[since i'm unlikely to get two letters to the editor published in two successive weeks, i include this one here. i think it's actually better than the one published last week. 200 words exactly!]
How many "associations" does a law student, community organizer, 6-year state senator and 3-year U.S. senator make throughout his career? Certainly hundreds. Yet Kevin O'Brien insists Bill Ayers is uniquely indicative of Obama's character. Indeed Ayers did some terrible things 40 years ago. A president also took us into war under false pretenses. A general told us he had to destroy a Vietnamese town in order to save it. Back home, cities burned.
Today Ayers is the ultimate toothless radical, a university professor. "Poisoning the minds of future teachers against America," as O'Brien claims? A reviewer for the conservative Chicago Tribune wrote, "There must continue to be thoughtful books like Ayers' that illustrate the profound flaws of today's juvenile-justice system and society's abandonment of the young and poor." Ayers claims his more recent remarks on "no regrets" and "not doing enough" applied only the Vietnam War, and he has publicly condemned the attacks of September 11.
According to polls, 50-60% of voters say Ayers does not matter. So talk about him all you want, Mr. O'Brien: Americans are not listening and not interested in reigniting culture wars. As Gertrude Stein said famously, there's no there there.
Showing posts with label barak obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barak obama. Show all posts
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Sunday, October 19, 2008
ACORN's activities are no threat
Once again, facts must come to rescue Kevin O'Brien. His column Thursday on ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is right-wing boilerplate, this time regarding the alleged voter fraud the conservative media have gotten themselves all frothed up about.First off, O'Brien's claim that ACORN is "one of the prime sponsors of the mortgage meltdown that's throttling the economy" is patently false. ACORN is an organization that works to achieve living wages, better housing and schools, and neighborhood safety for low-income families -- the kind of community organizing for which some Republicans have active disdain.
ACORN pays underemployed individuals to collect voter registrations, and a small number of them clearly try to game the system. ACORN identifies many potentially fraudulent registrations.
Now even if O'Brien's estimates of the number of fraudulent registrations were not wildly overblown, he never manages to explain how fraudulent registrations translate into actual voter fraud. Five Mickey Mouses registered to vote does not mean that five Mickey Mouses will show up at the polls and actually vote for the desired candidate. The likelihood of that is slim to none.
[fulltext link to Plain Dealer, October 19 2008, Page G5]
Friday, October 17, 2008
A Question of Character
from tmorange
to pwehner@eppc.org
cc contentions@commentarymagazine.com
date Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM
subject "A Question of Character" (Wehner, 10/14)
Mr. Wehner,
Of course, character matters. But the fundamental premises underlying your case for challenging Obama's character are, to say the very least, questionable.
Consider this: how many "associations" do you think the average law student, community organizer and state senator makes over the course of his or her career? I think it's safe to estimate the number to be several hundred at least. Now if I understand your case correctly, you want us to believe that three or four association in particular -- ACORN, Ayers, Rezko and Wright -- deserve more scrutiny, or are somehow more indicative of Obama's character, than any of the hundreds of his other associations.
Many reasonable observers would, rightly I think, be unwilling to grant you even this basic premise, but I will purely for the sake of argument. You talk about, and I quote, "Barack Obama's past associations with radical figures," "Obama's radical associations" (twice), "Obama's associations with Ayers and Wright and all the rest," that he "hung around with some pretty disturbing characters," and "what we're talking about aren't isolated incidents. It has happened with a slew of people." Notice already what is happening in some of your specific language here: "and all the rest" and "a slew of people" both suggest far more than the four most infamous of Obama's associations I listed above, and yet I've never heard more than these four mentioned by name of the literally hundreds of professional associations he undoubtedly has. Have you?
Now let's move from considering the quantity of associations (these four among hundreds) to the quality, which you characterize as "radical figures," "radical associations" repeatedly, "pretty disturbing characters," and in a final flourish, "people who have a disturbing history of violence, hatred for America, and corruption." Are these fair or accurate characterizations of ACORN, Ayers, Rezko and Wright?
ACORN is a community organization that works to achieve living wages, better housing and schools, and neighborhood safety for low-income families, It also pays underemployed individuals to collect voter registrations, and a small number of those people clearly try to game the system. Indeed the Republican lawyer who prosecuted the first ACORN case (King County, Washington, 2007) said, "a joint federal and state investigation has determined that this scheme was not intended to permit illegal voting. Instead, the defendants cheated their employer, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN), to get paid for work they did not actually perform." Obama has in the past done some work for them and given them some of his campaign money.
Bill Ayers is now the ultimate toothless radical, an education professor at an Illinois university who committed acts of terrorism some forty years ago, when Barack Obama was eight years old. He claims his more recent remarks on "no regrets" and "not doing enough" have been subject to "deliberate distortion" in being applied beyond the Vietnam War and has publicly condemned the attacks of September 11. Obama has served on some boards with him and did not, contrary to GOP assertions, begin his campaign in Ayers' living room.
Tony Rezko is a businessmen with some undoubtedly crooked dealings. Obama has received some campaign contributions from him and did a small real estate deal with him that may have created an appearance of but no actual impropriety.
Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of Obama's UCC mega-church in Chicago, served in this country's Navy and Marine Corps and earned four academic degrees. His 36-year ministry was rooted in a theology of empowerment and self-determination. His decontextualized sermon sound bites, such as "God Damn America," look and sound entirely understandable given a video backdrop of, say, tens of thousands of poor, largely African American citizens of New Orleans abandoned in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. More recent Wright statements Obama has found offensive and denounced.
So I ask again: are these truly "radical associations" with "pretty disturbing characters," with "people who have a disturbing history of violence, hatred for America, and corruption" as you claim? I think the reasonable observer would concede that these four associations, of the hundreds Obama likely has, simply cannot be painted equally with so broad a brush. No, the associations themselves vary from significant to distant and incidental; the individuals themselves vary from crooked and somewhat controversial to essentially innocuous.
"This issue shouldn't, by itself, be dispositive," you concede, "Nor should it be the only, or even the most important, issue in the campaign. Nor is it fair to say that Obama's character can be understood only through the prism of his associations." Unfortunately, on October 4 the Washington Post quoted McCain campaign adviser Greg Stimple as saying, "We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans." A day later, the New York Daily News quoted "a top McCain strategist" admitting, "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose." This was the same weekend that McCain's running mate was out on the stump accusing Obama of, quote, "palling around with terrorists." Only days later, when McCain asked his audience who is the real Obama, the reply came back loud and clear, "terrorist." Visibly startled, McCain said nothing.
"The concern is not that Obama will invite domestic terrorists to the White House for signing ceremonies or private lunches," you claim. But clearly GOP operatives are stoking these very fears. I won't list all the incidents here -- the Virginia GOP chair encouraging volunteers to link Obama with terrorists, the GOP websites in Pennsylvania and Sacramento calling Obama "A Terrorist's Best Friend" and urging people to "Waterboard Barack Obama," the Robocalls going out right now that declare, "I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers."
Yes, Mr. Wehner, this is a question of character. Even close conservative friends and allies of John McCain no longer recognize this man. And whatever character he had going into this election, he has little if any left now.
P.S. Your white suprematist analogies do not apply for at least two reasons: 1) Jeremiah Wright is not a black suprematist, and black liberation theology is not about black supremacy but black equality, and 2) because black equality attempts to redress centuries of socioeconomic injustice while white supremacy attempts to maintain and reinforce that injustice, there is no moral equivalent between the two.
to pwehner@eppc.org
cc contentions@commentarymagazine.com
date Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM
subject "A Question of Character" (Wehner, 10/14)
Mr. Wehner,
Of course, character matters. But the fundamental premises underlying your case for challenging Obama's character are, to say the very least, questionable.
Consider this: how many "associations" do you think the average law student, community organizer and state senator makes over the course of his or her career? I think it's safe to estimate the number to be several hundred at least. Now if I understand your case correctly, you want us to believe that three or four association in particular -- ACORN, Ayers, Rezko and Wright -- deserve more scrutiny, or are somehow more indicative of Obama's character, than any of the hundreds of his other associations.
Many reasonable observers would, rightly I think, be unwilling to grant you even this basic premise, but I will purely for the sake of argument. You talk about, and I quote, "Barack Obama's past associations with radical figures," "Obama's radical associations" (twice), "Obama's associations with Ayers and Wright and all the rest," that he "hung around with some pretty disturbing characters," and "what we're talking about aren't isolated incidents. It has happened with a slew of people." Notice already what is happening in some of your specific language here: "and all the rest" and "a slew of people" both suggest far more than the four most infamous of Obama's associations I listed above, and yet I've never heard more than these four mentioned by name of the literally hundreds of professional associations he undoubtedly has. Have you?
Now let's move from considering the quantity of associations (these four among hundreds) to the quality, which you characterize as "radical figures," "radical associations" repeatedly, "pretty disturbing characters," and in a final flourish, "people who have a disturbing history of violence, hatred for America, and corruption." Are these fair or accurate characterizations of ACORN, Ayers, Rezko and Wright?
ACORN is a community organization that works to achieve living wages, better housing and schools, and neighborhood safety for low-income families, It also pays underemployed individuals to collect voter registrations, and a small number of those people clearly try to game the system. Indeed the Republican lawyer who prosecuted the first ACORN case (King County, Washington, 2007) said, "a joint federal and state investigation has determined that this scheme was not intended to permit illegal voting. Instead, the defendants cheated their employer, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or ACORN), to get paid for work they did not actually perform." Obama has in the past done some work for them and given them some of his campaign money.
Bill Ayers is now the ultimate toothless radical, an education professor at an Illinois university who committed acts of terrorism some forty years ago, when Barack Obama was eight years old. He claims his more recent remarks on "no regrets" and "not doing enough" have been subject to "deliberate distortion" in being applied beyond the Vietnam War and has publicly condemned the attacks of September 11. Obama has served on some boards with him and did not, contrary to GOP assertions, begin his campaign in Ayers' living room.
Tony Rezko is a businessmen with some undoubtedly crooked dealings. Obama has received some campaign contributions from him and did a small real estate deal with him that may have created an appearance of but no actual impropriety.
Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor of Obama's UCC mega-church in Chicago, served in this country's Navy and Marine Corps and earned four academic degrees. His 36-year ministry was rooted in a theology of empowerment and self-determination. His decontextualized sermon sound bites, such as "God Damn America," look and sound entirely understandable given a video backdrop of, say, tens of thousands of poor, largely African American citizens of New Orleans abandoned in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. More recent Wright statements Obama has found offensive and denounced.
So I ask again: are these truly "radical associations" with "pretty disturbing characters," with "people who have a disturbing history of violence, hatred for America, and corruption" as you claim? I think the reasonable observer would concede that these four associations, of the hundreds Obama likely has, simply cannot be painted equally with so broad a brush. No, the associations themselves vary from significant to distant and incidental; the individuals themselves vary from crooked and somewhat controversial to essentially innocuous.
"This issue shouldn't, by itself, be dispositive," you concede, "Nor should it be the only, or even the most important, issue in the campaign. Nor is it fair to say that Obama's character can be understood only through the prism of his associations." Unfortunately, on October 4 the Washington Post quoted McCain campaign adviser Greg Stimple as saying, "We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans." A day later, the New York Daily News quoted "a top McCain strategist" admitting, "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose." This was the same weekend that McCain's running mate was out on the stump accusing Obama of, quote, "palling around with terrorists." Only days later, when McCain asked his audience who is the real Obama, the reply came back loud and clear, "terrorist." Visibly startled, McCain said nothing.
"The concern is not that Obama will invite domestic terrorists to the White House for signing ceremonies or private lunches," you claim. But clearly GOP operatives are stoking these very fears. I won't list all the incidents here -- the Virginia GOP chair encouraging volunteers to link Obama with terrorists, the GOP websites in Pennsylvania and Sacramento calling Obama "A Terrorist's Best Friend" and urging people to "Waterboard Barack Obama," the Robocalls going out right now that declare, "I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers."
Yes, Mr. Wehner, this is a question of character. Even close conservative friends and allies of John McCain no longer recognize this man. And whatever character he had going into this election, he has little if any left now.
P.S. Your white suprematist analogies do not apply for at least two reasons: 1) Jeremiah Wright is not a black suprematist, and black liberation theology is not about black supremacy but black equality, and 2) because black equality attempts to redress centuries of socioeconomic injustice while white supremacy attempts to maintain and reinforce that injustice, there is no moral equivalent between the two.
Friday, January 19, 2007
hits on obama
boy the right-wing hit squad is really trying hard to take out barak obama. just peruse the headlines from mediamatters this morning:
Gibson called Obama's long-known cigarette smoking a "dirty little secret" [Read more]
Wash. Times and others repeated Morris' Obama falsehood despite Morris' acknowledgment of error [Read more]
Limbaugh on Obama: "If he's got fire in his hands, what has he got in his pants?" [Read more]
Cavuto caption: "Nation in a Deep Freeze: What Global Warming?" [Read more]
Coulter on Obama's popularity: Democrats are "stunned" that a "black man can walk and talk" [Read more]
Time's Allen suggested Obama's stated faith and pro-choice views are incompatible [Read more]
Friday, January 27, 2006
Obama and Belafonte: a Meet the Press non-reply
From tmorange
Sent Friday, January 27, 2006 0:32 am
To +NBC News Meet the Press Questions
Subject Meet the Press non-reply on Obama and Belafonte
Dear "+NBC Meet the Press Questions,"
With all due respect, this reply is rubbish. You cite a quote buried deep in Jeff Zeleny's Chicago Tribune article "The first time around: Sen. Obama's freshman year" (December 24, 2005) that Belafonte "corresponds with Obama by telephone and e-mail," but what does this prove? Your implication is that there is some sort of personal relationship between Belafonte and Obama; do you have any other sources to back this up? Zeleny provides no information on the nature, frequency or extent of their correspondence. All the results of a LEXIS-NEXIS search of major newspapers for "Obama" and "Belafonte" turned up was that they have appeared and spoken at some of the same fundraisers and commemorative dinners.
Additionally, none of your examples of the "sound and fair" journalistic practice of "ask[ing] a political figure about comments made by a prominent supporter" have any relevance to this purported Belafonte-Obama relationship.
1) Obama has not given a presidential primary campaign speech at a university named after and/or formerly run by Harry Belafonte, as was the case with the question put to George W. Bush about Bob Jones.
2) Obama has no controversial campaign managers (neo-confederate or otherwise) who have made statements about Belafonte, as was the case with the question put to McCain about statements his campaign manager Richard Quinn made about David Duke.
3) Belafonte has never made automated phone bank campaign recordings for Obama, as was the charge put to Karl Rove regarding a Pat Robertson phone bank recording.
4) Obama has not, prior to Russert's question this past Sunday, volunteered any opinions about Belafonte for the record that I am aware of, as was the case when Tom Coburn was asked about comments he had previously volunteered about Alan Keyes.
Honestly, how stupid do you people think we are?
Still awaiting a REAL explanation from Meet The Press as to its reasons for questioning Obama about Belafonte, I remain...
----- Original Message -----
From: +NBC News Meet the Press Questions
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:00 pm
Subject: Thanks for writing
> Thank you for your e-mail.
>
> The Chicago Tribune of December 25, 2005 said the following:
>
> "Harry Belafonte, the entertainer and civil rights activist,
> corresponds with [Senator] Obama by telephone and e-mail."
>
> The article continues quoting Belafonte as saying:
>
> "I think Sen. Obama is a force...We've seen so many others
> who have come to high places and have failed so miserably. I think he could
> be our exception to the rule."
>
> It is sound and fair journalism to ask a political figure about
> comments made by a prominent supporter. That same standard is
> consistently applied
> on Meet the Press. Here are just a few examples: on February 13,
> 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush was asked about comments
> made by Bob Jones; on February 20, 2000, Sen. John McCain was asked about
> comments made by his political consultant about David Duke; on February 27, 2000,
> Karl Rove was asked about comments made by Pat Robertson; and on October 3, 2004,
> Republican Senate candidate Tom Coburn was asked about comments made by Alan
> Keyes.
>
> Thank you for writing and watching.
>
>
Sent Friday, January 27, 2006 0:32 am
To +NBC News Meet the Press Questions
Subject Meet the Press non-reply on Obama and Belafonte
Dear "+NBC Meet the Press Questions,"
With all due respect, this reply is rubbish. You cite a quote buried deep in Jeff Zeleny's Chicago Tribune article "The first time around: Sen. Obama's freshman year" (December 24, 2005) that Belafonte "corresponds with Obama by telephone and e-mail," but what does this prove? Your implication is that there is some sort of personal relationship between Belafonte and Obama; do you have any other sources to back this up? Zeleny provides no information on the nature, frequency or extent of their correspondence. All the results of a LEXIS-NEXIS search of major newspapers for "Obama" and "Belafonte" turned up was that they have appeared and spoken at some of the same fundraisers and commemorative dinners.
Additionally, none of your examples of the "sound and fair" journalistic practice of "ask[ing] a political figure about comments made by a prominent supporter" have any relevance to this purported Belafonte-Obama relationship.
1) Obama has not given a presidential primary campaign speech at a university named after and/or formerly run by Harry Belafonte, as was the case with the question put to George W. Bush about Bob Jones.
2) Obama has no controversial campaign managers (neo-confederate or otherwise) who have made statements about Belafonte, as was the case with the question put to McCain about statements his campaign manager Richard Quinn made about David Duke.
3) Belafonte has never made automated phone bank campaign recordings for Obama, as was the charge put to Karl Rove regarding a Pat Robertson phone bank recording.
4) Obama has not, prior to Russert's question this past Sunday, volunteered any opinions about Belafonte for the record that I am aware of, as was the case when Tom Coburn was asked about comments he had previously volunteered about Alan Keyes.
Honestly, how stupid do you people think we are?
Still awaiting a REAL explanation from Meet The Press as to its reasons for questioning Obama about Belafonte, I remain...
----- Original Message -----
From: +NBC News Meet the Press Questions
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:00 pm
Subject: Thanks for writing
> Thank you for your e-mail.
>
> The Chicago Tribune of December 25, 2005 said the following:
>
> "Harry Belafonte, the entertainer and civil rights activist,
> corresponds with [Senator] Obama by telephone and e-mail."
>
> The article continues quoting Belafonte as saying:
>
> "I think Sen. Obama is a force...We've seen so many others
> who have come to high places and have failed so miserably. I think he could
> be our exception to the rule."
>
> It is sound and fair journalism to ask a political figure about
> comments made by a prominent supporter. That same standard is
> consistently applied
> on Meet the Press. Here are just a few examples: on February 13,
> 2000, presidential candidate George W. Bush was asked about comments
> made by Bob Jones; on February 20, 2000, Sen. John McCain was asked about
> comments made by his political consultant about David Duke; on February 27, 2000,
> Karl Rove was asked about comments made by Pat Robertson; and on October 3, 2004,
> Republican Senate candidate Tom Coburn was asked about comments made by Alan
> Keyes.
>
> Thank you for writing and watching.
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
