As with the entire brand of politics you embrace, this microscopic examination of the faults of one man makes me feel smaller for having read it.
Dude. Did you not hear the speech. We can continue to do politics like this. But if we do nothing will get solved. You will spew this stuff and I will filter it. Some blacks will be angry and some whites will be fearful. The rick will get richer and the rest of us will continue to lose ground. Can you really not see that tail wagging the dog? On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 3:48 PM, sam morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDU5ZTZmMDBlNDg2YWUwZjg5ZTM0NDVkY2FlMDBmM2Q= > > MoveOn Move In [Stanley Kurtz] > > Obama's speech was thoughtful, powerful, and to many will be persuasive. But > on behalf of what exactly has this persuasive power been deployed? We're > being asked to adopt an attitude of relative complacency toward a man who > takes just about the most radical and profoundly troubling stance toward his > own country that an American can take. > > One false equivalence after another is being drawn between, say, Geraldine > Ferraro's comments or opponents of affirmative action, on the one hand, and > Jeremiah Wright's remarks, on the other. Wright's view of America is rejected > as mistaken, and insufficiently hopeful about the country's potential to > change. Yet in the end Wright is embraced, accepted, and even to a degree > justified. Wright has some basis for what he says, yet also makes mistakes, > we're told, and are then reminded that the same can be said for opponents of > affirmative action or proponents of welfare reform. Well, at some broad > level, everyone has good points and also makes mistakes, but there is such a > thing as a false equivalence, as we learned, say, during the Cold War, when > apologists for communism argued that the two big powers were roughly equal > forces for good and evil in the world. > > Obama is persuasive because he's sincere. You wonder how he could have sat > for twenty years in Wright's congregation listening to his minister's > shocking radicalism without leaving. Obama explains it here. He sees some > exaggeration and excessive pessimism in Wright's stance, yet he also sees the > authentic voice of African-American pain. And this led Obama to tolerate, > excuse, and dismiss for decades what ought not to have been tolerated, > excused, or dismissed. This, unfortunately, is exactly how elite liberals > come to countenance the sort of anti-American radicalism they ought to stand > up and fight instead. > > Remember when we were hearing about the need to purge Michael Moore and the > MoveOn crowd from the Democratic Party? Obama is the polar opposite of all > thatand in a devilishly clever way. Rather than move the Democrats away from > the Michael Moores or Jeremiah Wrights, Obama buys absolution for them from > the rest of the country. No, Obama does not fully agree with Jeremiah Wright, > but the Democratic Party under Obama will be complacent about its Michael > Moore wing. That's why the MoveOn types are so excited about Obama. There > will be plenty of the most left-leaning appointees staffing the federal > bureaucracy and set into judgeships under Obama, and all of it will be > smoothed over by speeches about national healing and understanding pain. > Under Obama, the Michael Moore-MoveOn wing, far from being purged, will be in > the catbird seat, and all because they've found the perfect spokesman. > > Obama says he's too close, and too personally indebted to Wright, to break > with him. But how did he get close to Wright to begin with? Wright could not > have taken up so huge a space in Obama's life unless Obama had let Wright in. > And Obama let Wright in because of Wright's sermons, not in spite of them. > Obama may not have agreed with Wright's solutions, or even with his final > judgements, but something about Wright's anger had to have attracted > Obamahad to have seemed tantalizingly "authentic." From the beginning, Obama > had to have been sufficiently attracted to Wright's excesses to forgive them. > Then he sought to draw closer. In this positive attraction to anti-American > anger (even if that anger is not quite entirely shared) Obama embodies the > sensibilities of the elite academic radicals that are his real heritage and > milieu. > > Far from pulling a Hubert Humphrey or a Tony Blair and casting the radical > left out of the party, Obama seems to see his job as getting the rest of the > country to adopt a stance of relative complacency toward the most egregious > sorts of anti-Americanismall under the guise of achieving national unity. > The real precedent here is Jimmy Carter sitting next to Michael Moore at the > Democratic National Convention. Does Carter endorse everything Michael Moore > says? I doubt it. If pressed, would Carter in fact condemn some of what Moore > has said? Most likely. But in the end, Carter stood with Moore and put an > acceptable face on what should in fact be considered unacceptable. Of course, > even that doesn't begin to compare to Obama's decades-long association with > Wright, and his decision, for years, to place Wright at the core of his > political identity. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256757 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
