT run an effective propaganda complain (something the German army constantly complained to the civilian authorities about). Ludendorff is by no means an unbiased source but you really should read his memoirs.

Incidentally when SBB is talking about "radicalisation" during the war I assume he's talking about radicalisation on the left.

Note: I am not saying that the Germans should have kept fighting in 1918. I am just saying that they probably would have if the population had realised the actual peace terms that were on offer as compared to Allied propaganda. And I am saying that Versailles (and related treaties) was not in the enlightened self-interest of the Allied powers - not that it could necessarily have been done any differently by different British French and American politicians. The French and British public wanted revenge - the British had just had a general election, and the new MPs were all set on extremely harsh measures ("squeeze until the pips squeak") and meanwhile the French were about to have a new general election. On the other hand, it does have to be said that it's hard to think of two worse people to be heading the negotiations than Wilson and Lloyd George.

Regardless of the source, it's an interesting idea.

It's a horrific idea, regardless of the source. I can think of no better way than to destroy the republic than to start up with this kind of thing. Those of you who are fortunate enough to have a classical education probably already understand why.

If you allow political disagreements to translate into criminal prosecution, sooner rather than later someone who has the charisma and the influence to get away with it will decide not to accept a political loss, and to contest that loss by nonelectoral means. I don't think Bush could pull it off even if he tried it, and I'd like to think he wouldn't even try it. But even considering this kind of thing is playing with fire. Ask the Optimates how that worked out.

MH1F, I am not sure what you are saying is a horrible idea.

Can someone explain to me, with acknowledgment of their conception of historical context and need, why black liberation theology is supposed to be so bad?

E-X, from James Cone, one of the founders of black liberation theology.

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community.... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

I've seen Cone speak a couple of times, and I really haven't seen anything like what Frida cites here.

My guess is that the quote comes from some early texts in the 60s - and, honestly, given that we're talking about a period in the US in which apartheid was the law of the land and domestic terrorism was common against blacks, the notion of a "white enemy" isn't all that hard to grasp.

Cone's later work focuses on understanding that theology can only be done from a context - none of us can disembed ourselves from our history - and that historically oppressed communities have found meaning and power in the Bible through identifying with the outcast whom God helps (Hagar in the desert, Exodus, Jesus' healings, etc), and that one can put together a reasonable reading of the Bible under which God is a god of the oppressed and a god of liberation. While depictions of God typically show a person who resembles the "default" human in a society, Cone argues that we must imagine a black God, not because God has a race, but because we must decenter our own assumptions about where God would stand in society and with whom God would identify and aid.

Here's a great lecture Cone gave in 2006, thinking about how our contemporary context in America and the history of racial violence is a historically necessary context for us to view the cross within.

It's a horrific idea, regardless of the source. I can think of no better way than to destroy the republic than to start up with this kind of thing. Those of you who are fortunate enough to have a classical education probably already understand why.

If you allow political disagreements to translate into criminal prosecution, sooner rather than later someone who has the charisma and the influence to get away with it will decide not to accept a political loss, and to contest that loss by nonelectoral means. I don't think Bush could pull it off even if he tried it, and I'd like to think he wouldn't even try it. But even considering this kind of thing is playing with fire. Ask the Optimates how that worked out.

This is exactly correct, and it's why the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton was so incredibly stupid. Julius Caesar is often blamed for overthrowing the Roman Republic, but many people don't realize that if he hadn't, he was facing certain death at the hands of his political opposition. When you put people in a situation where the loss of political power results in imprisonment/death, you're giving them a tremendous incentive to never let go of power. Ever. For any reason.

Incidentally when SBB is talking about "radicalisation" during the war I assume he's talking about radicalisation on the left.

Yes, although the counter-radicalization's roots on the right predate the end of the war. Once the war ended, the process accelerated.

If you allow political disagreements to translate into criminal prosecution, sooner rather than later someone who has the charisma and the influence to get away with it will decide not to accept a political loss, and to contest that loss by nonelectoral means. I don't think Bush could pull it off even if he tried it, and I'd like to think he wouldn't even try it. But even considering this kind of thing is playing with fire. Ask the Optimates how that worked out.

Putting aside the wisdom of a domestic prosecution (which I agree would be unwise), many of you will recall Hitchens's book about trying Henry Kissinger. I thought the evidence he proffered was weak (except for the assassination of Allende). The evidence against the architects of Gitmo and the torture state is much, much more compelling (with the caveat that this may not be true as to the president himself).

The better way for this to play out is to honor the tradition of prosecution by international tribunals, as it is international law that is being traduced. Jurisdiction for these crimes is universal and there are a lot of Administration people who'd be best served staying stateside.

If you allow political disagreements to translate into criminal prosecution, sooner rather than later someone who has the charisma and the influence to get away with it will decide not to accept a political loss, and to contest that loss by nonelectoral means. I don't think Bush could pull it off even if he tried it, and I'd like to think he wouldn't even try it. But even considering this kind of thing is playing with fire. Ask the Optimates how that worked out.

This argument presumes the very thing up for debate.

I mean, if we had evidence that George Bush was selling secrets to the Russkies, or stabbing hobos in the Rose Garden, we'd impeach him. If there's a crime committed by a chief executive, there needs to be a process by which that crime is prosecuted. Every president will have political enemies, who will be more likely to believe and pursue charges like this, but that doesn't mean that hobo-stabbing should suddenly be legal if you're president.

The question that can't be dodged in whether Bush committed crimes, whether there is sufficient evidence of such.

I assume that the idea at hand is that the torture regime is contrary to American law, both in its rejection of habeas for citizens and through its abrogation of treaties signed by congress. If you want to argue that impeachment can be understood only as a political strategy, you need to explain how the legal understanding of these crimes is mistaken. You can't just assert "it's political".

I'm not a fan of impeachment as a political strategy because as Omar said, if you come at the king, you best not miss. If Bush were impeached, he'd be acquitted. There is not and will not be sufficient acceptance of the theory of Bush's crimes among the people who would be his jury, so there's little point. I do take solace in the limited number of foreign countries to which he and Cheney and Addington and Rice will be able to travel over the rest of their lives. It's not a lot, but it's something, and there are rarely cathartic prosections and trials for international criminals who aren't captured in wartime.

Yes. Because I drink the Kool-Aid. Obama is undoubtedly a candidate of a different nature. The level at which he has said "This isn't about this mudslinging junk. We (all of us) can make it about problem solving." Hillary, of course, isn't interested in that.

McCain may well be. I like him too, but I don't believe he can hold off the Republican Nazis.

I usually shut down threads when Godwin's Law is verified.

For the most part this thread has been civil. Please try to keep it that way.

The better way for this to play out is to honor the tradition of prosecution by international tribunals, as it is international law that is being traduced. Jurisdiction for these crimes is universal and there are a lot of Administration people who'd be best served staying stateside.

Yeah, there is no way anybody is getting tried for war crimes in a US court. Besides the fact that the Military Commissions Act probably shields all those involved from prosecution, I can't imagine Obama, if he's elected, allowing his Justice Department to do that and make that the only issue in the country. But Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Addington, and the rest of them shouldn't plan on going to Europe any time soon, cause there's always the chance of what happened with Pinochet happening to them.

Can someone explain to me, with acknowledgment of their conception of historical context and need, why black liberation theology is supposed to be so bad?

No question that it can help many individuals and even some communities on a psychological level, but once it tries to go beyond that it gets damaged by the the same phenomenom you're seeing right here.

And when black liberation theology gets tangled up in a mainstream political campaign, you can see for yourself what the main practical effects are:

---Wright's hardcore defenders see "the truth" in Wright's statements as overriding any other concerns. The fact that much of Wright's message is made up of half-truths and more than a little bit of paranoia is either heatedly denied, studiously ignored, or passed off as mere rhetoric. Many of these true believers see any questioning, especially by outsiders---and pointedly from white outsiders---as an attack not only on black liberation theology, but as an attack on black people in general.

They're the flip side of the people who react so hysterically to Obama's "bitter" comments, in the sense that both groups see the world as conspiring to suppress them, and they see any disagreement as an "attack." A cynic might observe that the most important difference between these two groups is that there are far more of the "anti-bitterites" who vote in key swing states.

---The racial demagogues (meaning in this case the white ones) will seize upon the most inflammatory soundbites, play them endlessly in an attempt to inflame people's emotions, and thereby damage not only the Obama candidacy, but the whole message of racial reconciliation.

Of course they deny this, and say that it's all about nothing but (black) racial demagoguery, but a cursory glance at the comments that accompany all those YouTube postings will expose that nonsense for the bullshlt it is. They know damn well that black liberation theology has had about as much real political influence on Barack Obama as the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion has had on Joseph Lieberman, but that doesn't stop their crude smear attempts to link Wright and Obama in a manner that goes light years beyond the reality of their actual relationship.

So what you wind up with is a classic case of two groups with little or no interest in discovering any "truth" beyond "white racism is terrible, and anyone who attacks Wright is therefore a racist"; OR (the mirror image) "black racism is terrible, and anyone who tries to place black liberation theology in a historical context is an apologist for black racism."

E-X, you tend to see all this as some sort of a necessary prelude to eventual racial reconciliation, a kind of relationship therapy that begins by telling the two aggrieved parties to "let it all hang out," hopefully ending up like Kramer and the cable guy, with tears and a big hug. And on a one-on-one basis, it may often work, as long as under the competing rhetorics there's at least a sliver of openmindedness and a willingness to see the other point of view.

But whenever this sort of "debate" enters the public sphere, all you're going to get are fatter speakers' fees for Jeremiah Wright and endless loops on YouTube intended to incite fear and hatred. Regardless of the efforts of people like you, it ALWAYS devolves to a shouting match between the lowest common denominators, because by definition, demagogues of all stripes have zero interest in any sort of reconciliation.

To turn the old cliche around, it's two steps backward and maybe one step forward---and by the time we've gotten around to taking that one forward step, we might very well have four more years like the last eight to show for it. No, I'm not feeling very Panglossian about the real world effects of black liberation theology at this point. I'll leave the virtues of the theory to others.

Yeah, there is no way anybody is getting tried for war crimes in a US court. Besides the fact that the Military Commissions Act probably shields all those involved from prosecution, I can't imagine Obama, if he's elected, allowing his Justice Department to do that and make that the only issue in the country. But Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Addington, and the rest of them shouldn't plan on going to Europe any time soon, cause there's always the chance of what happened with Pinochet happening to them.

Out of curiousity, do the leaders of China travel freely in Europe?

For the most part this thread has been civil. Please try to keep it that way.

Jim, there have been 2523 posts and so far I can't remember either side making any complaints about personal attacks. I don't think you have too much to worry about.

I do take solace in the limited number of foreign countries to which he and Cheney and Addington and Rice will be able to travel over the rest of their lives. It's not a lot, but it's something, and there are rarely cathartic prosections and trials for international criminals who aren't captured in wartime.

I have serious doubts, especially with European countries, that these types of arrests could ever happen, especially regarding Bush. People want to talk about Bush's effect on diplomacy? It would be a fart in the wind compared to the shitstorm in the diplomatic world if another country tried this.

E-X, you tend to see all this as some sort of a necessary prelude to eventual racial reconciliation, a kind of relationship therapy that begins by telling the two aggrieved parties to "let it all hang out," hopefully ending up like Kramer and the cable guy, with tears and a big hug. And on a one-on-one basis, it may often work, as long as under the competing rhetorics there's at least a sliver of openmindedness and a willingness to see the other point of view.

I can't speak for him, but I really really don't think that's what E-X thinks.

To me, the fact that there is a black discourse on god and community, and a white discourse on god and community, and for the most part that white discourse has no knowledge of the existence of any other, is a bad thing. What we see when whites have to acknowledge the existence of this other discourse, though, is not dialogue but all forms of demogoguery. (On both sides, blah blah blah.) That's also bad.

There isn't going to be "racial healing" in America except over an exceptionally long period of time. There definitely isn't going to be racial healing if discourse on god and community is kept racially segregated, though. What we're going to see in any event is going to be bad, but I hardly think that preferring the bad that is out in the open to the bad that is segregated and hidden is "Panglossian". It's just one weighing of a bad situation.

I have serious doubts, especially with European countries, that these types of arrests could ever happen, especially regarding Bush. People want to talk about Bush's effect on diplomacy? It would be a fart in the wind compared to the shitstorm in the diplomatic world if another country tried this

I also seriously doubt it, but you never know if some judge like the guy who issued the warrant for Pinochet will give it a shot.

Matt (#2525), we're talking on two different (and equal) levels here. You're talking about the long range benefits of honest discourse between the races, which is indisputable. I'm talking about the more immediate effect of black liberation theology as personified by Jeremiah (YouTube) Wright, which may well be four more years of the Republican mafia. And the damage caused by that may not be all that short lived, either.

Matt:

Thanks for the link to Cone's lecture. I studied Cone and other liberation theology and continue to be sympathetic w/aspects of it, but not particularly drawn to his analysis. To illustrate, I found the very last question to be extremely provocative and the kind of question that needs to be pressed. His response, however, was superficial and really avoided trying to reply. Essentially, what the questioner asks is whether Cone's theology romanticizes the Black experience, locks it into a kind of one-dimensional framework, and does the same (I would add) for white experience. What do you think?

there's always the chance of what happened with Pinochet happening to them.

The chance is 0%. Universal jurisdiction requires the person's country to be either unwilling or unable to defend their sovereignty. No mainstream president would let Bush or Rice be arrested by, say, Belgium or Spain, without a very serious response.

I mean, if we had evidence that George Bush was selling secrets to the Russkies, or stabbing hobos in the Rose Garden, we'd impeach him. If there's a crime committed by a chief executive, there needs to be a process by which that crime is prosecuted.

arkitekton's post wasn't discussing impeachment -- it was discussing something wholly different. Impeachment is about removing someone from office and disqualifying them from holding future office; it's not about sending the cops in to put handcuffs on George Bush and throw him into San Quentin. The former is still not a great idea, but ultimately the penalty for being impeached isn't that much worse than the penalty for losing the election in the first place, and that's politics.

Stabbing hobos isn't something I consider analogous; that's not really a "political disagreement". If a future elected official would be provoked into starting a civil war because he feared conviction for hobo-stabbing (and enough of the armed forces went along with it), the republic would be dead anyway.

I also seriously doubt it, but you never know if some judge like the guy who issued the warrant for Pinochet will give it a shot.

I don't doubt some judge might try, but it wouldn't succeed. In the case of Bush, a Secret Service detail isn't going to willingly let Bush be arrested in this manner and force would almost certainly considered a casus belli by either the McCain or Obama administration and the majority of the American people.

JC - I have to run out for most of the day, but I'll put together a good response when I get back.

four more years of the Republican mafia

So John McCain = mafia.

But people who question Obama's relationship with Wright are unreasonable hatemongers. You're a funny guy.

The president isn't going to get arrested, that's silly. He's a symbol of the nation and his office represents laudable aspirations of our nation. No other country is going to interfere with that.

Members of his administration might.

I hate to agree with Chomsky, but if we applied war crimes with the same ease that we did on some of the people at Nuremberg, practically every US president would have already earned a hanging (maybe not Ford?).

"War crimes" are mainly things that are charged to the losing side of a military conflict.

four more years of the Republican mafia

So John McCain = mafia.

But people who question Obama's relationship with Wright are unreasonable hatemongers. You're a funny guy.

Good Face, you seem like a reasonable guy, so let me first apologize for the shorthand, and then make it clear that I'm not referring to McCain per se, who I never even mentioned by name, but to the philosophy of government that we've had for the past eight years. McCain is going to be appointing the same set of characters that Bush has to the courts and the regulatory agencies, and the fact that he's infinitely more appealing than Bush on a personal level isn't going to negate that.

And if you've ever bothered to read what I've written here many times, I have not said that people who intitially raised the question of Obama's relationship to Wright are "hatemongers." What I have said is that the vast majority of those who continue to harp on this "issue," to the near-exclusion of all others, have an agenda which has absolutely nothing to do with any real concerns about this "relationship."

The fact that repeated demands to show any ideological influence of Wright on Obama are met with stonewalls and ridicule shows just how hollow those "concerns" really are. If it were merely a case of "association," we would be spending countless hours worrying about the "association" between James Hillary Carville and Mary McCain Matalin. And yet there's no more evidence that Wright has "influenced" Obama than there is that those two have "influenced" one another.

Stabbing hobos isn't something I consider analogous; that's not something I consider a "political disagreement".

This is why I asked for some clarification of your earlier comment. What you describe as political disagreement, I think reasonable people might say is an actual criminal act.

I usually shut down threads when Godwin's Law is verified.

For the most part this thread has been civil. Please try to keep it that way.

I try to be quite sympathetic to your position of running the site for free, and you do a great job.

That said, this is out of line, IMO, for two reasons. First, it was pretty clear Chris was just using hyperbole, and I don't think any of the Repubs, knowing Chris, took it as a major slam. I am sure it irritated some of them, but it's not like it caused a big firestorm of flames and replies. Second, you yourself, in the previous Obama thread, compared Wright--quite seriously--to David Duke. Now, some people may see that a legit comparison, but it is a huge stretch at best, as discussed, and is unnecessarily inflammatory. There are plenty of ways to slam Wright without going there. Given the fact that you are a Republican, you need to police both sides in something like this.


[edit: responding to someone else's comment, not mine. jf]

I've seen Cone speak a couple of times, and I really haven't seen anything like what Frida cites here.

Well, you are a scholar, so that does not surprise me. But that quote is the main quote one gets on Wikipedia if one googles "Black Liberation Theology" and is presented in the article as "defining" Black liberation theology. The Wikipedia note at the top also says this:

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (April 2008)
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details.
Please consider using {{Expert-subject}} to associate this request with a WikiProject

The message of black theology, also called black liberation theology, is that the African American struggle for liberation is consistent with the Christian gospel — every theological statement must be consistent with, and perpetuate, the goals of liberation. This theology maintains that African Americans must be liberated from multiple forms of bondage — social, political, economic and religious. This liberation involves empowerment and seeks the right of self-definition, self-affirmation and self-determination.

***

I tried to post this last night, but it got eaten.

Maybe I have overdrawn that lesson. But I do think that our total victories over Germany and Japan were the foundation* for the subsequent peace. And I cannot see how, if that is true, that total victory in WWI would not have worked as well.

I don't know that you've overdrawn that lesson; my dispute with you isn't over your proposition that WWI could have turned out better. (I do, however, think you exaggerate significantly how easy it would have been to take Berlin.)

My dispute with you is that I think you're being unfair to Wilson, because you drew that lesson from the aftermath of WWI and the events of WWII. Wilson obviously didn't have the benefit of that knowledge. (Also, as you yourself admit, all of our allies weren't on board with going to Berlin; it's one thing to argue that it would have been a good idea, but doing it unilaterally certainly wouldn't have been realistic.)

There's plenty to criticize Wilson for on the domestic front -- and we can question whether Wilson should have gotten involved in WWI at all. But that's not the same as saying that Wilson should have known that going to Berlin was necessary.

McCain is going to be appointing the same set of characters that Bush has to the courts and the regulatory agencies, and the fact that he's infinitely more appealing than Bush on a personal level isn't going to negate that.

This is subjective, of course, but it's interesting to note the disparity in perception people have; I find Bush far more appealing on a personal level than McCain.

I find Bush far more appealing on a personal level than McCain.

Interesting. Why? I think you may be the first person, of any ideology, that I have heard say this.

Interesting. Why? I think you may be the first person, of any ideology, that I have heard say this.

Well, we're talking on a personal level, no? Bush has the reputation of being quite amiable in person. Hanging around people with bad tempers isn't much fun. I think I'd still rather go out for a night of boozing with Clinton though.

Because I get the sense that McCain is talking down to me and is a bit of a phony; I don't get that sense with Bush, who seems very friendly and likeable. Bill Maher would probably agree with me, as he jokes that Bush is the guy you invite to your barbecue, not someone you put in charge of anything.

Well, we're talking on a personal level, no? Bush has the reputation of being quite amiable in person.

Well, I think McCain's grumpiness has been overblown/distorted because he's old, but I don't know all the details. Bush is "amiable" yeah, but he strikes me as being kind of like the bad stereotypes of a salesman or a frat guy. McCain seems more like you could have a good conversation with him, talk about history and politics etc, and like he has a decent sense of humor.

This theology maintains that African Americans must be liberated from multiple forms of bondage — social, political, economic and religious.

If that's the goal, then Wright should have been drummed out of the church a while ago. When he puts forth absurd ideas like saying that black children don't learn the same way that white children do, that they can't sit quietly at desks, listen to teachers, and read books, he isn't liberating his own people, he's mentally enslaving them. The Klan would be hard pressed to do a better job of caricaturing and sterotyping an entire race than this guy is doing.

I try to be quite sympathetic to your position of running the site for free, and you do a great job.

That said, this is out of line, IMO, for two reasons. First, it was pretty clear Chris was just using hyperbole, and I don't think any of the Repubs, knowing Chris, took it as a major slam. I am sure it irritated some of them, but it's not like it caused a big firestorm of flames and replies.

Not to speak for Jim, but in this instance I am an editor, so I have slightly higher reqs. I think this is okay - I could have chosen a differnet word. And I didn't mean Republicans in general - I meant the ones WAAAAY over there that most Reps go "well, that's like holding up Michael Moore as the Dem std".

If I had said "extremists" instead of "Nazis", Jim wouldn't have said anything - I improperly used an inflammatory term that *could* (but wasn't) have been taken as a personal attack. Jim provided a gentle reminder to everyone, via my misstep, that it is a good thread, so choose words that aren't automatically inflammatory.

I do appreciate the support from both you and Andy, but I think Jim has a point, particularly because I wrote it.

What you describe as political disagreement, I think reasonable people might say is an actual criminal act.

Sorry I didn't answer you -- I wasn't sure from the post if you were asking me a question, or what the question was if so.

But my short answer to this is, There are "crimes" and there are "crimes". Stabbing hobos is not a political question; there's nothing in the responsibilities that inhere in the office of the president that makes hobo-stabbing part of his job. Carrying on foreign policy, et al., is part of his job. If you disagree with his conduct of the job, you can press for impeachment, you can call your Congressmen to pressure him to change it, you can start the process to recall Congressmen who refuse to vote to impeach (or convict, depending on the house). Criminalizing the actions in office of a president would be a nightmare -- how many presidents do you think have not taken actions that would be considered crimes under U.S. law?

It should be noted that Dial's hardly a leftist.

Interesting. Why? I think you may be the first person, of any ideology, that I have heard say this.

Bush is also apparently a passionate baseball fan... that has to count for something on a purely personal level. I'd also rather hang with Clinton if we're going out for drinks though.

Good Face, you seem like a reasonable guy, so let me first apologize for the shorthand, and then make it clear that I'm not referring to McCain per se, who I never even mentioned by name, but to the philosophy of government that we've had for the past eight years. McCain is going to be appointing the same set of characters that Bush has to the courts and the regulatory agencies, and the fact that he's infinitely more appealing than Bush on a personal level isn't going to negate that.

That's a fair response, although I think characterizing Bush's judicial/regulatory appointees as mafiosi is unreasonable. I think his administration was a failure, but not because of his judicial/regulatory appointees. FWIW, I doubt a McCain administration would look or act much like Bush's... I think he has more political smarts than that.

I think I'd still rather go out for a night of boozing with Clinton though.

Agreed. Bill Clinton is someone I find extremely interesting; when I happen to see him being interviewed on tv, I always tivo it and watch it later.

I do appreciate the support from both you and Andy, but I think Jim has a point, particularly because I wrote it.

Well, it speaks well of you to back up Jim and take responsibility, but "Republican Nazis" is silly over-the-top rhetoric and not the kind of stuff that really sets off flame wars here. The flame wars in my exp come from smugness, put-downs, patronizing remarks about people's intellectual capacity, and serious generalizations etc. There has been some of that on this thread and there was a lot--albeit fairly tame--on the other Obama thread.

Re 2545: At least Joey doesn't have me on "ignore user"

It should be noted that Dial's hardly a leftist.

Yeah, that is part of why I said "knowing Chris." Had that come from someone like me, it might have caused a little more irritation.

Re 2545: At least Joey doesn't have me on "ignore user"

I wouldn't ever put anyone on ignore. In my mind, anyone who's insecure in his beliefs that he can't tolerate reading a different opinion from his own is a closed-minded loser.

I want to know what my adversaries are thinking and saying. If I didn't I wouldn't even hang around here.

My guess is that the quote comes from some early texts in the 60s - and, honestly, given that we're talking about a period in the US in which apartheid was the law of the land and domestic terrorism was common against blacks, the notion of a "white enemy" isn't all that hard to grasp.

The inability to distinguish between members of a group is the source of racism in the first place. The notion of a "white enemy" tars all white people with the same brush and is fundamentally flawed as both a moral issue and also as a practical issue (people who are demonized tend to be less sympathetic).

A philosophy that responds to the legitimate issue of a racist, oppressive system with a racist foundation is worthy of criticism.

I wouldn't ever put anyone on ignore.

I don't have quite the same reasons as Joey, but in 15 years of posting on usenet (and more recently here) I've never put anyone in a killfile or on ignore.

I've always found it quite simple to just skip over the people who aren't worth wasting one's time on, or to scan their comments if it looks like they've become interested in contributing something useful. I also prefer to know what they're saying about me than not know.

I've never put anyone in a killfile or on ignore.

Just the one on USENET - rlm.

I do have one here, but it's not because of "challenging ideas" it is just complete inflammatory posts that detract from my enjoyment.

It isn't anyone that argues with me.

But my short answer to this is, There are "crimes" and there are "crimes". Stabbing hobos is not a political question; there's nothing in the responsibilities that inhere in the office of the president that makes hobo-stabbing part of his job. Carrying on foreign policy, et al., is part of his job. If you disagree with his conduct of the job, you can press for impeachment, you can call your Congressmen to pressure him to change it, you can start the process to recall Congressmen who refuse to vote to impeach (or convict, depending on the house). Criminalizing the actions in office of a president would be a nightmare -- how many presidents do you think have not taken actions that would be considered crimes under U.S. law?

If it's true that (nearly) all Presidents commit crimes, then you simply prove that there are not nearly enough checks on the executive.

Of course, we knew that anyway. The President has a responsibility to uphold the law. That needs to be enforced - somehow. It may be true that prosecuting people for the crimes they commit makes them more likely to try to retain power, but it's equally true that saying you'll never prosecute people makes them more likely to commit crimes.

A few posts late with this, but on the issue of whether a President can be arrested for crimes: doesn't Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon effectively indicate that a President can be tried for crimes? And doesn't Bill Clinton's disbarment indicate that ordinary penalties of other kinds can apply? The problem with the arrest-him-for-war-crimes scenario isn't that the President is above the law, since we've had recent examples showing that s/he's as subject to the law as anyone else. The problem is really that the charge is outlandish, the jurisdiction uncertain, the suggestion largely rhetorical posturing, and the whole process, as several posters have shown, utterly impractical. If Bush's policies amount to high crimes, impeachment is precisely where people should start punishing him, because they are, despite their possibly criminal effects, basically political decisions.

Now, Bush might be well-advised to stay away from The Hague after he leaves office. But I can't imagine he even knows where it is. He will probably switch out the ranch in Crawford for a North Dallas split-level and get himself Presidential boxes at the Arlington stadiums.

Of course, we knew that anyway. The President has a responsibility to uphold the law. That needs to be enforced - somehow.

Then impeach him. No, seriously -- if the president is not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office, he should be removed from office. There's a mechanism in place for that.

Then impeach him. No, seriously -- if the president is not fulfilling the responsibilities of his office, he should be removed from office. There's a mechanism in place for that.

Well, firstly, the Constitution expressly states that impeachment does not preclude criminal prosecution.

Secondly, I'm not at all satisfied with purely political checks on executive authority. A President has to uphold the law all the time, not merely when there's a rival party in Congress. Moreover impeachment is simply about removing Bush from office. That's not what we're talking about here.

Frankly, I would not approve of prosecuting a sitting President on a "political" matter except in the utmost extremes. I think (1) it would undermine the political process and (2) the proper mechanism is judicial review. I find it hard to imagine the circumstances where I'd support prosecuting a sitting President on a "political" matter - maybe if the Supreme Court to order the President to do X and he refused to comply, we'd be talking.

But I see absolutely no reason why an ex-President should expect any special favours. Once Bush is out of office he should be absolutely fair game for criminal prosecution.

But I see absolutely no reason why an ex-President should expect any special favours. Once Bush is out of office he should be absolutely fair game for criminal prosecution.

Criminal prosecution for an ex-President for things he did while President? That's more iffy.

Barack Obama said he initially tried to give the Rev. Jeremiah Wright the benefit of the doubt when films clips first surfaced on the Internet of fiery sermons the pastor gave at their Chicago church — a series of haranguing declarations from the pulpit in which he damned the United States for racial oppression and accusing the government of deliberately spreading the HIV virus to harm black people.

This is what I was getting at in #2501. Let's take Obama at his word and assume that he knew nothing, or very little, about Wright's controversial views before the clips of his sermons became public last month.

What caused Obama to reverse field between now and then? What caused him to reverse field after the weekend? Obama's answer to that, above, is that he was giving Wright "the benefit of the doubt." But that doesn't wash. What "doubt" was there, exactly? When someone makes racist and anti-American comments, it's not very likely that those comments are just aberrations and don't actually reflect the person's views.

A few posts late with this, but on the issue of whether a President can be arrested for crimes: doesn't Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon effectively indicate that a President can be tried for crimes? And doesn't Bill Clinton's disbarment indicate that ordinary penalties of other kinds can apply?

Yes, but these aren't really responsive. The duties of the president do not include conducting espionage on the opposition party; nor do they include sexual harassment. A better analogy would be to ask whether President Clinton could have been indicted for, say, bombing Sudan, or for the deaths caused in the Battle of Mogadishu. Or, to go further back a ways, whether FDR could have been indicted for giving billions of dollars worth of war materiel to foreign governments engaged in a war the United States was officially neutral in.

But I see absolutely no reason why an ex-President should expect any special favours. Once Bush is out of office he should be absolutely fair game for criminal prosecution.


The problem is that a President is called upon to make decisions with incomplete information, and is a human being capable of errors of judgment. It's one thing to prosecute the President if he pulls out a gun and shoots a journalist in the back, and something entirely different to go after him for policy decisions.

And if you've ever bothered to read what I've written here many times, I have not said that people who intitially raised the question of Obama's relationship to Wright are "hatemongers." What I have said is that the vast majority of those who continue to harp on this "issue," to the near-exclusion of all others, have an agenda which has absolutely nothing to do with any real concerns about this "relationship."

The fact that repeated demands to show any ideological influence of Wright on Obama are met with stonewalls and ridicule shows just how hollow those "concerns" really are. If it were merely a case of "association," we would be spending countless hours worrying about the "association" between James Hillary Carville and Mary McCain Matalin. And yet there's no more evidence that Wright has "influenced" Obama than there is that those two have "influenced" one another.

Sheesh, Andy. There's dishonest, and then there's just outright lying. You've crossed from politician territory all the way into Kevin territory.

There are real concerns about their relationship. They simply aren't the phony issue you keep raising. There is no "stonewalling." There is a simple denial that this is the issue at all. That doesn't mean that the "concerns" are "hollow." They simply aren't the phony concern you keep lying about. You've simply invented a complete strawman. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT INFLUENCE OTHER THAN YOU. THAT ISN'T THE ISSUE.

You might as well say, "Nobody has ever shown that Wright gave an STD to Obama. People keep ridiculing and stonewalling me when I ask about that. This proves that their concerns about the relationship between the two of them is phony!"

You've already admitted that you're friends with racists. I don't think this means you're a racist. I don't think that they're "rubbing off" on you, or "influencing" you to be racist. But despite not having any "concerns" about these things, I do think it means you shouldn't be president. (Or, rather, if you maintained these friendships while deciding to be in politics, I would think it would mean that.)

The problem is that a President is called upon to make decisions with incomplete information, and is a human being capable of errors of judgment. It's one thing to prosecute the President if he pulls out a gun and shoots a journalist in the back, and something entirely different to go after him for policy decisions.

Agreed - but remember that it would be for the prosecution to establish the requisite mens rea. No-one is talking about prosecuting Presidents for "errors of judgment" but rather for willfully breaking the law.

Let me turn the question around - if the President willfully violates the law, and Congress doesn't care, are the judiciary just supposed to shrug?

With his penchant for signing statements, Bush (or Cheney, or somebody) has determined that the President has the ultimate power (pace John Marshall) to decide what the law is. And really, it's hard to imagine who has the power to stop him twisting the law to his purpose, except Congress via impeachment.

No-one is talking about prosecuting Presidents for "errors of judgment" but rather for willfully breaking the law.


I'm all about prosecuting those crimes.

I have serious doubts, especially with European countries, that these types of arrests could ever happen, especially regarding Bush. People want to talk about Bush's effect on diplomacy? It would be a fart in the wind compared to the shitstorm in the diplomatic world if another country tried this.

The norther European countries are probably safe for this admin to travel to. Spain and Italy might be a bit of a stretch, as could be Scandanavia. They really think of the Bush admin as war criminals par excellence in those places (in my admittedly limited experience.) Eastern Europe is still in the throes of Reagan worship and wouldn't likely bring any charges. With that said, Cheney, Addington and Yoo should probably stay in the states for quite a while, just to be safe. You say an arrest of any of the admin would really, super-duper screw up diplomatic relations, but I think you underestimate how much those relations are already screwed when looking from the other side of the pond.

You say an arrest of any of the admin would really, super-duper screw up diplomatic relations, but I think you underestimate how much those relations are already screwed when looking from the other side of the pond.

But as you say, for the most part, those relations are screwed up on one side. Americans, by and large, don't hate, say, Spain. Moreover, I suspect that most Spaniards rightly direct their hatred at the current administration moreso than at America in general.

As somebody upthread said, even a President Obama or President Clinton would object to George W. Bush being arrested in Spain as would the American public at large, at which point the hatred is now two-sided - at that point, Americans, by and large, would hate Spain - and the anti-Bush hatred in Spain would extend to his defenders in America, i.e., the new government and the general public, and it would become much more clearly anti-American.

I'm all about prosecuting those crimes.

Damned if I can remember the source, but Obama said something to the effect that if it looked like crimes were committed, the evidence would have to be pursued.

"There are real concerns about their relationship."

Which are? Not a gotcha--I am just trying to understand this without arguing about it anymore. You said that they are not policy concerns, so I assume you are simply asserting that Obama's relationship with Wright, in and of itself, indicates that Obama has fundamental defects of character and judgment, that, even though you said the relationship would not "cause" "bad" policy, show he is unfit for the office. Is that accurate?

Republicans and the moronic failures that support them should be rounded up en masse and thrown in jail.


/there, that should kickstart this ###### for another thousand posts.

/there, that should kickstart this ###### for another thousand posts.

If that's what you're going for, you'll have to do more than just state the obvious.

And if you've ever bothered to read what I've written here many times, I have not said that people who intitially raised the question of Obama's relationship to Wright are "hatemongers." What I have said is that the vast majority of those who continue to harp on this "issue," to the near-exclusion of all others, have an agenda which has absolutely nothing to do with any real concerns about this "relationship."

The fact that repeated demands to show any ideological influence of Wright on Obama are met with stonewalls and ridicule shows just how hollow those "concerns" really are. If it were merely a case of "association," we would be spending countless hours worrying about the "association" between James Hillary Carville and Mary McCain Matalin. And yet there's no more evidence that Wright has "influenced" Obama than there is that those two have "influenced" one another.

Sheesh, Andy. There's dishonest, and then there's just outright lying. You've crossed from politician territory all the way into Kevin territory.

There are real concerns about their relationship. They simply aren't the phony issue you keep raising. There is no "stonewalling." There is a simple denial that this is the issue at all. That doesn't mean that the "concerns" are "hollow." They simply aren't the phony concern you keep lying about. You've simply invented a complete strawman. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT INFLUENCE OTHER THAN YOU. THAT ISN'T THE ISSUE.

Emphasis in the original. I hope that this was a parody of my own liberal use of boldface, because otherwise you're getting into some rather weird territory yourself.

In fact several people besides me have either raised or agreed with my point that these "real concerns" you keep raising are hollow ones, given the complete absence of political or ideological influence on the part of Wright to Obama. These "real concerns" you keep talking about seem to reduce to "association," and nothing beyond that. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that this "association" would have even a trace of bearing on an Obama presidency, except perhaps in your rather vivid imagination. And so many of us do indeed wonder what all the fuss is all about, beyond the entirely understandable one of trying to discredit a political opponent by any means necessary.

You might as well say, "Nobody has ever shown that Wright gave an STD to Obama. People keep ridiculing and stonewalling me when I ask about that. This proves that their concerns about the relationship between the two of them is phony!"

Again, these "concerns" begin and end with the fact of association. You keep hinting ("bad judgment," yada yada yada) that there's fire behind the smoke, but lots of us recognize who's been throwing kerosene on the embers for the better part of two months, and it hasn't been Obama.

You've already admitted that you're friends with racists. I don't think this means you're a racist.

To quote an old schoolyard expression from a less pleasant age: That's mighty white of you.

I don't think that they're "rubbing off" on you, or "influencing" you to be racist. But despite not having any "concerns" about these things, I do think it means you shouldn't be president.

If you ever run out of more substantive reasons, I'll gladly supply you with a few hundred, a number only limited by my evocation of spousal privilege. But the fact that I've had more than a few racist friends is in itself about as disqualifying as it would have been for Lyndon Johnson. I think that Dial answered this whole silly line of reasoning rather effectively, and I don't feel any necessity to go beyond what he expressed better than I could.

(Or, rather, if you maintained these friendships while deciding to be in politics, I would think it would mean that.)

I think if you searched real hard, you might even come up with a few examples of Presidents who invited friends like that to the White House on more than ceremonial occasions, and who were every bit as aware of their racial views as you say that Obama should have been about Wright's.

Nice handle change, ark.

I'm thinking of changing mine to "Marcus Porcius Cato's #1 Fan".

BTW, how did the Hampton thing come about? Are you a supporter of Mike's or are you expressing dismay at his lack of, uh, physical reliability?

BTW, how did the Hampton thing come about? Are you a supporter of Mike's or are you expressing dismay at his lack of, uh, physical reliability?

This was after he'd started to get hurt all the time, and it was a semi-sarcastic attempt to come up with a handle that nobody else would be likely to dispute. It worked, too; somebody at one point said "You don't need to say you're his #1 fan. When you say you're his fan, that's just implied."

These "real concerns" you keep talking about seem to reduce to "association," and nothing beyond that. There is absolutely no evidence of any kind that this "association" would have even a trace of bearing on an Obama presidency, except perhaps in your rather vivid imagination.

While my battles on this subject have been confined mostly to Usenet, I too am waiting for an answer to this question. From anyone. I'm waiting for anyone to suss out what those "real concerns" are, in terms that aren't empty placeholders like "real concerns." What concerns you about this, and specifically what concerns you about this that doesn't concern you equally or moreso about, for example, John McCain's embrace of John Hagee?

You say an arrest of any of the admin would really, super-duper screw up diplomatic relations, but I think you underestimate how much those relations are already screwed when looking from the other side of the pond.

I think you're underestimating just how strong our reaction to this would be. Other countries may have disagreements with our Iraq policy, but there's no real hostility between our government and European governments, as there would certainly be if an administration official was detained by one of those governments (and to a lesser extend erecting new trade barriers).

Republicans and the moronic failures that support them should be rounded up en masse and thrown in jail.

/there, that should kickstart this ###### for another thousand posts

Post #1 of the Todd Jones thread is more of a kick-starter than this one. That thread has all kinds of massive-post potential.

What concerns you about this, and specifically what concerns you about this that doesn't concern you equally or moreso about, for example, John McCain's embrace of John Hagee?

Except Jeremiah Wright isn't just some guy that just happened to endorse Obama. If McCain had been bringing his family to listen to Hagee speak for 20 years then yes, his association with Hagee would be equally relevant.

The problem is really that the charge is outlandish,

Why? If Bush and top members of his administration approved of a policy of torture, and all indications are that they did, then why is the charge of war crimes outlandish?

I have never bought the Hagee/Wright comp either on many levels and as such have never used it to support Obama. That said, it has been written--often--that McCain sought Hagee's endorsement, not that it "just happened." I found this in 30 seconds:

while McCain actively sought Hagee’s (support) and appeared on stage with him

.

..from an admittedly leftish source.

Also, not caring about McCain and Hagee or about where McCain goes to church or who he hangs out with, I don't know if it is true, and have not researched it. But I have seen it asserted a lot.

Again, these "concerns" begin and end with the fact of association. You keep hinting ("bad judgment," yada yada yada) that there's fire behind the smoke, but lots of us recognize who's been throwing kerosene on the embers for the better part of two months, and it hasn't been Obama.

This whole Wright fiasco has been the function of two things: (1) the hopelessly lost media's financial interest in keeping the Democratic race as competitive and provocative for as long as possible; and (2) the need for "respectable" cover for those in whose proclivities and/or interest it is to scream as loudly and as often as possible, "HEY AMERICA, YOU'RE ABOUT READY TO ELECT A BLACK MAN TO THE PRESIDENCY."(**)

There was a time when thoughtful people were perplexed by the idea that someone could be famous for being famous. We've now passed the first inning of the era in which things are newsworthy because they're in the news. And it ain't pretty.

(**) (2) is why it was written above that if Wright hadn't existed, he would have been invented.

Why? If Bush and top members of his administration approved of a policy of torture, and all indications are that they did, then why is the charge of war crimes outlandish?

Outlandish? At this point it's essentially proven.

Which are? Not a gotcha--I am just trying to understand this without arguing about it anymore. You said that they are not policy concerns, so I assume you are simply asserting that Obama's relationship with Wright, in and of itself, indicates that Obama has fundamental defects of character and judgment, that, even though you said the relationship would not "cause" "bad" policy, show he is unfit for the office. Is that accurate?

Speaking, obviously, for myself, my concerns are character, judgment, honesty, and reputation. As to reputation, I think that who someone associates with, or forms a close longstanding relationship with of the kind they had, certainly has an effect on how the person is viewed by others, on how seriously he is taken by others, and on how deeply he is respected by others. Since the president is the face of our country, I want someone who will be respected.

I also think that judgment, character, honesty, and reputation are things which impact a president's decisionmaking ability, and therefore I think that if some of these are questionable, it can represent flaws in his decisionmaking ability in the abstract.

Nobody thought associations weren't relevant until Obama became sainted.

Except Jeremiah Wright isn't just some guy that just happened to endorse Obama. If McCain had been bringing his family to listen to Hagee speak for 20 years then yes, his association with Hagee would be equally relevant.

Nobody with any pull ever "just happens" to endorse anybody. While I'm certain sophists will contend otherwise, few if any endorsements are obtained without the recipient committing association.

Outlandish? At this point it's essentially proven.

But again, if those are war crimes, then which living former president shouldn't also be indicted? The first Bush administration encouraged a civil war in Yugoslavia. Clinton and other leaders of NATO set forth a policy in which civilian targets and civilian infrastructure were specifically bombed in Yugoslavia. Carter and Reagan played their respective Nicaragua games. All of the above presidents continued a trade policy with Cuba that resulted in many deaths.

Nobody with any pull ever "just happens" to endorse anybody. While I'm certain sophists will contend otherwise, few if any endorsements are obtained without the recipient committing association.

So, when the editorials of the majority of newspapers officially endorse Obama instead of McCain this autumn, you'll decry the media being associated with a candidate? I won't hold my breath.

If Bush and top members of his administration approved of a policy of torture, and all indications are that they did, then why is the charge of war crimes outlandish?

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that Bush et al. are not torturing. It's just that it's a bizarre use of the criminal process. The original suggestion was something like the DC Police should show up at 1600 with a warrant for W. on charges of crimes against humanity, or something. That, to me, is outlandish; it's only suggested for rhetorical effect. The thing to do would be to ask the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in The Hague to investigate Bush (which the U.S. would ignore anyway). The procedure of asking some state or DC authority to arrest the President is outlandish, not the notion that he's a torturer.

Edit: and I quite agree with Dan in #2590. All Presidents play fast and loose with international law, some more than others; and some Congresses are better at reining them in than others.

I appreciate the direct response, Ray, but the phrasing, style and intensity of your questioning of the issue over the last month had already made all of that quite clear. Nieporent I am not as sure about.

Nobody thought associations weren't relevant until Obama became sainted.

This is exactly why I don't argue with you about this anymore, and, frankly, it throws this "I am not voting for any of these people" line of yours into serious question. There are irrationally worshipful Obama supporters, (although I do not personally know any) but that is true of any candidate a lot of people like. There are also reasonable Obama supporters, and this type of line, to use Crosbybird's line, IMO "tars us with the same brush."

There are irrationally worshipful Obama supporters, (although I do not personally know any) but that is true of any candidate a lot of people like. There are also reasonable Obama supporters

I agree. I voted for Obama, but mainly because there were two candidates left when the Democrats pulled into Texas, and he is a step to the left of Clinton, as far as I can tell. He remains easily my choice over HRC or McCain, but I haven't tattooed his image all over my body or anything. Nor have I seen many Texas Obama voters behave in a cult-like manner. There was a loud dogmatic clod at my precinct convention hollering that the vote-counters were disqualifying only Obama voters, but the vote-counters turned out to be Obama delegates, so I figured the clod for a simple clod, not a representative Obamabot.

But again, if those are war crimes, then which living former president shouldn't also be indicted? The first Bush administration encouraged a civil war in Yugoslavia. Clinton and other leaders of NATO set forth a policy in which civilian targets and civilian infrastructure were specifically bombed in Yugoslavia. Carter and Reagan played their respective Nicaragua games. All of the above presidents continued a trade policy with Cuba that resulted in many deaths.

None of them. Your first example is not a war crime. Your second probably isn't and isn't borne out by the historical record in the terms you state. The third, among other deficiencies, contains meaningless fudge words. The fourth isn't a war crime.(**)

Your implicit claim of significant doubt or ambiguity about the war crimes under discussion is also misplaced.

(**) I also hope you took note of my comments about the president himself above and aren't attributing to me something I haven't said.

Except Jeremiah Wright isn't just some guy that just happened to endorse Obama. If McCain had been bringing his family to listen to Hagee speak for 20 years then yes, his association with Hagee would be equally relevant.

This seems right backwards to me. Obama, assuming he wasn't on the road campaigning or in DC doing his job there, took his family to a church with over 8000 members in their home district of Chicago. There he was ministered to by Wright and others, and he ministered to Wright and others. He was not present for the sound-bite loop sermons in 2001. He disagreed with Wright and debated him often, but he has not nor is not in some sort of spiritual thrall of the man. This fact can be easily ascertained by looking at the statements made by Obama and contrasting them with the controversial statements from Wright. When Wright refused to put down the more offensive remarks and rather further endorsed them, Obama said "that's enough. That's not me." When presented with pseudo-religious divisivness masquerading as spirituality Barack Obama said no and walked away.

When presented with that same pseudo-religious divisiveness in the form or James Dobson, Pat Robertson and/or John Hagee, John McCain said "I'll pretend to like you to get your votes."

That does say something about their respective characters and judgement, but it doesn't paint _Obama_ in the negative light, IMHO.

This seems right backwards to me. Obama, assuming he wasn't on the road campaigning or in DC doing his job there, took his family to a church with over 8000 members in their home district of Chicago. There he was ministered to by Wright and others, and he ministered to Wright and others.

Either I haven't been paying enough attention to the details of this pseudo-story, or I'm misinterpreting you.

Are there more than one pastors to Obama's congregation?

Which are? Not a gotcha--I am just trying to understand this without arguing about it anymore. You said that they are not policy concerns, so I assume you are simply asserting that Obama's relationship with Wright, in and of itself, indicates that Obama has fundamental defects of character and judgment, that, even though you said the relationship would not "cause" "bad" policy, show he is unfit for the office. Is that accurate?

Speaking, obviously, for myself, my concerns are character, judgment, honesty, and reputation. As to reputation, I think that who someone associates with, or forms a close longstanding relationship with of the kind they had, certainly has an effect on how the person is viewed by others, on how seriously he is taken by others, and on how deeply he is respected by others. Since the president is the face of our country, I want someone who will be respected.

I also think that judgment, character, honesty, and reputation are things which impact a president's decisionmaking ability, and therefore I think that if some of these are questionable, it can represent flaws in his decisionmaking ability in the abstract.

Nobody thought associations weren't relevant until Obama became sainted.

Here's another honest question for you, Ray: Using these standards, is there really any candidate in your memory who is (or was) so free of tainted associations that he or she receives (or received) your support? When it comes to allowable associations, what's the dividing line that separates pariah from non-pariah?

There are irrationally worshipful Obama supporters, (although I do not personally know any) but that is true of any candidate a lot of people like. There are also reasonable Obama supporters, and this type of line, to use Crosbybird's line, IMO "tars us with the same brush."

Chris Matthews feels a "tingle" when Obama speaks.

But RR: Do you think that associations are not relevant? If so, did you always think this?

Note that you didn't hear me criticizing Obama when Farrakhan endorsed him; I thought Obama answered that question very well in that particular debate by saying that he can't control who endorses him.

Hell, I haven't even criticized Obama with respect to the Ayers issue, since the connection between Obama and Ayers is so attenuated. The Ayers "association" is nothing like the Wright one.

The Wright association is of a completely different kind, and people who bring up Hagee-McCain are simply failing to acknowledge that.

On a completely different subject, my wife tells me that the cat needs anxiety medication. At this rate, I'm going to need anxiety medication, never mind the cat.

The Wright association is of a completely different kind, and people who bring up Hagee-McCain are simply failing to acknowledge that.

Well, it certainly is of a different kind from the ones in which the recipient gets up on stage with a Falwell or Robertson and not only accepts the endorsement but promises the audience to do everything he can to enact policies Pat & Jerry like.

You know, the kind of thing that happens all the time in the real world of politics (**), but that you've airbrushed out of your fantasy world.

(**) But not of course in the very example that obsesses you, wherein Wright has not endorsed Obama, they never appeared on stage together, and Obama has repudiated Wright.