Debbie F. wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:How was Obama supposed to know that $#@! crazy preachers preached at his church? I mean, just that it seemed that preachers said crazy $#@! at his church on a regular basis. How's he supposed to know?

I'm Catholic, so I've been listening to some crazy $#@! in church all my life. I think that the Church is completely out there on almost every issue that involves gender and sex. And I feel it on a deep, viseral level. Somehow, though, even when I deeply disagreed, I never grabbed my kid and got up and walked out of Mass. I check off Catholic on forms where it asks for your religion, and I carry a card in my wallet that says in case of an accident, contact a priest. Because, despite everything, there is still something there for me on a purely spiritual level and I am constantly trying to find a way not to be pushed out, or to push myself out. So, since Barack and I seem to be the only two people in America who are ambivalent about their church, and who have stayed when it might be better to go, I have some compassion where most people don't. I hope he is able to find peace on a personal as well as political level with his decision to leave. I guess my very politically aware daughter better never run for office, though...her liberal cred must be shot by sitting next to her mom instead of denouncing her has a hypocrite through some of those homiles.

And yet, that's not what I was talking about at all.

Obama, in his first real response to the Wright controversy said: "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation."

It's since become pretty apparent that nutty things were preached by this church on a regular basis. It came out that Oprah left the church more than a decade ago at least in part because she was uncomfortable with the incendiary message. This latest priest whooping it up about Hillary and white entitlement adds another piece to the puzzle.

It really strains believability that Obama could have attended this church on a regular basis and not have heard either some of the messages that have now become YouTube fodder or similarly charged rhetoric. Hence my comment about "how was Obama supposed to know?"

But what is not clear to me is whether you're trying to do a "gotcha" or do you think he really believes in the "incendiary message"? I tend to think given your partisan ways and intelligent demeanor, you know darn well he doesn't believe whitey is injecting AIDS into the inner city, etc. however, you think it might be a winning issue.

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:... it's probably too inside-baseball to do this, but the Republicans could do a lot worse than taking clips from that thing, in all its process-fetishistic glory and mind-numbing detail, and voice-overing "Seriously--you'd trust these guys to run the country?!?"

blessed are teh sausagemakers, for they shall be called children of Ob.

One obvious Dem counter would be a spot flashing on various term 1 bushies with this voiceover:

"if you think the Dems whole MI-FL thing was ugly, you should have seen the Reps arguing over our decision to invade Iraq!

Hmm...Come to think of it....maybe we ALL should have...."

Good stuff, good stuff.

jeff2sf wrote:But what is not clear to me is whether you're trying to do a "gotcha" or do you think he really believes in the "incendiary message"? I tend to think given your partisan ways and intelligent demeanor, you know darn well he doesn't believe whitey is injecting AIDS into the inner city, etc. however, you think it might be a winning issue.

He's only said he doesn't believe in some of the more incendiary remarks. He hasn't actually beaten up those who've said them. Until he smacks someone in the face with a crobar...I just don't know how he truly feels.

pacino wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:But what is not clear to me is whether you're trying to do a "gotcha" or do you think he really believes in the "incendiary message"? I tend to think given your partisan ways and intelligent demeanor, you know darn well he doesn't believe whitey is injecting AIDS into the inner city, etc. however, you think it might be a winning issue.

He's only said he doesn't believe in some of the more incendiary remarks. He hasn't actually beaten up those who've said them. Until he smacks someone in the face with a crobar...I just don't know how he truly feels.

Not to mention that HE'S BLACK! THEY ALL BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS!!! AND HE'Z A MUZLIM!!!!!!1 (Notwithstanding the whole "church" thing.) SCARY SCARY! HIDE THE WHITE WOMEN!!!

jeff2sf wrote:But what is not clear to me is whether you're trying to do a "gotcha" or do you think he really believes in the "incendiary message"? I tend to think given your partisan ways and intelligent demeanor, you know darn well he doesn't believe whitey is injecting AIDS into the inner city, etc. however, you think it might be a winning issue.

A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. I don't actually think he believes any of the crazy stuff, but I think it's becoming clear he's comfortable associating himself with people that do. I also think it's a powerful issue for the fall, but given that I don't think too many persuadable voters reside within the politics thread on the BSG board, I usually don't spend too much of my time here trying to convert the masses.

jeff2sf wrote:But what is not clear to me is whether you're trying to do a "gotcha" or do you think he really believes in the "incendiary message"?

disingenuity tit-for-tat; well played.

jerseyhoya wrote:I don't actually think he believes any of the crazy stuff, but I think it's becoming clear he's comfortable associating himself with people that do.

This is probably true. But if you knew much about how the black church works, you'd realize it's not at all unusual. Part of its institutional function as I understand it is that it provides a (theoretically) safe space to vent about the perceived (and I think the perception is objectively defensible) unfairness of the wider world. Admittedly, this sometimes manifests in cuh-razy statements.

Part of the problem with our over-close blending of politics and religion is that candidates on both sides get tarred by association--which is kind of what you're implying should happen here. But I think you'd agree that the "he" in your sentence could refer to McCain with respect to Hagee and Parsley just as easily as Obama with Wright and Pfleger. For my part, I'm confident that McCain doesn't think God sent Hitler to punish the Jews or that America's historical mission is to rid the world of Islam.

It's true that Obama had a much longer and closer association with Wright than McCain did with the two white nutballs. But unless one is totally cynical about it, it's also clear that the Obama-Wright relationship was a real relationship that had a lot of good stuff in it. Per Debbie F's comment, I suspect this is fairly common in the country. (As a northeast overeducated Obama-loving elitist agnostic, I can't say myself.) McCain reached out to his problematic preachers strictly for political reasons--then cut them loose when someone reached the conclusion they would do more harm than good.

For that reason, I doubt McCain will want to push this very hard--though I'm sure that Republicans of lesser character will take the Scary Black Guys argument as far as they can.

jerseyhoya wrote: I don't actually think he believes any of the crazy stuff, but I think it's becoming clear he's comfortable associating himself with people that do. I also think it's a powerful issue for the fall....

so Obama's 'comfortable' spiritual associations will affect his appeal sorta like McCain's difficult policy associations with the outbound regime will bog him down?

hardly even a contest, magnitude-of-importance-wise, even among those voters who GOP race-baiters will predictably go after.

I don't find 'distracting' used as a synonym for 'powerful' in dictionaries I use.

NJ-03 GOP Primary

The race we’ve all been waiting for. The most important clash on Tuesday. More important than Montana, South Dakota and the Lautenberg-Andrews race combined.

New Jersey’s third congressional district contains portions of Burlington, Ocean and Camden counties. For the past 24 years, it has been represented by Rep. Jim Saxton (R – Burlington). Saxton, a moderate Republican, is routinely endorsed by the Sierra Club due to his long term passion for cleaning up Barnegat Bay, as well as other issues like preventing oil drilling off the NJ coast. However, Saxton is best known for his commitment to armed services issues, and he famously saved Fort Dix and McGuire AFB (both in the district) from closure in the mid 1990s. Las November, Saxton announced his retirement due to health issues. He had recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer, though he’s expected to make a full recovery.

Though the third district is a true toss up on the national level, Gore won it in 2000, Bush won it in 2004, it has long voted Republican on the local level, with the exception of Cherry Hill, the lone town in the district from Camden County. Saxton consistently won reelection by wide margins, even in 2000 when he was targeted by national Democrats and opposed by Cherry Hill Mayor Susan Bass Levin. However, this cycle the Dems landed their top recruiting target, State Sen. John Adler (D – Camden), who has already raised more than $1,000,000 and will make a tough opponent for whomever survives the GOP primary.

The Burlington and Ocean County GOP organizations are two of the top ones in the state, and the primary has devolved into little more than a grudge match between the two party organizations. Representing Burlington County, endorsed by Rep. Saxton, is Chris Myers, the Mayor of Medford (my hometown) and VP of Lockheed Martin. From Ocean County is Freeholder Jack Kelly. Also in the race is Justin Murphy from Tabernacle in Burlington County, but he is a non factor.

Myers has an impressive resume. Only 42, Myers served in the first Gulf War, and has climbed up the chain quickly at Lockheed Martin, which I believe is the largest private employer in the district. He’s running as a fairly typical Republican candidate, though hyping up his ability to understand veteran’s issues, a big deal in a district with three military installations and a large retiree population in Toms River. Myers has been attacked by Kelly for the rise in property taxes under his watch in Medford. As anyone from New Jersey knows, property taxes go up every year in every town, and are largely determined by how much state aid a town gets and whether or not the school budget passes with the voters. Nevertheless, GOP primary voters don’t like hearing about taxes going up. Myers also has some vulnerability because he gave $500 to Frank Lautenberg earlier this cycle. Though the rest of Myers giving record is reliably Republican, this one sticks out like a sore thumb. I think Lockheed execs were probably encouraged to donate to him at a fundraiser or something, but you can’t really say that.

Kelly is a fat, career politician. I honestly don’t know why anyone would vote for him over Myers. He’s been an Ocean County freeholder for 16 years. He also held a patronage job at the Atlantic City airport that he did not even fulfill the basic requirements for due to a lack of college degree, during which time he collected over $70,000 dollars from NJ taxpayers in lieu of health care benefits, since he already got those from his freeholder position. He’s such a creature of everything that is wrong with New Jersey politics, and I’m embarrassed that he has a decent shot of winning on Tuesday. His victory will seal the pickup of the seat for Adler and the Dems. Kelly has been endorsed by the founder of the Minutemen Project. I think this is his only distinguishing characteristic besides being from Ocean County.

I think Myers will win. He has the line in Camden County as well as Burlington, which should cast combined slightly more votes than Ocean. Saxton’s word carries a lot of weight with the GOP primary electorate. And any real examination of the two candidates puts Myers way ahead. He has the chance of being a really, really effective congressman that South Jersey can be proud of for a couple of decades. I don’t know if anyone who reads this board is a registered voter in the 3rd Congressional District, but if you are, I hope you’ll consider going to vote for Chris Myers on Tuesday.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: I don't actually think he believes any of the crazy stuff, but I think it's becoming clear he's comfortable associating himself with people that do. I also think it's a powerful issue for the fall....

so Obama's 'comfortable' spiritual associations will affect his appeal sorta like McCain's difficult policy associations with the outbound regime will bog him down?

hardly even a contest, magnitude-of-importance-wise, even among those voters who GOP race-baiters will predictably go after.

I don't find 'distracting' used as a synonym for 'powerful' in dictionaries I use.

Hardly even a contest? Somehow Obama and McCain are virtually tied in the polls. There was a Pew Survey conducted this week that found that while most of McCain's problems are political, a large portion of Obama's issues with voters are personal. While this isn't a revelation that could be described as a great shock, it looks like what you think is a distraction is powerful to a lot of people.

So Hillary obliterated Obama in Puerto Rico today.

Let's see what turnout was like. She might have won the popular vote today, even if that's largely academic.

jerseyhoya wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:But what is not clear to me is whether you're trying to do a "gotcha" or do you think he really believes in the "incendiary message"? I tend to think given your partisan ways and intelligent demeanor, you know darn well he doesn't believe whitey is injecting AIDS into the inner city, etc. however, you think it might be a winning issue.

A little bit of column A, a little bit of column B. I don't actually think he believes any of the crazy stuff, but I think it's becoming clear he's comfortable associating himself with people that do. I also think it's a powerful issue for the fall, but given that I don't think too many persuadable voters reside within the politics thread on the BSG board, I usually don't spend too much of my time here trying to convert the masses.

To be honest, I can't disagree that it is a stretch to believe that Obama never heard some of the inflammatory stuff at church, or for that matter at the dinner table. He would have done better to admit that yes, he did hear some of that stuff, had lots of arguments about it, but loved some of the people involved and did his best to agree to disagree. I realize that I have a tendancy to personalize some of this stuff, but again, to relate to my own life experience, if I refused associate with every person I heard make racist, sexist, homophobic or just plain crazy stupid remarks, I would have to cut off a fair number of my relatives. So, since those of us in glass houses can't throw stones, I have some sympathy for the "crazy uncle" defense. He should have used it in the first place instead of playing dumb.

I also admit that I am not a "persuadable voter" in this election, so I am willing to unfairly give Obama the benefit of a doubt that I might not always be willing to give him or other candidates. I like Obama, and I think he might just do a good job, but I would have been willing to give Clinton my vote if things had swung that way as well (sorry dajafi.) I hate to be a single issue voter, but in this election, as the possessor of a uterus, and as the mother of a child who has a uterus, my most pressing interest is the Supreme Court. The Bush adminstration has proved that the nation can survive almost anything for eight years, but two (or even one) more conservative Supreme Court justices will adversely affect our lives for an entire generation.

If 9% of turnout is 20k people...wow, what a let down for Hillary.

As I said earlier, if I lived in a state that mattered and the Clintons had won, I might have come to the same conclusion, for somewhat the same reasons. This is actually the first time in my life that the candidate I liked so much as made it to the finals.

At the risk of getting jeff all riled up again, I probably put more emphasis on "character" than I should. On a personal level, I do find McCain more palatable than Clinton, simply because I think he has some sense of honor and fair play where she (and her even more narcissistic husband) has none. And I'd trust McCain more not to abuse the powers of the presidency, frankly. But policy differences should be decisive, so if I somehow had to choose... well, I'm glad I won't, and will leave it at that.

jerseyhoya,

Will you give your analysis of some of the other races throughout the nation that the GOP considers important/in play? Even though I am reading your thoughts from "across the aisle," I find them very interesting, well reasoned and often balanced. I've also been passing some of your comments on to my teenage daughter, who is interested in a career in Democratic politics (as an operative, probably not as a candidate.) Actually, I find your commentary and dajafi's much better than what is available in the media (and that is meant as a genuine, not a backhanded, compliment to you both.)

Looking like Hillary will be lucky to win PR by 100,000 votes.

Obama was winning by about 250,000 votes with Florida and the caucus states included this morning. If Hillary doesn't surpass that, then she should really go quietly.

jerseyhoya wrote:Hardly even a contest? Somehow Obama and McCain are virtually tied in the polls.

suh-wing & a miss - the point is not about where the candidates currently stand in opinion polls, but rather which of the issues contrasted is the more substantive.... but you take a better hack at the topic here:

There was a Pew Survey conducted this week that found that while most of McCain's problems are political, a large portion of Obama's issues with voters are personal. While this isn't a revelation that could be described as a great shock, it looks like what you think is a distraction is powerful to a lot of people.

stop, just stop.

you know that the 'church nut issue' is all willie horton distraction & virtually no substance, unlike mccain's problematic backing of unpopular bushco war blunders (McCain may indeed have clearer thinking about how to handle Iraq, even Iran, but will spend lots of time distinguishing his plans from bushcos).

McCain's problems are "political" - yea, if you mean he's taking bewilderingly unpopular positions on substantive issues.

Obama's are "personal" - meaning "don't forget now, he's black"

Your use of 'powerful' here has all the signs of a desperate attempt to sanitize a base, timeworn, fugly, and frequently successful election tactic.

Just call it what it is - why waste time spraying cheap deodorant on it?

People who spend time debating what issues are substantive and what aren't, are what we like to call "losers"

It's great that you have decided what does and does not matter. However, it does not work that way.

Debbie F. wrote:jerseyhoya,

Will you give your analysis of some of the other races throughout the nation that the GOP considers important/in play? Even though I am reading your thoughts from "across the aisle," I find them very interesting, well reasoned and often balanced. I've also been passing some of your comments on to my teenage daughter, who is interested in a career in Democratic politics (as an operative, probably not as a candidate.) Actually, I find your commentary and dajafi's much better than what is available in the media (and that is meant as a genuine, not a backhanded, compliment to you both.)

Sure thing. I'm actually traveling for work this week, which entails staying at my parents' house. I could probably address the competitive states in the Presidential race, the important Senate races and important House races over the course of the week.