Krauthammer: Obama's Big Problem

11Hungrybb · 04-29-2008, 12:11 PM

Ulter · 04-29-2008, 12:30 PM

Thank you. The next time I hear about how left the WP is I can use that.

11Hungrybb · 04-29-2008, 02:41 PM

It sure will be a fun summer! eh, Midlife?

Ulter · 04-29-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

I love the "hammer". He is anything but liberal...its just an op-ed peice for god sake Ulter. Doesnt reflect on the WP whatsoever.

Papers aren't responsible for what they publish? okay

You're right MLC, McCain is lock for the White House.

ILIEKFUDE · 04-29-2008, 03:30 PM

HAHA krauthammer... sounds like a secret weapon from WW2
UNLEASH THE KRAUTHAMMER!

solidspine · 04-29-2008, 05:23 PM

One slight problem, that everyone has simply over looked, not very important but should be considered

There is no way Barack Hussein Obama can get elected in a general election

So foreplay is foreplay and Hillary or Hussein,

Obama will not get go on beyond the Democratic National Convention – In Denver

ILIEKFUDE · 04-29-2008, 05:28 PM

Ya, its gona be interesting to watch for sure.
The breadbasket of the U.S.A. that arent republican (if there are any that arent) must really feel like their blindfolded in a one legged ass kickin contest.

Ulter · 04-29-2008, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by midlifecrisis

I see dem strategists all over Fox News everynight, does that make FNC somehow less conservative? Its an opposing viewpoint offered in an op-ed peice. How that makes the WP less a liberal rag is beyond me. Becuase it doesnt.

Yes, it still reflects on FOX. You said having an opposing view doesn't reflect on the media outlet. I am saying, yes, it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 11Hungrybb
It sure will be a fun summer! eh, Midlife?

Sorry I don't share your view on this either. I am sick to death of the whole process at this point. It started WAAAAY too early and I've grown apathetic to it. I hope the parties learned something from starting so early. In terms of what it costs them financially and getting a message out that people are going to even remember nearly a year later.
Of course in McCain's case he can just keep changing his message. Now he's against a better GI bill. The soldier boy. Who would have guessed.

solidspine · 05-01-2008, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Obama's Big Problem

Besides befriending terrorist and radicals,

his other problem is his politics, he is a communist.

PDOGGY · 05-03-2008, 06:45 PM

Krauthammer's assessment was weak, at best.

BO does have some problems, but "character" and "cultural "attitudes" (notice he didn't say specifically what they were, are the least of them.

11Hungrybb · 05-05-2008, 06:14 PM

washingtonpost.com

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 2, 2008; Page A21

"I can no more disown him [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother."

-- Barack Obama, Philadelphia, March 18

Guess it's time to disown Granny, if Obama's famous Philadelphia "race" speech is to be believed. Of course, the speech was not just believed. It was hailed, celebrated, canonized as the greatest pronouncement on race in America since Lincoln at Cooper Union. A New York Times columnist said it "should be required reading in classrooms across the country." College seniors and first-graders, suggested the excitable Chris Matthews.

Apparently there's been a curriculum change. On Tuesday, the good senator begged to extend and revise his previous remarks on race. Moral equivalence between Grandma and Wright is now, as the Nixon administration used to say, inoperative. Poor Geraldine Ferraro, thrice lashed by Obama in Philadelphia as the white equivalent of Wright's raving racism, is off the hook.

These equivalences having been revealed as the cheap rhetorical tricks they always were, Obama has now decided that the man he simply could not banish because he had become part of Obama himself is, mirabile dictu, surgically excised.

At a news conference in North Carolina, Obama explained why he finally decided to do the deed. 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.

What were Obama's three citations? Wright's claim that AIDS was invented by the U.S. government to commit genocide. His praise of Louis Farrakhan as a great man. And his blaming Sept. 11 on American "terrorism."

But these comments are not new. These were precisely the outrages that prompted the initial furor when the Wright tapes emerged seven weeks ago. Obama decided to cut off Wright not because Wright's words or character or views had suddenly changed. The only thing that changed was the venue in which Wright chose to display them -- live on national TV at the National Press Club. That unfortunate choice destroyed Obama's Philadelphia pretense that this "endless loop" of sermon excerpts being shown on "television sets and YouTube" had been taken out of context.

Obama's Philadelphia oration was an exercise in contextualization. In one particularly egregious play on white guilt, Obama had the audacity to suggest that whites should be ashamed that they were ever surprised by Wright's remarks: "The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning."

That was then. On Tuesday, Obama declared that he himself was surprised at Wright's outrages. But hadn't Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America's history of segregated services? How then to explain Obama's own presumed ignorance? Surely he too was not sitting in those segregated white churches on those fateful Sundays when he conveniently missed all of Wright's racist rants.

Obama's turning surprise about Wright into something to be counted against whites-- one of the more clever devices in that shameful, brilliantly executed, 5,000-word intellectual fraud in Philadelphia -- now stands discredited by Obama's own admission of surprise. But Obama's liberal acolytes are not daunted. They were taken in by the first great statement on race: the Annunciation, the Chosen One comes to heal us in Philly. They now are taken in by the second: the Renunciation.

Obama's newest attempt to save himself after Wright's latest poisonous performance is now declared the new final word on the subject. Therefore, any future ads linking Obama and Wright are preemptively declared out of bounds, illegitimate, indeed "race-baiting" (a New York Times editorial, April 30).

On what grounds? This 20-year association with Wright calls into question everything about Obama: his truthfulness in his serially adjusted stories of what he knew and when he knew it; his judgment in choosing as his mentor, pastor and great friend a man he just now realizes is a purveyor of racial hatred; and the central premise of his campaign, that he is the bringer of a "new politics," rising above the old Washington ways of expediency. It's hard to think of an act more blatantly expedient than renouncing Wright when his show, once done from the press club instead of the pulpit, could no longer be "contextualized" as something whites could not understand and only Obama could explain in all its complexity.

Turns out the Wright show was not that complex after all. Everyone understands it now. Even Obama.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Ulter · 05-06-2008, 09:46 AM

Either this writer is a complete idiot or he is just masterful at taking one statement and turning it into something completely different.

Obama's Philadelphia oration was an exercise in contextualization. In one particularly egregious play on white guilt, Obama had the audacity to suggest that whites should be ashamed that they were ever surprised by Wright's remarks:

"The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning."

He's talking about the fact that angry speeches are a part of black churches all over America every Sunday. The fact that most white people don't know that shows that it's true that America is segregated most in the churches.
What is so sinister about that statement? It's true. Whether or not you feel guilt about it or not is not the issue.

But hadn't Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America's history of segregated services?

Yes he did, and hey guess what? It's STILL true. It's time to move on. That point has been explained and discussed extensively.

The only fraud I see is Hammerhead.

11Hungrybb · 05-06-2008, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ulter

Either this writer is a complete idiot or he is just masterful at taking one statement and turning it into something completely different.

Obama's Philadelphia oration was an exercise in contextualization. In one particularly egregious play on white guilt, Obama had the audacity to suggest that whites should be ashamed that they were ever surprised by Wright's remarks:

"The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning."

He's talking about the fact that angry speeches are a part of black churches all over America every Sunday. The fact that most white people don't know that shows that it's true that America is segregated most in the churches.
What is so sinister about that statement? It's true. Whether or not you feel guilt about it or not is not the issue.

But hadn't Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America's history of segregated services?
after 20 years of attending that church? c'mon fella

Yes he did, and hey guess what? It's STILL true. It's time to move on. That point has been explained and discussed extensively.

The only fraud I see is Hammerhead.

I can't believe you've never ever heard of Krauthammer. I thought you would have. Anyways, just sharing and really calling him hammerhead is a bit low.

Ulter · 05-06-2008, 10:12 AM

I don't read him just like I don't read Ann Coulter. I have seen him on TV and read quotes, that's about it.

But hadn't Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America's history of segregated services?
after 20 years of attending that church? c'mon fella

Again you're missing the point, the same way the writer did.
The surprise about Wright he is referring to has nothing to do with what Wright said, or how often in 20 years he said it. The surprise he's refering to is that black ministers talk like that in church. Not just Wright but hundreds of them in black churches all over America. But whites wouldn't know that because they don't go there. So when they found out they were surprised. Most white people only know that white evangelicals talk that bullshit.

Ulter · 05-06-2008, 10:33 AM

The problem is that the writer is mixing up the message. Yes, it's absolutely true that Obama didn't want to disown Wright and now he has. I didn't write anything about that because I agree with it. Better late than never. But he should have walked away sooner.

I am writing about how he has taken part of the speech and changed the meaning of it. I am pointing out exactly where the flaw in his article lies.

I am sorry, you'll have to show me where I compared the two writers. I said I don't read either one. And I only brought her up because her articles have been posted on this board in the past as well.

No, absolutely not. I am not off and it's very well documented to the point of common knowledge that churches are segregated the same way, and for the same reasons, they have been for 150 years.

Ulter · 05-06-2008, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Well I will ask you straight out. Do you think that sort of talk, segregist, hatred, divisive, is ok and good for America?

No, and I don't think it belongs in the white churches either. I don't think it belongs on TV where the Televangalists practice it all the time. I think Hagee, Falwell, and Roberts are just as guilty and have millions more followers. The idea that all that "talk, segregist, hatred, divisive" is unique to black churches is wrong. Maybe you didn't hear those men, but millions did.

04-29-2008, 12:11 PM	#1 (permalink)
11Hungrybb Ezekiel 4:9! Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Orygun Posts: 480 Rep Power: 39041	Krauthammer: Obama's Big Problem washingtonpost.com

04-29-2008, 12:30 PM	#2 (permalink)
Ulter Chairman of the board Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Orlando Posts: 27,388 Rep Power: 271173	Thank you. The next time I hear about how left the WP is I can use that. __________________ > . . When you register at www.theafstore.com make sure you register as an AF Board Member to get the discounted pricing.

04-29-2008, 03:30 PM	#5 (permalink)
ILIEKFUDE Indeed You Are Powerful.. Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: The Death Star Posts: 2,665 Rep Power: 109224	HAHA krauthammer... sounds like a secret weapon from WW2 UNLEASH THE KRAUTHAMMER! __________________ "Consider the Predator. Let your soul be armoured with Faith, driven on the tracks of obedience which overcomes all obstacles, and armed with the three great guns of Zeal, Duty and Purity." My Training Log

05-05-2008, 06:14 PM	#11 (permalink)
11Hungrybb Ezekiel 4:9! Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Orygun Posts: 480 Rep Power: 39041	More Krauthammer on Obama- The 'Race' Speech Revisited washingtonpost.com By Charles Krauthammer Friday, May 2, 2008; Page A21 "I can no more disown him [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown my white grandmother." -- Barack Obama, Philadelphia, March 18 Guess it's time to disown Granny, if Obama's famous Philadelphia "race" speech is to be believed. Of course, the speech was not just believed. It was hailed, celebrated, canonized as the greatest pronouncement on race in America since Lincoln at Cooper Union. A New York Times columnist said it "should be required reading in classrooms across the country." College seniors and first-graders, suggested the excitable Chris Matthews. Apparently there's been a curriculum change. On Tuesday, the good senator begged to extend and revise his previous remarks on race. Moral equivalence between Grandma and Wright is now, as the Nixon administration used to say, inoperative. Poor Geraldine Ferraro, thrice lashed by Obama in Philadelphia as the white equivalent of Wright's raving racism, is off the hook. These equivalences having been revealed as the cheap rhetorical tricks they always were, Obama has now decided that the man he simply could not banish because he had become part of Obama himself is, mirabile dictu, surgically excised. At a news conference in North Carolina, Obama explained why he finally decided to do the deed. 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. What were Obama's three citations? Wright's claim that AIDS was invented by the U.S. government to commit genocide. His praise of Louis Farrakhan as a great man. And his blaming Sept. 11 on American "terrorism." But these comments are not new. These were precisely the outrages that prompted the initial furor when the Wright tapes emerged seven weeks ago. Obama decided to cut off Wright not because Wright's words or character or views had suddenly changed. The only thing that changed was the venue in which Wright chose to display them -- live on national TV at the National Press Club. That unfortunate choice destroyed Obama's Philadelphia pretense that this "endless loop" of sermon excerpts being shown on "television sets and YouTube" had been taken out of context. Obama's Philadelphia oration was an exercise in contextualization. In one particularly egregious play on white guilt, Obama had the audacity to suggest that whites should be ashamed that they were ever surprised by Wright's remarks: "The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning." That was then. On Tuesday, Obama declared that he himself was surprised at Wright's outrages. But hadn't Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America's history of segregated services? How then to explain Obama's own presumed ignorance? Surely he too was not sitting in those segregated white churches on those fateful Sundays when he conveniently missed all of Wright's racist rants. Obama's turning surprise about Wright into something to be counted against whites-- one of the more clever devices in that shameful, brilliantly executed, 5,000-word intellectual fraud in Philadelphia -- now stands discredited by Obama's own admission of surprise. But Obama's liberal acolytes are not daunted. They were taken in by the first great statement on race: the Annunciation, the Chosen One comes to heal us in Philly. They now are taken in by the second: the Renunciation. Obama's newest attempt to save himself after Wright's latest poisonous performance is now declared the new final word on the subject. Therefore, any future ads linking Obama and Wright are preemptively declared out of bounds, illegitimate, indeed "race-baiting" (a New York Times editorial, April 30). On what grounds? This 20-year association with Wright calls into question everything about Obama: his truthfulness in his serially adjusted stories of what he knew and when he knew it; his judgment in choosing as his mentor, pastor and great friend a man he just now realizes is a purveyor of racial hatred; and the central premise of his campaign, that he is the bringer of a "new politics," rising above the old Washington ways of expediency. It's hard to think of an act more blatantly expedient than renouncing Wright when his show, once done from the press club instead of the pulpit, could no longer be "contextualized" as something whites could not understand and only Obama could explain in all its complexity. Turns out the Wright show was not that complex after all. Everyone understands it now. Even Obama. letters@charleskrauthammer.com

05-06-2008, 09:46 AM	#12 (permalink)
Ulter Chairman of the board Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Orlando Posts: 27,388 Rep Power: 271173	Either this writer is a complete idiot or he is just masterful at taking one statement and turning it into something completely different. Obama's Philadelphia oration was an exercise in contextualization. In one particularly egregious play on white guilt, Obama had the audacity to suggest that whites should be ashamed that they were ever surprised by Wright's remarks: "The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday morning." He's talking about the fact that angry speeches are a part of black churches all over America every Sunday. The fact that most white people don't know that shows that it's true that America is segregated most in the churches. What is so sinister about that statement? It's true. Whether or not you feel guilt about it or not is not the issue. But hadn't Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America's history of segregated services? Yes he did, and hey guess what? It's STILL true. It's time to move on. That point has been explained and discussed extensively. The only fraud I see is Hammerhead. __________________ > . . When you register at www.theafstore.com make sure you register as an AF Board Member to get the discounted pricing.

04-29-2008, 02:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
11Hungrybb Ezekiel 4:9! Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Orygun Posts: 480 Rep Power: 39041	It sure will be a fun summer! eh, Midlife?

04-29-2008, 05:23 PM	#6 (permalink)
solidspine Retired Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 6,622 Rep Power: 0	One slight problem, that everyone has simply over looked, not very important but should be considered There is no way Barack Hussein Obama can get elected in a general election So foreplay is foreplay and Hillary or Hussein, Obama will not get go on beyond the Democratic National Convention – In Denver

05-03-2008, 06:45 PM	#10 (permalink)
PDOGGY Gold Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 531 Rep Power: 6575	Krauthammer's assessment was weak, at best. BO does have some problems, but "character" and "cultural "attitudes" (notice he didn't say specifically what they were, are the least of them.

05-06-2008, 10:12 AM	#14 (permalink)
Ulter Chairman of the board Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Orlando Posts: 27,388 Rep Power: 271173	I don't read him just like I don't read Ann Coulter. I have seen him on TV and read quotes, that's about it. But hadn't Obama told us that surprise about Wright is a result of white ignorance of black churches brought on by America's history of segregated services? after 20 years of attending that church? c'mon fella Again you're missing the point, the same way the writer did. The surprise about Wright he is referring to has nothing to do with what Wright said, or how often in 20 years he said it. The surprise he's refering to is that black ministers talk like that in church. Not just Wright but hundreds of them in black churches all over America. But whites wouldn't know that because they don't go there. So when they found out they were surprised. Most white people only know that white evangelicals talk that bullshit. __________________ > . . When you register at www.theafstore.com make sure you register as an AF Board Member to get the discounted pricing.

05-06-2008, 10:33 AM	#15 (permalink)
Ulter Chairman of the board Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Orlando Posts: 27,388 Rep Power: 271173	The problem is that the writer is mixing up the message. Yes, it's absolutely true that Obama didn't want to disown Wright and now he has. I didn't write anything about that because I agree with it. Better late than never. But he should have walked away sooner. I am writing about how he has taken part of the speech and changed the meaning of it. I am pointing out exactly where the flaw in his article lies. I am sorry, you'll have to show me where I compared the two writers. I said I don't read either one. And I only brought her up because her articles have been posted on this board in the past as well. No, absolutely not. I am not off and it's very well documented to the point of common knowledge that churches are segregated the same way, and for the same reasons, they have been for 150 years. __________________ > . . When you register at www.theafstore.com make sure you register as an AF Board Member to get the discounted pricing.