Ignoring The Elephant In The Room


Chris Beneke and John Fea are academics, historians, and authors who recently penned (penciled? typed? e-mailed?) a commentary in The Philadelphia Inquirer examining the religious test for office in the U.S.A.

That would, of course, be a de facto, rather than de jure, test.     Article VI of the U.S. Constitution stipulates "no religious Test shall ever be required a a Qualifcation to any Office or public Trust under the United States."  Still, as Beneke and Fea point out, President-elect Eisenhower in 1952 argued "our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is.... With us, of course, it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion with all men are created equal."     Accordingly, few people care that the current Vice-President of the United States is a Roman Catholic, either of the two men who will serve in that office the next four years is a Roman Catholic, or that of the nine sitting Supreme Court Justices, none is of the majority American religion, Protestantism.

Of course, no Muslims or atheists need apply.    Beneke and Fea conclude

So here's an update of our unofficial religious requirements for the presidency:   An unprecedented array of traditions, including Protestantism, Catholicism, Mormonism, and, probably to a slightly lesser degree, Judaism, now qualify candidates for the office.  But Eisenhower's Judeo-Christian criterion clearly abides.

This is not the founders' religious test for office, or even your parents'.   But it's a religious test all the same.

And so it is.   But Beneke-Fey could get great odds in Las Vegas betting on their suspicion "if recent eletions are any guide, Romney and Ryan  must maintain a steady drumbeat of God-fearing, Jesus-soaked expression until November."

While both Republicans will refer periodically to God, neither will allow his statements to be immersed in references to Jesus.   The Christian right will march in lockstep with the ticket anyway, less so because of a suspicion that Barack Obama is a Muslim than because Romney and Ryan pledge fealty to conservative policies.   And heaven forbid any candidate for national office even hint at a fear of God while appealing to voters, most of whom are convinced they're good people, have nothing to fear from God, and will be presented upon death with a deserved one-way ticket to heaven.

In particular, though, the religious views of Romney, once a Bishop in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, has presented a dilemma in his two presidential runs.    He could have publicly embraced his faith, asserting its importance to him in his family life and perspective toward politics and culture.  Or he could have, just as courageously, gone the JFK route, assuring the public that he would decide issues strictly on the basis of their merits, without regard to his religious affiliation or perspective.

We shouldn't be surprised that, faced with two options which would have boldly opened to discussion among the American people the role of religion in American life, Willard Mitt Romney has chosen neither.

Notwithstanding a speech during his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, Romney has ignored the issue this cycle.    He has instead subtly raised the matter of religion, telling a town hall audience that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are "probably inspired"- i.e., directly or indirectly, likely emanating from God.

It's safe in a Repub primary to imply that our founding documents have received more than a divine vote of confidence.    It might come as a surprise to individuals stuck under a totalitarian government that rights come from God.   However, most of them aren't of a Christian denomination (nor are they Jewish, for that matter) and few conservatives would conclude that those folks are quite our equals, anyway.  With a figurative nod and a wink from Romney, most conservatives recognized what he was saying; others probably disregarded the remark. It was a clever way of injecting religion into politics, but in such a manner as to permit the candidate plausible deniability, if necessary.  Which it wasn't.

Presidential candidates are never shy in exploiting their background, especially their family, to create their own narrative as to how their lives have been shaped and their views come to fruition.  (This is especially true with Paul Ryan, now shamelessly using his mother to campaign with him.)   But Mitt Romney has temporarily forgotten his prior life with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.    Consequently, Helen C. Whitney, who produced the PBS series The Mormons, and Gregory Prince, a practicing Mormon who consulted on the documentary, have posed the following nine questions they believe Romney should address:

1. How have your early experiences within the Mormon Church -- particularly your two-year proselytizing mission to France and your service as Bishop and Stake President -- shaped your character and your worldview?

2. How does Mormonism's boundless optimism, which transcends even death in a manner unlike any other religion, shape your vision of America's present and future?

3. All religions have fabulous foundational stories. The Mormons are no exception. The difference is that their theology is younger and famously literal. It tells us that God has a body, that there is a plurality of Gods who eat and drink and mate as we do, that the golden plates were real, and that when we die there is a concrete and specific heaven where families are reunited. How has the singular physicality of your faith shaped your view of the world, not only as a private citizen but as a national leader?

4. When Mormons are asked about Joseph Smith's powerful final vision about man becoming God, "God-like" is almost always substituted for becoming God. But Mormonism's oft-quoted tenet is unambiguous: "As God is, man may become." Can you explain this core belief in a way that addresses the charge of blasphemy made by other religions?

5. Why do your new positions on immigration, social welfare, gay rights and abortion differ from official positions of the Mormon Church? Can you place these differences in a context that reassures Americans that Mormonism is not a philosophical monolith -- that indeed there is ample room within the label of "devout Mormon" for people as diverse as you and Senator Harry Reid?

6. What your church labels "sacred" is frequently termed by others "secret" or even "sinister," leading many to conclude that Mormons may not always be telling us what they truly believe. How can you assuage these suspicions by articulating your beliefs?

7. Given that your church's highest leadership councils consist entirely of white males, that it denies its lay priesthood to women and that it played the decisive role in the passage of California's Proposition 8, how can you assure the American public that the composition of your administration and the policies that you would pursue would be reflective of, and responsive to, the diversity that is the foundation of this nation's strength?

8. When asked about the part of his Baptist faith that meant most to him personally and as the nation's leader, President Clinton spoke movingly -- and in his words --about "the God of second chances." Human fallibility and the possibility of divine redemption -- these were Clinton's themes. What element of Mormon history or theology has had special resonance for you and has shaped your view of human nature, and of God?

9. Of all the misconceptions surrounding your religion, which one has offended you the most? Or, to interject a lighter note, what misinformation or stereotype has caused you to roll your eyes and even laugh when you are with your Mormon friends?

Whitney-Prince cite the candidate's "reluctance to be open about his religion" and assess a willingness to respond to the questions as "an opportunity for him to begin to emerge from obscurity."   Romney obviously will not address these, but he hardly can be blamed for not opening a Pandora's box that would likely lead to his defeat.   More importantly, the media will continue to please the presumptive Repub candidate by ignoring the issue.     This may not be a conscious attempt to favor the GOP but rather a skittishness at considering religion at all.   The media, however, play a major role in setting the terms of debate in an election.    And in  an electorate which knows far more about Reverend Jeremiah Wright than about Joseph Smith, those terms are lopsided.



Share |

Fear Abroad In The Land


We can all rest easy.    Mitt Romney believes President Obama should not be tried for treason.    On Monday, a a woman at a rally in Cleveland, Ohio for the former governor maintained the President is "operating outside the structure of our Constitution" and should be "tried for treason."   Romney did not explicitly reject the suggestion, though when asked by a reporter a few hours later whether he agreed with his supporter, stated "of course not." He later told CNN "obviously, I don't agree that he should be tried."     There has been no word whether Romney believes Barack Obama actually has committed treason, but at least he opposes prosecution.

This being Romney, a noncommittal response was unsurprising.     Still, it elicited widespread response, most critics  contrasting it unfavorably to that of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who corrected a supporter in the fall of 2008 by describing Barack Obama as "a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues."

But while much attention was paid to what Romney did not say in response to the supporter's assertion at the Cleveland rally, there was little if any notice taken of what the Massachusetts governor did say in response.   "I happen to believe that the Constitution was not just brilliant, but probably inspired.   I happen to believe the same thing about the Declaration of Independence,"  represented a nod and a wink to the far right.      It echoed a January statement of Romney's rival, Rick Santorum, who contended “The Constitution is there to do one thing, protect God-given rights.    That’s what makes America different than every other country in the world.”

Santorum, arguably, is the figure on the national stage who most closely resembles a theocrat, a standing which doomed his candidacy from the start.     He wears his religion on his sleeve and presented a clear contrast not just from Romney but from Gingrich, Paul, and,  practically all other plausible presidential contenders in recent years.    Clearly, Santorum's religious perspective informs his political views, and to a dramatic degree.

Given an opportunity in GOP primaries to select Santorum, most voters ultimately went in another direction.  Mitt Romney, set to be crowned the nominee in Tampa, is presumed to judge issues and approach problems in a more conventional, secular, and less heavenly way.    That Mitt Romney, however, strategically suggests the United States Constitution is "probably inspired."    Presumably, he means by God, for otherwise everything which occurs is inspired in some way by someone and the comment is superfluous.    

The fear across the media of delving into a candidate's religious beliefs is probably magnified when applied to Romney, ironically precisely because of the controversy over his faith.    With many Americans believing that the candidate does not belong to the (un)officially approved religion- Christianity- many members of the media probably are terrified of asking Romney what he actually believes, for fear of being accused of bigotry.

But question they must, not into an individual's most private of beliefs, but rather to determine how those views influence the candidate's opinion on political issues.    Obviously, Senator Barack Obama, plagued by the hysteria over Reverend Jeremiah Wright, faced such questioning.     Romney, now aspiring to the same office as was Obama, should not escape such scrutiny, albeit in a more calm and objective fashion.     He has, inadvertently, opened the topic and, perhaps inadvertently, invited inquiry.      When a supporter raises the issue of prosecuting the President of the United States and the candidate, choosing not to scold her gently, instead maintains that the Constitution is probably "inspired," it is hardly pushy to ask "by whom?"

Failure to probe the meaning of an intriguing comment, offered in response to an outrageous assertion, is giving the politician a free pass.       And make no mistake about it:    Romney, who has had experience as a dog owner (insert joke or cheap shot here), knows a thing or two about dog whistles.     It is akin to South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham once responding to a reporter's question about another politician's ethical foibles by first saying "we all fall short."       The intended audience knows what the speaker is implying, even if much of the larger audience is in the dark.    Let there be light.



Share |

In Attack Mode



Foster Friess, Rick Santorum's sugar daddy,  told Andrea Mitchell onThursday  

We have jihadist camps being set up in Latin America, which Rick has been warning about and people seem to be so preoccupied with sex -- I think it says something about our culture. We maybe need a massive therapy session so we can concentrate on what the real issues are.       This contraceptive thing, my gosh it's such [sic] inexpensive. 

Back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn't that costly.

Later, Friess apologized (sort of) for his ludicrous and offensive remark, blogging

After listening to the segment tonight, I can understand how I confused people with the way I worded the joke and their taking offense is very understandable.       To all those who took my joke as modern day approach I deeply apologize and seek your forgiveness.

It was closer to an unequivocal admission of wrongdoing than heard from most public figures (politicians, athletes, and others) who make a disgusting remark and was, relatively speaking, fairly classy.

Not so than the guy he wants to put into the White House and control.          Appearing Friday morning on CBS' Morning Show, Santorum commented

This is someone who is a supporter of mine, and I'm not responsible for every comment that a supporter of mine makes.        It was a bad joke, it was a stupid joke, and it is not reflective of me or my record on this issue.

Good, Rick, now stop speaking.       But no, he just couldn't:

This is what you guys do. You don't do this with President Obama. In fact, with President Obama, what you did was you went out and defended him against someone who sat in a church for 20 years, and defended him, that he can’t possible believe what he listened to for 20 years.      That’s a double standard, this is what you’re pulling off, and I’m going to call you on it. 

Friday afternoon, he referred to the dustup as "crap" and boasted "I went at Charlie Rose this morning a little bit for bringing this stuff up."

Be honest, readers.      When you saw Foster Friess opine on contraception, you thought:   "oh, my gosh!     This is just like Jeremiah Wright!"    No.

Probably not.     One fellow is a minister, the other is a former investment manager.      One guy is middle class, the other worth approximately $530 million.         One guy is black, the other white.  

They don't look or sound like the other.     But Santorum is right about one thing.      This wasn't done to Barack Obama (not President Obama, Rick:    it was Senator/candidate Obama).       No, Foster Friess volunteered his remark and his candidate was given the opportunity to respond to it.       But the media, without being prompted, broke the news of Reverend Wright and his relationship to the presidential candidate.     Longtime ABC investigative reporter Brian Ross wrote in March, 2008

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side, has a long history of what even Obama's campaign aides concede is "inflammatory rhetoric," including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "terrorism.   

In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." He said Rev. Wright "is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with," telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.Rev. Wright married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."

An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans. 

Thus began a controversy which continued for months, and continues- to this day- in the words of conservative Republicans, including Rush Limbaugh.       And now Rick Santorum, who, dogwhistle firmly between lips, brings it up in a wholly unrelated matter.

But there is- or may prove to be- yet another difference between the Foster Friess and the Jeremiah Wright matters.  Soon after Wright's existence came to light, Obama condemned the loathsome remarks the minister had made.         The following month, the Senator went further, asserting "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."      Shortly afterward, he and his wife left the church.

There is still time for Santorum, who blamed the media for reporting what his most important and powerful supporter had said, to concede that his excuse was nearly as loathsome as Reverend Wright's sermons.      Though Oba ma disassociated himself from his pastor, Santorum need not unload his benefactor, who more or less apologized.   But his own invocation of media bias where none exists was inaccurate and demonstrated a severe (as Mitt Romney would have put it) lack of character.

Barack Obama did what was necessary, cutting ties to a man who did not deserve (or need) his loyalty.      Santorum, however, blamed others for his troubles.       He merely may have been reflexively paranoid.      Alternatively, he was cunning, attacking the media which, Newt Gingrich has found, is effective Repub campaign strategy.     The response of media matters will be enlightening, as they confront and probe Rick Santorum's inflammatory response-  or roll over and play dead, allowing the GOP to intimidate them.





Share |

Deja vu?

Back when the tapes of the anti-American, anti-Caucasian rants of Jeremiah Wright became widely circulated, Senator Barack Obama on March 14, 2008 condemned the statements of his pastor of twenty+ years. He declared

I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Then Rev. Wright went before the National Press Club. Big mistake- at least for Obama. The Senator knew that he had to distance himself not only from the statements but also from the individual himself. He appeared to most observers to do this by asserting at a press conference, in a statement and in response to subsequent questions:

The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago....Well, as I said before, the person I saw yesterday was not the person that I have come to know over 20 years....Now, to some degree, I know that one thing that he said was true, that he was never my, quote/quote, “spiritual advisor.” He was never my spiritual mentor. He was my pastor. And to some extent how the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think, was inaccurate.

Now to the present:

In his new song, "Politics: Obama Is Here," Ludacris- the Artist Formerly Known As Christopher Bridges- condemns George W. Bush, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton while heralding Barack Obama. Here are some (or perhaps all) of the offending lyrics:

Hillary hated on you, so that b^$&%* is irrelevant.... paint the White House black and I'm sure that's got 'em terrified
McCain don't belong in ANY chair unless he's paralyzed
Yeah I said it cause Bush is mentally handicapped.

The Obama camp reacted quickly as campaign spokesman Bill Burton told Politico:

As Barack Obama has said many, many times in the past, rap lyrics today too often perpetuate misogyny, materialism, and degrading images that he doesn’t want his daughters or any children exposed to," said spokesman Bill Burton. "This song is not only outrageously offensive to Senator Clinton, Reverend Jackson, Senator McCain, and President Bush, it is offensive to all of us who are trying to raise our children with the values we hold dear. While Ludacris is a talented individual he should be ashamed of these lyrics."

Note Burton's points: the song is "outrageously offensive" and Ludacris "should be ashamed of these lyrics." Nothing about Ludacris himself being shameful, that his lyrics (as those of this song indicate) frequently are offensive, and certainly nothing suggesting Obama is displeased that one of his favorite rappers heartily supports him. Shades of March 14.

Another Thought on Obama/Wright

Sometimes I read a blog posting and know there is something I like about it but can't quite focus on what it is. And so it was that this evening I happened to reread an item posted by the usually insightful and always objective Joan Walsh on the salon.com site. Though generally, and in this case, reasonably favorable to Barack Obama, Walsh on June 1 noted:

But Obama's decision to leave his church of 20 years just two months after his Philadelphia speech on race, in which he said he wouldn't, was a little confusing. Has Trinity changed? Obama doesn't say that. Either he attended the church for 20 years and knew that gratuitous anti-white rhetoric was accepted there, and didn't care until he was running for president, or his church affiliation was mainly a political one and he wasn't paying much attention.

Barack Obama throughout his campaign has touted his commitment to Jesus Christ. Either he was in church enough to know what Jeremiah Wright was all about, or he wasn't there, in which case his personal relationship with his Savior did not extend to making an effort on Sunday mornings.

Pundits have self-righteously opined for several years that the Democratic Party must begin to express the language of faith. Barack Obama already has found that this approach is fraught with its own perils.

Her Only Chance

And this is the only way to the nomination for Hillary Clinton. Scandal, either by way of Trinity United Church of Christ (which, Obama announced on 6/1/08, he now has left)- or not.

When we last heard of Jeremiah Wright, following Senator Obama's denunciation of the minister's remarks made at the National Press Club, the punditocracy, not averse to picturing Obama as the victim, argued that Wright was out to harm the Illinois senator's candidacy. The Wright uproar thus far has come in two parts: following release of his two incendiary sermons and upon his appearance at the National Press Club. Support for the leading Democratic candidate, given his unique ability to appeal to our need as Americans for change, declined in the wake of the first event insufficiently to threaten seriously his candidacy. Following the second event, support declined further. I was never convinced that Wright was committed to harming Obama (as against merely wanting to further his own interests) but, if most of the media and other analysts were right, the former pastor of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ is coming back. Maybe soon, maybe between the convention and the election, but sometime before November. And the third event likely would be fatal to Obama's chances.

There is another possibility, however remote, of a scandal related to Mr. Obama's famous church. Larry Johnson, the former CIA agent and Clinton partisan with a website whose vituperative postings make for entertaining, if less than edifying, reading, claims the existence of what he characteristically refers to as a "whitey" tape. This alleged tape pictures Michelle Obama making incendiary, race-based comments while on a panel with Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan at Trinity United Church of Christ. I suspect the tape either a)has been doctored by Roger Stone or some other slimey Repub operative; b)is not as explosive as claimed by Johnson; c)will not seem the light of day; or d)will for some other reason not prove very significant. If, however, it is as Johnson is arguing, and hoping, it is, Barack Obama will not become the 44th president of the United States of America. We need to hope that such an event never occurred- or that if it did,any tape depicting it is released soon, giving Hillary Clinton a serious chance to be nominated. If such a tape is released after the nomination is formally granted Barack Obama, it would be devastating- not only to us as Democrats and progressives, but especially to America.

Missed Opportunity

Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics, writing on May 15, 2008, argues

Put simply, had Reverend Wright been introduced to voters a few days before the Iowa caucuses, odds are Barack Obama would not be a hair's breadth away from clinching the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

And even if we assume Obama could have managed to hang on and win Iowa after the appearance of his good reverend, which is debatable, it's a near certainty he would not have won as many primaries and caucuses by as many votes around the country as he did in January and February.

In other words, it would be a totally different ballgame.

How did this happen? The easiest answer, which fits nicely with what we know about Clinton's subsequent mistakes, is that the campaign was guilty of laziness brought on by overconfidence and arrogance.

Bevan cites this New York Times article of 3/5/07 in which Jody Kantor noted that Mr. Obama cited the 2/22/07 Rolling Stone article entitled "The Radical Roots of Barack Obama" in rescinding the invitation to Jeremiah Wright to deliver the invocation at the Senator's announcement on 2/10/07 of his presidential candidacy. Bevan attributes Clinton's failure to raise the issue of her opponent's hysterical pastor to "laziness brought on by overconfidence and arrogance."

But that is only part of the story. Before the campaign began and in its nascent stage, Mrs. Clinton was viewed as a candidate very popular with the party's base of blacks and feminist women, but with huge negatives among the general voting public. Therefore, most of us believed, Clinton benefited by the presence in the race of not one, but two (Obama and John Edwards), legitimate and viable candidates. And so did her campaign.

Before long, however, the New York senator lost to Mr. Obama the support of blacks and young women, feminist or otherwise, and, to a lesser extent, the liberal wing of the party. Then Edwards dropped out of the race, leaving one plausible candidate. And as time went on (especially with the onset of the Wright story) Clinton became the candidate with a greatly reduced base- the default candidate, the choice of voters appalled, alienated, or outraged, by Obama. (Her support among the "white working class" is hard to rationalize otherwise.) Clinton is now the "other," more acceptable and less inspirational, candidate. So it's hard to recall 2007 when she was concerned about Edwards and by the possibility that, as a candidate with enthusiastic support among some and hardened opposition by others, she needed to avoid a one-on-one battle with a candidate, who would be the "anybody but Clinton" option. Therefore, the Clinton campaign disregarded the one issue which would have turned off enough voters that Obama would not have won that caucus, and likely would have finished third. And with New Hampshire, been finished off.

UCC Commercials

Now that the controversy pertaining to Jeremiah Wright has ended, continued, or gone away for now, we can look back at a controversy regarding Reverend Wright's denomination, the United Church of Christ.

The United Church of Christ is a mainline Protestant denomination which formed in 1957 from the union of the Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church. It follows a "congregational" church polity, in which nearly complete autonomy is afforded individual congregations, which would account for the existence of a particular church and pastor outside of the mainstream of Christian thought.

In 2004, the UCC released an ad entitled "Bouncer" and in 2004, an ad named "Ejector," both aimed to emphasize the denomination's commitment to diversity. Both ads were rejected by the three major commercial networks, whether because of they were of an "advocacy" or religious nature. Reports at the time(s) indicated that the commercials would be aired on some cable networks, though I never saw either and am not sure of the outcome.

Still, whatever one's view of the issues involved, these interesting and provocative ads are well worth the viewing. Here is a link, first, to the "bouncer" ad, then to the "ejector" ad.

http://isjusttosay.blogspot.com/2007/12/united-church-of-christ-bouncer.html?showComment=1197218640000

http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKRcv9u9x3z8

Obama Corrects Himself

After watching a portion, and reading the transcript, of Barack Obama's press conference on 4/29/08, I got to thinking of his historic speech in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, given to respond to the concerns about his campaign engendered by the comments of his then-pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Obama had said of the African-American church:

Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright.

Now, at his press conference, Obama has said:

His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church (emphasis mine).

Much better. Reverend Wright's rants may or may not "portray accurately the perspective" of Trinity United Church of Christ, but they certainly do not portray accurately the black/African-American church. Good that Senator Obama set that straight, finally.

Not A Legal Divorce

In his April 29, 2008 press conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Barack Obama responded to Reverend Jeremiah Wright's appearance at the National Press Club by noting:

Yesterday we saw a very different vision of America. I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday. You know, I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992. I have known Reverend Wright for almost 20 years. The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago.

This apparently led Chris Matthews, who clearly prefers Obama to Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, to ask NBC Political Director Chuck Todd that afernoon on "Hardball" "he forced him to divorce him, didn't he?" Matthews a moment later commented "he is completely cutting off personally this man who‘s caused him so much trouble, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright."

Three days later, conservative syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, in a piece harshly critical of the Illinois senator, wrote "apparently, Wright's latest comments -- Obama cited three in particular -- were so shockingly "divisive and destructive" that he had to renounce the man, not just the words."

But did Senator Obama really "renounce" or "divorce" his former pastor? Definitions of almost all words differ, but in what appears to be the most relevant one of "renounce," dictionary.com defines the word as "to cast off or disown; refuse further association with; repudiate to renounce a son."

Obama did comment "based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either," "well, look, as I said before, the person I saw yesterday was not the person that I had come to know over 20 years" and "I do not see that relationship being the same after this."

But throughout the press conference Obama emphasized disagreement with Wright's ideas. Here are two examples:

His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs.

I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts everything that I’m about and who I am. And anybody who has worked with me, who knows my life, who has read my books, who has seen what this campaign's about, I think will understand that it is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country.

He finds "these comments," not Reverend Wright, "completely opposed" to his aims. The person he "saw yesterday" may not be the real Jeremiah Wright, Obama implies. Not convinced? Obama concluded by lamenting "and so, you know, I'm disappointed. All right? thank you, guys." Disappointed- because he expected so much better from a man he deeply respected (and, I think, otherwise still does) and whose words so contrast with the man he has known.

Splitting hairs? I don't think so. At Obama's heralded speech on race/Wright in Philadelphia, the Senator had declared " I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community." Disowning, divorcing or repudiating Wright, then, would be tantamount to divorcing the black community. Further, at his 4/29/08 press conference, Obama spoke in a measured way cognizant of the possibility that the minister whom the nation has seen too much of already may come back, either to hurt the campaign or simply in disregard of whatever impact he might have on it. That is why Obama, wisely, (again) denounced absurd comments yet not the man. After all, "the person I saw yesterday" may return.

The Republican Media- No. 16

Thanks go out to Republican strategist Alex Castellanos and Andrea Mitchell, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent of NBC News.

Two days after I reprinted the 1999 article in slate.com by Timothy Noah which described the Republican effort to tar Al Gore with responsibility for the Willie Horton hit job in the 2000 election, along comes Castellanos practically bragging how the GOP is going to replay this tactic in 2008, immediately followed by McCain enthusiast Andrea Mitchell reminding us how routine bias toward the Republican Party is.

Here are the two comments from the April 27, 2008 edition of NBC's Meet The Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Alex Castellanos, the Republican strategist, was on TV the other night and said this: "Clinton's running the ads Republicans would love to be running so--now, so we don't have to because Hillary Clinton is doing it. Yes, it could--would be hard for a Republican to run an ad with Osama bin Laden in it. Not so much now because Hillary has already done it against Obama.

"It would be difficult for a Republican to run an ad questioning does Barack Obama have the strength of character to lead the country. Well, not so much now because Hillary has already done it."

Is that a Republican sort of protecting his flank, getting ready for a rollout, or has Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama paved the way for McCain if Obama becomes the nominee?

MS. MITCHELL: She's written the playbook for John McCain. They've done all the opposition research. I think that Obama has also had some self-inflicted wounds, notably in San Francisco, the bitter comment, which just didn't play right, and I--you know, obviously I don't think he's handled Jeremiah Wright, we can talk about that. I don't think he anticipated the impact of that and the way it would be perceived out of context or in context. But Hillary Clinton has laid out a road map for the Republicans, and that is one of the Obama arguments. The Obama supporters are arguing that she is destroying him, even if he is the nominee, and he is the presumptive nominee and the front-runner, certainly

Note Castellanos claiming "It would be difficult for a Republican to run an ad questioning does Barack Obama have the strength of character to lead the country. Well, not so much now because Hillary has already done it."

Not true. Hillary Clinton's 3:00 a.m. foreign policy ad (courtesy of The Huffington Post) and her more recent buy with images of Franklin Roosevelt, Pearl Harbor, Castro, gas prices, and, yes, bin Laden emphasize her credentials for handling a crisis. They do not criticize or demean Barack Obama in any way, but merely suggest that she is the candidate best able (and I use "best" rather than "better" because it is not a direct comparison with her current rival) to handle an emergency. Disagree with her on that point if you choose, but paranoia about either ad is neither attractive nor flattering to the frontrunner, merely indicating a naivete that it the spot is somehow beyond the pale. However, it is not surprising that a Repub consultant has spilled the beans, revealing that the GOP this autumn intends to do a "Willie Horton"- run a venomous campaign and blame it on Democrats.

Similarly, Andrea Mitchell, wife of one of the most important Republicans, Allan Greenspan, of the last 20 years. She now has said of Hillary Clinton "she's written the playbook for John McCain. They've done all the opposition research." Fortunately, we have a Weekly Standard blogger ("fortunately" the Weekly Standard- something I'm not used to typing) quoting John McCain on a conference call as claiming

All I can tell you, Jennifer, is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare....If senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

Did Mrs. Clinton run an ad I missed about Danie Ortega and Hamas, linking them to Barack Obama? No, but that doesn't stop Mitchell from claiming "she's written the playbook for John McCain."

And "they've done all the opposition research?" Did Senator Clinton force Senator Obama to refer on the first of his two interviews with WIP Radio in Philadelphia to his maternal grandmother as "a typical white person?" Did Senator Clinton infiltrate that meeting with campaign donors and insinuate Senator Obama into contending that small town Americans "cling" to their guns and religion? Has Senator Clinton been asking the silly question about why Senator Obama doesn't wear an American flag pin? Was it Senator Clinton or George Stephanopoulos who asked Senator Obama about William Ayers- or whether Obama's former pastor "love(s) America as much as you do"? And was it Senator Clinton who dug up video of Reverend Wright- which would be a huge surprise to conservative Repub talk show host Sean Hannity who claims to have uncovered the Wright story first?

No, Andrea, Hillary Clinton isn't laying out the road map for the Grand Old Party. But you seem to be trying to.

Obama And Small-Town America (5)

Let's take a look in a greater portion of Senator Obama's response to a question at a fund-raiser on April 6, 2008. He said:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

There are a lot of factors contributing to the loss of jobs in small towns across the U.S.A. The list might begin, only begin, with a corporate and political culture, only currently characterized by outsourcing, which has favored profits over the creation and preservation of jobs; computerization; globalization; and a transportation policy which has favored air travel and highways and nearly gutted a railroad system which once connected numerous towns across the country. (Think television's "The Fugitive" and Richard Kimball traveling everywhere by train.)

Surely among the causes of employment in, and the vibrancy of, small towns are free trade, rarely free to the American workers who sacrifice their jobs, often for the benefit of the wealthy; and immigration/illegal immigration. There is a strong argument to be made for immigration, and a good one; and a weak economic argument to be made for immigration. But there is no question that corporate America has found our weak enforcement, at the borders and at the job site, of immigration laws a boon to their profits and a bust for good-paying jobs. Arguing, therefore, that when people outraged by the deterioration of their communities "cling" to "anti-immigrant sentiment" they are being delusional is condescending, politically damaging, and just plain inaccurate.

And by the way: "cling to antipathy to people who aren't like them?" Is that a shot at Reverend Jeremiah Wright? (Probably not- Wright was born and raised in Philadelphia and Trinity United Church of Christ is in Chicago.).

The Negative Side Of "The Speech"

There were a few aspects of Barack Obama's speech about race in American society which I found really disappointing. These were:

1) This time, we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

The cause of job losses in the United States are many. Among them are "the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit." But also involved is "that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job." And the issue, though Obama implies otherwise here ("that someone who doesn't look like you"), is not racism. It is that someone is taking your job. At a lower wage. And, oh, perhaps someone who isn't in this country legally. Our concern about the corporation interested only in profits and the government that aids and abets it must not blind us to the reality that the same private sector is happy to lobby that same government for policies increasing the labor pool (with legal or illegal workers) and thereby drive wages down.

2) I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed her by on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

That was a long time ago, Senator, in a land now barely recognizable. It is a cheap shot against your own mother.

3) I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.

This speech was given in response to the controversy over Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Ultimately, though it was clever to pose the issue as to "disown" an individual (no one could be for that- in fact, Pat Buchanan commended Obama for standing by his man!), there is still the matter of an adult sitting week after week (if in fact he did attend church regularly), year after year, insufficiently concerned about the rantings of an irrational man to raise an objection.

Looking back over the last two postings, the positive and the negative, I can't avoid the conclusion that it was a very good speech, dealing as it was with two very difficult issues- Reverend Wright and race- in nearly as effective a way as possible. However, the major purpose, understandably, of the address was to enhance Obama's bid to gain the presidential nomination and I can't figure how that will play out.

The Plus Side Of "The Speech"

Barack Obama in his speech of 3/18/08 on the role of race in American society made some cogent points. Consider these:

1) But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's efforts to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country....As such, Reverend Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive....

This was an unequivocal, decisive, powerful denunciation of statements of a supporter. It may be unparalleled in American politics, a far cry from the more typical "If any of my remarks have offended...."

2) Legalized discrimination — where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions or the police force or the fire department — meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between blacks and whites, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persist in so many of today's urban and rural communities.

Drawing a link both between historical discrimination (note the use of the past tense) and current discrepancies between wealth in the white and black communities is instructive.

3) The real culprits of the middle class squeeze — a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns — this too widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding.

Two good points here: identification of structural inequities in the American economy; and an understanding that the "resentments" (I would have preferred the unbiased "opinions") are "grounded in legitimate concerns.

4) (a)And in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense.
(b)Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition.

I joined these two because they are a welcome departure from the more disquieting aspects of the Obama campaign. Obama in (a) seems to understand that sometimes politics is not a win-win; choices have to be made, priorities set. And in (b), Obama has finally found himself able to deliver at least an implied criticism of Ronald Reagan.

5) ....they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country.... (including) a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

Realistic, accurate, and measured statement.



6) This time we want to talk about how the lines in the emergency room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care, who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington....

Not a profound point, but one that bears repeating, and only Democrats will do so: emergency rooms are filled. And without universal health care, they will only get busier- and emergency rooom personnel and services do not come cheap, though Republicans (hell bent on convincing us that we have the greatest health care system in the world) seem to believe otherwise.

Why A Member?

David Broder, who has been a Washington Post columnist longer than perhaps most Americans have been alive, has a valuable insight every couple of years. The most recent came during today's (3/16/08) episode of NBC's Meet The Press, when Broder stated: "What was it about Reverend Wright that attracted Obama when he had, as a newcomer to Chicago, choice of any of the number of churches or pastors to go to?"

I don't get around as much as some people do, but it seems to me this question hasn't been asked a whole lot. Was Mr. Obama attracted by the: denomination? theological stance of this congregation (which, as a member of the United Church of Christ, whose polity is "congregational," is self-governing)? friendliness of the parishioners? size of the congregation? geographic proximity to his home? inspirational nature of Pastor Wright's sermons? content of Pastor Wright's sermons? beauty of the church building? church's outreach to the black community and interest in fostering African-American consciousness? preference of his wife for this church?

It's a question that needs to be asked but, with the squeamishness of the media in dealing with theological matters, might never be- which would be a critical omission.

Obama and McCain React To Clergymen

Senator Barack Obama's has responded to the hateful, anti-American exhortations of his (recently retired) pastor, Jeremiah Wright, by posting on The HuffingtonPost.com. Here they are in relevant part,reprinted from RealClear Politics, followed by my comments:


I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.... All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

I have one problem with this explanation- the too-common resort of politicians to denouncing/criticizing/disagreeing with "any" statement. It smacks of a blanket condemnation, intentionally avoiding acknowledgement of any specific statement being unacceptable.

But I'm being picky. Obama's statement otherwise is forthright and definitive. He asserts "vehement" disagreement with "all of the statements that hve been the subject of controversy" and maintains "they in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country." Note that the Senator: 1)condemns the statements; 2) says they do "not reflect my attitudes" (personalizing his opposition to the remarks); and 3) acknowledges that they contradict a ("my") "love for this country." Pretty strong stuff.

We all know about John McCain's tepid response to Reverend John Hagee's remarks about Roman Catholics and his failure to respond at all to Hagee's remarks about blacks, homosexuals, and an apparent lust for war with Iran: "We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics" (emphasis mine).

But how about Reverend Rod Parsley, pastor of the Pentecostal megachurch World Harvest Church of Columbus? At a campaign rally on February 26, 2008 in Cincinnati, Ohio, Parsley endorsed McCain as "a strong, true, consistent conservative" and McCain in turn called the evangelical minister "a spiritual guide." And I suppose this is the spiritual guidance the fellow from
Arizona gets from him:

Parsley has argued "The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore." Similarly, he says "It was to defeat Islam, among other dreams, that Christopher Columbus sailed to the New World in 1492…Columbus dreamed of defeating the armies of Islam with the armies of Europe made mighty by the wealth of the New World. It was this dream that, in part, began America." And, Mother Jones bureau chief David Corn says of Parsley "in 2007, the grassroots organization he founded, the Center for Moral Clarity, called for prosecuting people who commit adultery. In January, he compared Planned Parenthood to Nazis. In the past Parsley's church has been accused of engaging in pro-Republican partisan activities in violation of its tax-exempt status."

The mainstream media has focused attention on Reverend Jeremiah Wright but has virtually ignored Reverend Hagee and Reverend Parsley. Given that the latter two are extremists who have endorsed the traditional media's favorite politician, that comes as no surprise.

Reverend Wright vs. Reverend King

"The eleven o'clock hour on Sunday is the most segregated hour in American life."
-Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.


"Unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian." (emphasis mine)
-motto of Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago, Illinois


Perhaps Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., would like to explain why he believes the segregation deplored by Dr. King is now acceptable, even laudatory.