« Ooops! | Main | Maybe I Should Be More Trusting » Question of the Day27 Feb 2008 11:42 am Will John McCain be asked to specifically denounce each and every white supremacist leader in America who urges his followers to back McCain over Obama? UPDATE: It seems that America's white supremacists aren't as uniformly anti-Obama as I'd thought. David Duke, at least, sees Obama as no worse than the alternatives, though some white supremacists do seem to be sticking to the traditional "black people bad, white people good" approach to politics. Comments (49)
THBAEOSATSQ. 
How dare you ask such question about a war hero and a Republican?
Not unless Hillary Clinton rejects each and every feminist who equates debating with gang raping ... talk about dworking out.
Straight talk!
If the head of McCain's church gives a lifetime achievement award to such a racist, than yes, McCain should denounce him.
Whether he denounces/rejects or ignores it altogether, one thing is sure, my friends: he's a straight talker and with a press pass you too get to ride on his big shiny bus.
Forget "denouncing" them....I want to know if he "rejects" them
Look, I'm on the team. But I do gotta wonder why he stays with that church. I'm not a churchgoer, so maybe there are principles and allegiances that I don't understand. But I guess I think if I were going to a church, or patronizing any other establishment, that lavished praise on Farrakhan, I wouldn't go back. Come the general election, I think that's the impression an average, non-racist voter might have. Maybe there's a good answer. Haven't heard it yet.
I know he was a dope, but still no mention of WFB Jr.'s passing yet?
There's difference. Obama is black. There is a presumption of guilt that is his obligation to disprove. I am saying this sarcastically but also seriously. I hesitate to suggest that I can at all speak to the experience of being African-American, but I would gather -- from what I've read -- that most black Americans would tell you that they feel pressure to assure white Americans that they don't suffer from whatever trope they might be presumed to embody (attitude, laziness, angry, anti-Americanism, beneficiary of affirmative action, etc., etc., etc.). This is what some vocal pro-Hillary supporters have missed in their comparison of the candidates. Certain "white bitch" stereotypes have stuck to Hillary because she has only intermittently worked to discourage them. Obama -- whatever else you might think of him -- is an exceptionally disciplined human being, and a reflection of the discipline is an amazing effort to avoid giving black stereotypes the fodder they need to live on. As an aside, here's an example of his discipline that I haven't seen anyone else notice. Six months ago, he "ummm-ed" a lot during pauses in his speeches and during debates. Columnists such as Rich Lowry harped on this to point out that Obama wasn't as good a speaker as his reputation suggested. Here's the thing: he doesn't do it anymore. Imagine how hard that is to stop doing that kind of reflexive ingrained behavior, especially under these circumstances.
Actually, I've heard white nationalists say that electing Obama would be a good thing because it would escalate "the race war." They're stocking up on ammo and all that.
Forget white supremacists. That sounds too easy. How about asking McCain if he denounces or rejects the support of radicals in the Republican party like Pat Robertson. Clarification: Pat Robertson is probably not supporting him right now, but presumably there are others with similar levels of vileness who are.
I guess I think if I were going to a church, or patronizing any other establishment, that lavished praise on Farrakhan, I wouldn't go back. I can understand this point of view, but fairly, similar things could be asked of, say, all Catholics, w/r/t the Church's views on women in the priesthood, abortion and birth control and gay rights, or Orthodox Jews or Southern Baptists, likewise re: gender and sexual orientation issues, or probably a whole lot of other large religious institutions. And arguably those are a much bigger deal than what a particular pastor -- not, significantly, the religious institution itself -- says about a particular execrable character. The UCC actually holds quite progressive social views as mainstream religious organizations go, and certainly is far, far from Farrakhan-land in its institutional viewpoint. And I don't think we want to ask that of believers. I don't assume my friends who are Catholic, Southern Baptist or Orthodox Jewish believe all of these things; indeed, I know they do not.
Will Obama be asked to denounce the people who he serves on small oversight boards with, for speaking favorably of domestic bombing campaigns as a means of political change? Or does only a Republican's association with groups such as the Concerned Citizens Council require such an act of denunciation?
How about prominent, TV-network-owning Republicans who pray for Supreme Court justices to die? Should McCain have to distance himself from them? And McCain wisely flip-flopped on the "which religion am I" issue, thus escaping the sort of thing that Obama's going through.
I'm not a churchgoer, so maybe there are principles and allegiances that I don't understand. But I guess I think if I were going to a church, or patronizing any other establishment, that lavished praise on Farrakhan, I wouldn't go back. Just the clarify, the church itself has not lavished any praise, nor does it have any connection with Farrakhan as an institution (as far as I know). The church's (since retired) pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has praised Farrakhan on his own, most famously through a magazine published by his daughter. It was all done separate from the church.
Someone hasn't been reading the New Republic this morning... http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=907272c4-54db-4fba-9149-e95b7293d6a0 "But there may be one more factor at work: hatred overload. It's a testament of sorts to Hillary Clinton that, by virtue of her cartoonish image as a leftist man-hating shrew, she manages to arouse more vitriol among white supremacists than a black man. Meanwhile, white racists absolutely despise John McCain for his support of George W. Bush's immigration reform plan, which they view as a dire threat to America's European-based culture. 'I don't think Obama will be any more negative for the United States than Hillary or John McCain,' explains [David] Duke[, the prominent Holocaust Denier and Klansman]. "In fact," he added, 'we probably have less preference for a European like a John McCain or a Hillary who has betrayed our interests, our heritage, our rights.'"
Will Obama be asked to denounce the people who he serves on small oversight boards with, for speaking favorably of domestic bombing campaigns as a means of political change? Really? This is what you're going with? Obama must be in better shape than I thought.
Re Bill White Since Mr. Yglesias has objected to my use of the term "raghead", I presume that he will immediately, if not sooner remove the comment of Mr. White which contains the pejorative "nigger".
Someone shd set up a website like doyourejecthemmacain.com listing the most bigoted statements about blacks, arabs, etc, from McCain supporters so there's ammo for counter-strikes.
Gabriel, I'm likely not voting, so I'm not "going" with anything. I do find it interesting that a Democratic Presidential Nominee can choose to intimately associate with people who favor bombing campaigns as a means of American political participation, and it is hardly mentioned. Somehow, I think if John McCain had chosen to serve on the board of a small charity with someone who spoke favorably of the times in which he bombed abortion clinics, it might have warranted more attention.
Hell, somebody needs to ask McCain if he rejects the endorsement of George Allen. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/07/AR2008020703948.html
I'd object to equating Farrakhan to a white supremacist. Farrakhan is not openly anti-Semitic. He does not go around preaching such views on a daily or even yearly basis. He has simply made some comments against Israel over the years which people have taken to be anti-Semitic, but he has always objected to that and said they were taking him out of context. For example, Russert accused him of calling Judaism a "gutter religion", but he claims he was referring to the religion of specific militant Zionists who twist around Judaism to serve their interests. Now, I do think what Farrakhan said in that case and others is offensive even with the defense, but that makes him on a par with the likes of Don Imus or Jesse Jackson, not a white supremacist. I point this out because too often people buy into this myth that Farrakhan is some evil black Hitler without any evidence to support the charge.
McCain couldn't even maintain his straight-talking denouncement of Falwell and the "agents of intolerance" for longer than one election cycle.
"THBAEOSATSQ" Would someone care to unpack this for my un-hip ass? I figure "TSQ" is "The Same Question," and that's as far as I get. Also, SLC has a point. One wonders whether the below disclaimer actually means anything.
Also, SLC has a point. One wonders whether the below disclaimer actually means anything. Maybe its there for some sort of legal protection?
this has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions
Actually, he's already sorta started doing that on his own. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/626827/john_mccain_apologizes_for_bill_cunninghams.html
merci, should have gotten that
"THBAEOSATSQ" Would someone care to unpack this for my un-hip ass? I figure "TSQ" is "The Same Question," and that's as far as I get. The unwieldy acronym stands for "This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions." An ongoing segment in which our friend Atrios posts "simple questions" such as Matt has above, and answers them with simple answers, i.e. "No."
Any murmurings of right-wing third-party alternative forming for 2008? It would be a win-win-win: 1) The wing-nuts wouldn't have to support "liberal" John McCain. Oh well, it's probably too good to be true. It's only the Left that gets stuck with these sectarian Nader-types. McCain, I'm sure is looking forward to playing "good cop" to the racist right. Paging Tom Tancredo...
"Paging Tom Tancredo..." And your evidence that Tom Tancredo is a racist is what, exactly?
How about we start by just asking John McCain to denounce the high-profile racists like Richard Quinn he has employed in senior campaign positions.
Asking McCain to renounce and denounce every racist in America who supports him is ridiculous: Just call-out the ones in the GOP inner circle.
"They say he's for change. What change? He's become almost a cult figure. I don't see any shining light around Obama's head. I don't see any halos," Duke said. My lord, it's almost as if he's channeling Tim K., Still Undecided, Ruth Kaplan, katie, etc...
We are still waiting for Mr. Yglesias to live up to his promise of last week and ban commentors (e.g. Bill White) who use racial epitaphs. That is, unless he thinks that "raghead" is bad but "nigger" or "kike" is OK.
We are still waiting for Mr. Yglesias to live up to his promise of last week and ban commentors (e.g. Bill White) who use racial epitaphs. The comment has been deleted. I'm a busy person.
Will someone please put a stake in David Dukes heart so he can vanish into dust like vampires (though considering all the plastic surgery he has done on his face that may be melt not turn to dust). I had to vote in the damn gov. election where the bumper sticker was: "Vote for the crook it's important" and sadly it was.
Will John McCain be asked to specifically denounce each and every white supremacist leader in America who urges his followers to back McCain over Obama? Paul was, though he did more to invite those questions than Obama has. Still, if Bush's ties to a thief like Ken Lay were so horrible, it's more than relevent to examine Obama's ties with racists like Farrakhan and terrorists like Ayers, both of whom are more disturbing figures than that greedy SOB, Lay.
Wouldn't be surprised if VNN's *virulently anti-Semitic wunderkind Alex Linder were supporting Obama as well. Especially with Lieberman looking over McCain's shoulder.
"If the head of McCain's church gives a lifetime achievement award to such a racist, than yes, McCain should denounce him. Posted by Fred | February 27, 2008 11:56 AM" Wasn't the head of his church a member of the Hitler Youth? (coming from someone baptized Catholic here, BTW)
""Paging Tom Tancredo..." And your evidence that Tom Tancredo is a racist is what, exactly? Posted by Fred | February 27, 2008 1:28 PM" Do you ever think anyone white is racist or is it only brown and black people who can be racist?
racial epitaphs? Who wrote something racist on a grave marker?
Most of the racist commentators ignore the fact that Obama is bi-racial. So if he must be required to renounced bigoted statements made by other Americans on the account of race, I guess he will be required to renounce both white and black bigots who expressed their support for him. Perhaps, Russert should have asked him to publicly insult Farakhan to demonstrate his distaste for past Farakhan's comments. That might not have satisfied some even if he did that.
If David Duke isn't endorsing McCain, it's a moot question, right?
Wasn't the head of his church a member of the Hitler Youth? To my knowledge there is no real "head" of the Baptist church, which McCain bizarrely and cynically joined about a month ago. I think McCain was an Anglican before that. The Head of the Anglican Church is Rowan Williams, who didn't belong to the Hitler Youth, though he does want the British Isles to institute Saudi law so Muslim immigrants no longer have to suffer the current threat of seeing a woman not wearing a tarp or, I don't know, reading.
Maybe Mr McCain should be pressed further about whether he rejects the endorsement of this prominent supporter? Enjoy the anti-Christ reference. Senator John McCain got support on Wednesday from an important corner of evangelical Texas when the pastor of a San Antonio mega-church, Rev. John C. Hagee, endorsed Mr. McCain for president. Mr. Hagee, who argues that the United States must join Israel in a preemptive, biblically prophesized military strike against Iran that will lead to the second coming of Christ, praised Mr. McCain for his pro-Israel views. ... Asked about Mr. Hagee’s extensive writings on Armageddon and about what one questioner said was Mr. Hagee’s belief that the anti-Christ will be the head of the European Union, Mr. McCain responded that “all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee’s support.'’ http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/mega-church-pastor-in-texas-backs-mccain/
Maybe David Duke is not speaking harshly about Obama, because he realizes that people that David Duke denounces actually become more popular.
Comments closed March 12, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
No.
This has been another edition of... etc.
Posted by drjimcooper | February 27, 2008 11:51 AM