Have an account? Log in to leave your comments!
journal: think
On ‘A More Perfect Union’
I typically don’t like posting articles that are political in nature here, but since I have nothing better to write about (and don’t have a personal blog), here goes…
In light of Senator Barack Obama’s speech ”A More Perfect Union” and the whole brouhaha over Rev. Wright, I have three questions:
Would the response be the same if any of the other Presidential candidates were embroiled in a similar controversy? Would there be such a large uproar (or maybe a bigger uproar)? And how would the other candidates handle such a situation?
How much should the expressed beliefs and views of a close friend or family member impact a candidate running for office?
Should someone leave a congregation because they strongly disagree with the pastor?
Leave a comment. I may or may not post my opinion, depending on how much I want to get into the debate.
And with that, we return to our regularly scheduled programming!
 |
3 | 536 |
| Nick | comments | views |
thinkback
Great response, Kelly.
I’m quite sure if David Duke was the pastor of John McCain’s church, and John went there for 20 years and was married by David Duke and had his children baptized by David Duke, yeah, there would be a huge controversy.
All you have to do is ask Don Imus.
Hell, the mainstream media made it a big story when George Bush just spoke at an “offensive” university, Bob Jones.
Hell (again), Obama and Clinton won’t even debate on Fox News because it’s “offensive” to left-wing loons. He’ll go to a church led by a hate-spewer for 20 years but Fox News is where he draws the line. LOL
We don’t choose our family. We choose our pastors.
The pastor’s comments were not religious, they were political, so they are fair game.
Obama is finished. You think the Swiftboat Vets were damaging to John Kerry? You haven’t seen anything yet. All the GOP has to do is run those Wright videos over and over in October and let everyone know this man was the guy who baptized Obama’s daughters and married Obama and his wife who, by the way, was just recently proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.
| Mar. 26, 2008 | ||
| 9:24 am |
Personally I’m starting to think the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot by allowing this campaign to drag on for so long and become so vitriolic.
As for my own questions, I’m going to put it this way: Does it bother me that Rev. Wright said what he did? Yes. But then again, what would I do in a similar situation? I have no idea. If a close friend of mine said some pretty outlandish things publicly, I don’t know if I’d be able to renounce the person. Renounce the words? For sure. But the person? I’m not so sure if I could do that. So...yeah. Remind me to never run for president. 
And then there’s one more question: how severe do the outlandish comments from a friend/family member have to be before they should impact a candidate?
About Michelle Obama’s comments: who knows what she really meant. The way I interpret it is like this: it’s been decades since a candidate has been able to inspire the young and those who don’t normally participate in politics the way Obama has. So in that regard I can see where she’s coming from. Me? I’m always proud of my country. I don’t necessarily agree with what the government does all the time, of course, but I’ve never been afraid to say that I’m an American. However, seeing people who don’t usually participate in our democracy get out and vote (note the record turnouts in many of the primaries so far) makes me more proud to be an American than I’ve been in a long time. It’s great seeing people from all walks of life realize that this is their country too, and if they want change, they have to be part of it. They too have to take ownership of this country. And for the first time in ages, it appears that is what is happening. Now, whether or not that is what Michelle Obama was trying to say is anyone’s guess--nobody knows except her, and she may or may not have have misspoke--but this is how I interpret that comment.
P.S. Sorry for not responding sooner; I’ve been very much caught up with other matters, so DT’s taken a bit of a back seat lately.
| Nick | Mar. 31, 2008 | |
| 12:38 am |
1.
On Question #1 - There would be a large response for any candidate, but for one that expressly campaigns on the ideas of “transcending race”, “unity”, and a different kind of politics this seems especially telling. Also there is just not that much out there to use to access the content of Obama’s character - so to speak. I do give him credit for trying to address the issue squarely and eloquently rather than continuing to try to evade it. The Clintons would have never taken this path.
On Question #2 - Once again the issue relates to the way Obama has positioned himself, he says he wants to bring us together yet he chose a leader for himself and his family that regularly engages in hate speech. How does that square? He says (beautifully...) that he wants to bridge what divides us, but his positions are stock left-liberal and he never crosses the aisle and works in a bipartisan way. McCain has done that many times and suffered for it greatly. We need to see an example where Obama has taken a risk in support of the ideals he describes so well.
On Question #3 - Quitting his church would have been a great example of what I am talking about. Oprah did it. If I attended a church and the pastor made racist statement or told a purposeful lie (like our government created AIDS to kill blacks) I would certainly leave and I would wonder about those that stayed behind. What about you?