• Barack Obama strikes back! Alan analyzes the candidate’s angry rebuke of Jeremiah Wright.
• Has Obama succeeded in putting his “pastor problem” behind him? Democratic pollster Doug Schoen, author of The Power of the Vote, weighs in.
• How will Obama’s critics on the Right respond? Alan confronts former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, whose latest book is Days of Infamy.
Frank Dogood:
Bravo! Well said. I also Rev. Wright said nothing wrong and I also feel Barack Obama should have made no apologies.
Are we acting like terrorists through our foreign policy, covert operations, or our governments past actions when pertaining to the Native Americans and Slavery? This is a good question, one that should be asked and not put down as Un-American. It is most patriotic to strive to correct, identify, and criticize the past errors or evils in order to forge a better Union, a stronger Nation. If we violated the international rules of the conduct of war, we are acting as a rouge nation. If we violated the moral and ethical standard of “act when acted upon or defense only when attacked,” we are unjust. What is terrorism? It is unethical, immoral, unjust, and illegal action causing death or great physical harm to innocent people. If one innocent person has died due to errors in policy or the illegality of policy, we, our government, have acted with malice towards ethical, moral and standards of justice. The Gulf of Tonkin and the carpet bombing of indiscriminate targets in N. Vietnam would qualify as unjust, immoral, and unethical due to the fact that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was self inflicted. Therefore all action after the Gulf of Tonkin was based on untruth and therefore is unjust. Iraq then is a similar situation, yet worse. Iraq did not attack the U.S. the President has stated that reality. Ask your self a few questions. Can I punch another man if he has not struck first? Can I strike a person under the logic of “well I thought they were going to strike me, so I struck first”/ No, I would go to jail for assault if I acted in a pre-emptive manner. We as a Nation acted not out of the standards of self-defense. Instead, we as a nation acted pre-emptivly with Iraq, which is against ethical and moral standards of action for self-defense. We must defend ourselves but only when it is ethical, moral, and just. Pre-emptive action based on shaky evidence and rumor is not ethical or moral behavior. With all this said, we cannot forget that all the initial reasons for action were false, just as the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a falsehood. Yet we used so-called faulty intelligence without a prior strike to justify a pre-emptive strike. On a personal level pre-emptive violence is illegal. I cannot by law, act in a pre-emptive fashion and use violence if no violence has been perpetrated towards me causing immediate threat to the safety of my person. Self-defense requires defense form violence not the defense from the potential for violence.
What are we talking about? Are we talking about taxes, the economy, the environment, war and peace, executive abuse of power, and the direction of the future of our nation? We are being railroaded by people who are using the free speech of Rev. Wright in order distract America from real issues (even if he is off the wall). America is being swift boated by this political tactic. It is a great shame for the people who use the tool of irrelevant issues to further personal greed for pure political gain. For those who use tabloid issues that swift boat the American peoples future. They are by their use of tabloid politics polluting the democratic system of government. This is their right under the first amendment, but it is unethical political behavior. I will not lower myself by calling them Anti-American or Un-American: instead I will call it what it is; unjust and unethical. They have a constitutional right to use tabloid speech or political weapons. This does not eliminate the their lack of character or ethics they display by using the Rev. Wright issue to destroy a political career.
The same people who think Rev. Wright used hate speech in is sermons are the same people who think that pro-peace demonstrators hate America. These are the same people who think that the ACLU is some how destroying America. Wow! Civil Liberties are destroying America. Who knew? These are the same people who consider people who criticize the Bush administration as America haters or Anti-American. These are the same people who think that calling other citizens Anti-American is some patriotic behavior. This is a sham, a shame, or deception. Saying that any speech no matter how shocking or offensive as being Anti-American is unconstitutional. It is very American to speak you mind. It is patriotic to exercise free speech. We as a nation should refrain from using the term Anti-American when describing Americans, not because you do not have the right to say it; rather it is because this behavior is Stalinistic, Maoist, Pol Potist, and reminiscent of Germany during World War Two. When describing fellow Americans the only accurate label that escapes Stalinistic tactics is the use of constitutional or unconstitutional. Is Behavior constitutional or unconstitutional not American or Anti-American, which should be the accurate wording used in political debate. Anti-American would infer that a citizen does not respect the constitution, for the constitution is America. Rev. Wright has not questioned the constitution. Citizens, who protest, criticize policy or government while respecting the constitution is not Anti-American, they are using the freedom or liberty held within the constitution. Thus they are actually quite patriotic. They are exercising the American principles of the constitution. They are truly American. Those who would call liberals Anti-American, the ACLU, and protesters Un-American or Anti-American are in reality disrespecting the ideals of a free society and the constitution. Those who scream Anti-American are not Anti-American; instead they are unconstitutional. I have enough r3espect for my fellow citizens to refrain from calling them Anti-American. For even though I believe that their behavior is an assault on the principle of free speech and free expression. I will not call them Anti-American. I will call them what they are; people who do not respect the First Amendment.
GREAT radio graffiti tonight! There’s one guy who calls in who always has a very interesting statement about something important. I like him.
Amy~ Girl, I know you better not ever come to work dressed as a naughty school girl!!! lol You have too much class for that. Ladies keep their naughty school girl outfit in the closet for special evenings with their man, and only break it out for him and Halloween. :-D
Only registered user allowed |
The media is all over Obama’s connections with Pastor Wright and Mr. Ayers. What about John McCain’s connections to Charles Keating in the 1980s? Keating was a renegade Arizona developer whose risky business deals played a big role in the savings and loan scandals. He was also a McCain donor.
April 29th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Obama comes out against his mentor Wright now that everyone is seeing what a paraniod,irrational person he is. I guess the scales just fell from Obama’s eyes and he’s now become aware,after twenty years of being mentored by this man,that he may have a mental disorder.
To try and continue to compare Obama’s relationship with Wright with any of McCain’s relationships is quite desperate. Has McCain refered to any of the people that he’s being associated with as his “spiritual advisor,mentor” or were they given a place on his campain staff? Has McCain written any books based on the influence of any of these people?
There’s a difference between a political association with someone and a relationship that involves giving spiritual advice and general mentoring.
I don’t see any problem with Obama’s connection with Ayers(sp?) as I see it as a superficial association. I doubt that Obama was influenced by him. The same can’t be said for,in Obama’s own words,his “spiritual advisor and mentor” Rev. Wright.
April 29th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Wow a sensitive and compassionate Newt Gingrich.
Pretty impressive.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Newt has recovered nicely from his fall from grace, hasn’t he?
April 29th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Well I don’t know about that lol! But I liked him tonight.
Loved Walter! Hahaha they gave him a free doughnut!
April 30th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Well Newt was on the View today…you know, it tends to soften you up some. Must be Whoopi.
April 30th, 2008 at 1:00 am
GREAT radio graffiti tonight! There’s one guy who calls in who always has a very interesting statement about something important. I like him.
Amy~ Girl, I know you better not ever come to work dressed as a naughty school girl!!! lol You have too much class for that. Ladies keep their naughty school girl outfit in the closet for special evenings with their man, and only break it out for him and Halloween. :-D
April 30th, 2008 at 1:00 am
The same people who think Rev. Wright used hate speech in is sermons are the same people who think that pro-peace demonstrators hate America. These are the same people who think that the ACLU is some how destroying America. Wow! Civil Liberties are destroying America. Who knew? These are the same people who consider people who criticize the Bush administration as America haters or Anti-American. These are the same people who think that calling other citizens Anti-American is some patriotic behavior. This is a sham, a shame, or deception. Saying that any speech no matter how shocking or offensive as being Anti-American is unconstitutional. It is very American to speak you mind. It is patriotic to exercise free speech. We as a nation should refrain from using the term Anti-American when describing Americans, not because you do not have the right to say it; rather it is because this behavior is Stalinistic, Maoist, Pol Potist, and reminiscent of Germany during World War Two. When describing fellow Americans the only accurate label that escapes Stalinistic tactics is the use of constitutional or unconstitutional. Is Behavior constitutional or unconstitutional not American or Anti-American, which should be the accurate wording used in political debate. Anti-American would infer that a citizen does not respect the constitution, for the constitution is America. Rev. Wright has not questioned the constitution. Citizens, who protest, criticize policy or government while respecting the constitution is not Anti-American, they are using the freedom or liberty held within the constitution. Thus they are actually quite patriotic. They are exercising the American principles of the constitution. They are truly American. Those who would call liberals Anti-American, the ACLU, and protesters Un-American or Anti-American are in reality disrespecting the ideals of a free society and the constitution. Those who scream Anti-American are not Anti-American; instead they are unconstitutional. I have enough r3espect for my fellow citizens to refrain from calling them Anti-American. For even though I believe that their behavior is an assault on the principle of free speech and free expression. I will not call them Anti-American. I will call them what they are; people who do not respect the First Amendment.
April 30th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
What are we talking about? Are we talking about taxes, the economy, the environment, war and peace, executive abuse of power, and the direction of the future of our nation? We are being railroaded by people who are using the free speech of Rev. Wright in order distract America from real issues (even if he is off the wall). America is being swift boated by this political tactic. It is a great shame for the people who use the tool of irrelevant issues to further personal greed for pure political gain. For those who use tabloid issues that swift boat the American peoples future. They are by their use of tabloid politics polluting the democratic system of government. This is their right under the first amendment, but it is unethical political behavior. I will not lower myself by calling them Anti-American or Un-American: instead I will call it what it is; unjust and unethical. They have a constitutional right to use tabloid speech or political weapons. This does not eliminate the their lack of character or ethics they display by using the Rev. Wright issue to destroy a political career.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Are we acting like terrorists through our foreign policy, covert operations, or our governments past actions when pertaining to the Native Americans and Slavery? This is a good question, one that should be asked and not put down as Un-American. It is most patriotic to strive to correct, identify, and criticize the past errors or evils in order to forge a better Union, a stronger Nation. If we violated the international rules of the conduct of war, we are acting as a rouge nation. If we violated the moral and ethical standard of “act when acted upon or defense only when attacked,” we are unjust. What is terrorism? It is unethical, immoral, unjust, and illegal action causing death or great physical harm to innocent people. If one innocent person has died due to errors in policy or the illegality of policy, we, our government, have acted with malice towards ethical, moral and standards of justice. The Gulf of Tonkin and the carpet bombing of indiscriminate targets in N. Vietnam would qualify as unjust, immoral, and unethical due to the fact that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was self inflicted. Therefore all action after the Gulf of Tonkin was based on untruth and therefore is unjust. Iraq then is a similar situation, yet worse. Iraq did not attack the U.S. the President has stated that reality. Ask your self a few questions. Can I punch another man if he has not struck first? Can I strike a person under the logic of “well I thought they were going to strike me, so I struck first”/ No, I would go to jail for assault if I acted in a pre-emptive manner. We as a Nation acted not out of the standards of self-defense. Instead, we as a nation acted pre-emptivly with Iraq, which is against ethical and moral standards of action for self-defense. We must defend ourselves but only when it is ethical, moral, and just. Pre-emptive action based on shaky evidence and rumor is not ethical or moral behavior. With all this said, we cannot forget that all the initial reasons for action were false, just as the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a falsehood. Yet we used so-called faulty intelligence without a prior strike to justify a pre-emptive strike. On a personal level pre-emptive violence is illegal. I cannot by law, act in a pre-emptive fashion and use violence if no violence has been perpetrated towards me causing immediate threat to the safety of my person. Self-defense requires defense form violence not the defense from the potential for violence.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Frank Dogood:
Bravo! Well said. I also Rev. Wright said nothing wrong and I also feel Barack Obama should have made no apologies.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:14 pm