Jack Kelly states Rev. Wright is a bigot…
Jack Kelly’s column in the Blade today is entitled, Bigot on Parade. I recommend reading the whole piece if you have not yet done so, a few of the paragraphs Mr. Kelly wrote:
RARELY in the history of American politics has a bigot had as much power as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright enjoys today.
Support for Sen. Barack Obama has plunged nationally and (more importantly) in North Carolina since Mr. Wright confirmed at his National Press Club appearance Monday that he does indeed hold racist, lunatic, anti-American views, and implied that Senator Obama has been insincere in separating himself from them. “He had to distance himself, because he’s a politician,” Mr. Wright said.
On the issue of Wright’s possible motivation:
Others speculate Mr. Wright may not want Senator Obama to be elected, because if America does elect a black president, it would undermine his thesis that whites are incorrigibly racist.
The simplest explanation may be that Mr. Wright cares more about his moment in the limelight than he does about the harm he’s doing to Senator Obama.
On the election:
If Senator Obama wins, however narrowly, in North Carolina on Tuesday and, two weeks later, in Oregon, he can limp to the nomination because super delegates are more afraid of offending blacks than they are of losing in November.
This is happening, as reported yesterday in the Huffington Post:
One of the nation’s largest Black American grassroots advocacy organizations is drawing a line in the sand for Democratic leadership: if Hillary Clinton is awarded the nomination by overturning the pledged delegate count there will be a political price to pay.
It’s also been the topic of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as well as others on the right and on the left.
Considering the Blade’s pro-Obama stance, and given the recent discussion on media bias and race, this Jack Kelly piece is one that I felt should be pointed out.
I really don’t respect Jack Kelly and have stopped reading his columns as I find them nauseating. Just an opinion.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:47 amThat dog wont hunt. Not once, or at least, that I have seen, has the media addressed the issues the Rev. has brought up. I saw that child pimp Barney Frank on Bill Maher’s show screaming that the Rev. is a racist, and even more particularly saying he’s an anti-Semite. The last one kills me. When asked about it he never could explain it. Criticism of Israel isn’t anti-semitic. Those who claim it are actually creating the division and the hate. I would have never understood this theory that criticism equals anti-antisemitism until I heard Ed Koch explain his views. He said when you don’t criticize other countries for the same thing, like bombing civilian targets, its anti-antisemitism. I am still digesting this theory !
May 4th, 2008 at 2:29 amLisa noted one paragraph I thought was key also, but Kelly missed the true point of the issue it raises – super delegates.
“If Senator Obama wins, however narrowly, in North Carolina on Tuesday and, two weeks later, in Oregon, he can limp to the nomination because super delegates are more afraid of offending blacks than they are of losing in November.”
The issue with super delegates is the fact that Democrats are stuck between the choices of playing by their established rules, possibly overriding the popular vote, or picking the candidate they believe can win in November.
The idea of super delegates is not totally bogus. Our founding fathers understood that the popular vote count was often not the best way to pick a leader. We have a republic, not a true majority wins democracy. The Democratic Party’s system of sharing delegates by vote count, and their recently invented (historically recent, not in the last few years recent) super delegate system is akin to that principle somewhat. But now they are stuck – play by the rules, or change them mid stream
SOUND FAMILIAR. Democrats have been clamoring that the “popular vote should control” since Bush v. Gore. Bush v. Court, the court case, was about the legality of changing election rules mid-stream, and a state’s power to do so. Now some democrats want the popular vote to be overruled if it helps their candidate, some want the rules enforced as written before the primaries, and some want new rules for Michigan and Florida.
As far as super delegates worried about offending African Americans, Good. A political party should be concerned about offending, disappointing or even angering its constituents. Perhaps this race will show the country that the Democratic Party does not have any minority’s best interests at heart, but simply needs a voting base beholden to large government, and African Americans should not join the party just because historically they did. Or it may teach some that a fundamental principle of the party is that the government – or at least its leadership – knows better than the average simple Joe what to do with Joe’s money or VOTE. Remember, according to their party, most citizens are not sophisticated enough to control their own money, retirement savings, health care or charity; they must get help from elected officials who will make those decisions for them.
Finally, as the Blade article shows, the democrats are facing another new phenomenon. Running a race which forces the media to pick between two democrats, and once in awhile actually analyze them critically instead of lobbing softball questions at them and marching in lock step with their drivel.
No offense to any softball pitchers, I can’t hit a fast pitch softball to save my …………..Rolex.
The A-Hole.
May 4th, 2008 at 8:12 amWith only two political parties in the US, both parties are uneasy coalitions of minority voting blocks — just how much do rural, pro-life voters and pro-business, anti-regulation conservatives have in common? Both Democrats and Republicans are involved in complex calculations to keep their constituent engaged and enthusiastic. We saw the Republicans dealing with similar divisions during the immigration debate.
Note that Obama isn’t just popular with African American voters, but also young, college-aged voters who have been turning out in higher numbers than usual. Engaging young voters, who have in past elections voted in low numbers, is just smart politics.
And, with 20% of the US population, why is it surprising, or even suspicious that politicians are listening and trying to please African-American voters? It’s no different than trying to please industrial workers, religious voters or gun owners.
And, at the moment, Obama leads in the delegate count and the popular vote. It’s close, and no question the Democratic party is divided, but the superdelegates are hardly repudiating the will of the rank and file Democrats if they support Obama.
Since the superdelegates were created to prevent insurgent, non-establishment candidates from taking the nomination, the fact that some of them are supporting Obama is a sign of vitality (albeit messy and sometimes nasty) in the party.
If the supers were supporting by Hilary by large margins, Jack Kelly and other conservative pundits would be writing about the Clinton machine is subverting the desires of the primary voters.
May 4th, 2008 at 11:03 amPerhaps Rev Wright is not a bigot, a racist, an anti-Semite, or even unpatriotic. Perhaps these labels, and the stigma that is attached to them, can only be attached to a person if they are white. Perhaps the making unsubstantiated claims that the government created AIDS to kill black people and brought down the World Trade Center are only hate speech if spoken by someone on the right.
It seems however, based on examples from this country’s past, that if such statements were being made by someone of a conservative, white background, that just such labels would be applied. It wouldn’t matter if they were isolated sound bites taken out of context from a 20+ year career, or a single mis-statement. That person would be tarred,feathered and run out of town on a rail, their career and reputation stained forever; and the procedure would be covered gleefully in the press. (Can you say Don Imus or Jimmy the Greek?)
How then should we judge Rev. Wright? Should it be with the understanding of his stated oppressed life? Should it be as a preacher of Christian brotherhood and tolerance? Should it simply be by what he says, and asking for rational discussion and proof of his arguments?
History may give us the answer. As a conservative white guy, I will abstain from doing so.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pmadap2k,
i just watched the entire episode of Barney Frank on Bill Maher (3/21/0
and nowhere can I find him accusing Wright of anti-semitism, much less being “pressed” on it. Am I watching the wrong episode? He did make a joke about it better being Jewish because of a perceived lack of crazy rabbis in the US (”they’re all in Israel”
, but nothing like what you speak of. Can you back yourself up?
Also, what’s with the “pimp” comment? Do you know what a pimp is? You may as well be calling him a prostitute, I don’t think you understand the terminology. I’m assuming you meant to say “john”. If so that would have been a very cunning and witty reference……… 20 years ago.
May 4th, 2008 at 3:44 pmI found the transcript for that show. I didn’t find the specific reference to anti-semitism either, but I did see at the very end of the transcript where it stated:
That I could not find a transcript of. As to the “pimp” reference, some believe Franks knew more about the prostitution activity happening at his home, than others. He was however, never convicted or charged with prostitution. link to the short version of that story.
May 4th, 2008 at 4:35 pmJack Kelly is a joke and must have some compromising photos of the Block family to maintain his Saturday position in The Blade.
May 4th, 2008 at 9:39 pmWas it Wright’s ego at work or, his honesty? Calling Obama to the carpet and saying “you DID know what I was all about for the last 20 years and, not only that…you agreed with it” was pretty bold of him to do to a presidential candidate.
He simply said what we knew all along. Obama’s hands aren’t as clean as he’s been trying to present them as being and the press is starting to wake up from it’s stupor and report it.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:23 amI went back and watched the show, and you are all right. It was another guest on another episode. When I find it, I will correct my statement here. I do remember Maher pressing the questions however I cannot remember whom it was.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:01 amOne more thing, Lisa your so, so very funny. I find nothing humorous about child prostitution. Plus you forget the word “child”, as in child prostitution.
The link you provided was dead.
Are you telling me a politician got away with a crime. Stop the presses!
Barney Frank admitted to having paid a male prostitute, for sex and subsequently hiring him as his personal assistant.
In 1989, a male prostitute named Stephen Gobie admitted that Frank, D-Mass., knew that Gobie had operated a male prostitution service out of Frank’s Capitol Hill apartment. Underage children were involved.
1990: Rep. Barney Frank, was reprimanded for his relations with prostitute Stephen Gobie. Frank was censured by the House for writing a letter on his behalf.
Paging Rep. Foley.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:24 amWhat the link said:
The era of sour feelings on Capitol Hill continued after House Speaker James. C. Wright’s resignation and the smear campaign against his successor, Thomas S. Foley. In a third blockbuster scandal, Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank admitted a lengthy relationship with a male hooker who ran a bisexual prostitution service out of Frank’s apartment.
The story was broken by the conservative Washington Times newspaper, which trumpeted every juicy morsel with front-page hype. Though Frank was apparently ignorant of some of the prostitute’s activities, his indiscretion was so great that his standing in Congress was greatly damaged and a House reprimand passed overwhelmingly in July 1990. His home district in Massachusetts was more forgiving, reelecting him easily the following November.
I didn’t mention “child” because there was no reference to children -
May 6th, 2008 at 2:28 am