Crush Liberalism

NYT fawns over Obama’s disingenuous “kumbaya” speech

I don’t know that I’d do this matter any justice with my own commentary when Allah so eloquently nails this one over the right field wall:

The most rewarding thing about a day like today, when some liberal’s in trouble and anxious to save his own ass, is watching the worst, most predictable, most embarrassing hacks on the other side go face-first into the tank, exactly as you’d expect they would. Sullivan? Check. Matthews? Check. The New York Times College of Cardinals? Checkity check check.

There are moments — increasingly rare in risk-abhorrent modern campaigns — when politicians are called upon to bare their fundamental beliefs. In the best of these moments, the speaker does not just salve the current political wound, but also illuminates larger, troubling issues that the nation is wrestling with.

Inaugural addresses by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt come to mind, as does John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on religion, with its enduring vision of the separation between church and state. Senator Barack Obama, who has not faced such tests of character this year, faced one on Tuesday. It is hard to imagine how he could have handled it better…

There have been times when we wondered what Mr. Obama meant when he talked about rising above traditional divides. This was not such a moment.

Hey, guys? If the last 20 years count for anything, the best estimates of his “fundamental beliefs” are that the United States is a racist hegemon begging to have jets flown into office towers to teach it a thing or two about imperialism. He’s a gutless, opportunistic coward who was afraid to say an unkind word to one of the power brokers in the black community on whom he counted for votes as an Illinois politician, and now that he’s a national figure he’s throwing the same guy under the bus to preserve the illusion that he’s a “post-racial” politician. And you’re sitting there cheering him on because you don’t care what sort of idiocy or anti-American vitriol you have to swallow to put a Democrat back into the White House. Does that about sum it up? Have I missed any “nuance” in the “U.S. government created the AIDS virus” rant that Obama never, ever heard anything about and that you’re now willing to wave away?

Exit question invitation: Which parts of Wright’s sermons, precisely, does the New York Times have any great objection to? The punchline to all this nonsense is that the good reverend’s rantings really aren’t very far outside the liberal mainstream (his AIDS theory notwithstanding), which is probably why Obama thought he could bury this scandal in the first place. So let’s compromise: You make a list of everything Wright’s said that you think is beyond the pale or off the reservation and we’ll pretend that Obama’s objections to those statements are heartfelt and sincere and not something he’d ever, ever want his young daughters to hear. Deal? 

With his preacher (and best bud and mentor) and his wife both having expressed to varying degrees their loathing or shame of America, are we to believe that these influential people in Barry O’s life have had NO impact on shaping his views of America?  Sure, everyone close to Barry O hates this country, but not Obama!  If you truly believe that, I have a home in Texas with a view of the Pacific to sell you.

Back in 1999, my preacher was delivering a sermon one sunday and made some snide remark about how we all know Ken Starr wasn’t interested in truth or justice.  Whether you agree or not isn’t relevant, because the point is that the pulpit is no place for political messages.  I approached him after service and politely conveyed that opinion, and judging on his apologetic remarks the next week, I gather I wasn’t the only one who felt that way.  Had he continued, I would have left the church.

My pastor’s views on the Ken Starr situation were tame compared to the anti-American moonbattery that spewed from the piehole of Rev. Nutjob at Obama’s church.  That’s why I can’t absolve Obama for not distancing himself from that church several years ago.  I mean, if a restaurant serves crappy food, why go back to it?  You wouldn’t say “Well, they serve gourmet meals most of the time, but every once in a while, they serve food tainted with E. coli…but that’s no reason to stop eating there!  You’re just cherry picking a few snippets of poisoned food!”, now would you?

At any rate, Barry O wants to pretend his association with Pastor Kook is harmless and that he should not be judged by the company he keeps.  Apparently, the NYT is more than willing to do that for Obama.  But nope…no liberal media bias!

Exit money quote, from Ace:

If Obama disagreed so vehemnetly with the racist, anti-semitic, anti-American crackpottery spewing out of this strutting peacock of a toad’s mouth: Why did he continue bringing his young daughters to be schooled in Uncle Jerry’s Happy House of Hatred?

March 19, 2008 - Posted by crushliberalism | media bias, moonbats, Obama