"Liberal" Media Strikes Again!

[Dr Dave]

From Daily Kos:

If you think the media went nuts over a few remarks by Jeremiah Wright, wait til they get their fangs into this: Wright has been strutting around for years with senior leaders of the Democratic Party, proudly and openly bragging that he speaks with the ghost of Thomas Jefferson, plus a bunch of other famous dead people. According to Wright, they all report from the spirit world that Wright is the Messiah ... Woops! It wasn't Wright, it's a conservative foreign cult leader jetting around with senior Republicans saying it. Well then, no story there...

[Monte Smith]

The Second Coming.

[Gary Sisco]

Second Coming, indeed. What, the first one didn't cause enough trouble?

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

From Daily Kos:

If you think the media went nuts over a few remarks by Jeremiah Wright, wait til they get their fangs into this: Wright has been strutting around for years with senior leaders of the Democratic Party, proudly and openly bragging that he speaks with the ghost of Thomas Jefferson, plus a bunch of other famous dead people. According to Wright, they all report from the spirit world that Wright is the Messiah ... Woops! It wasn't Wright, it's a conservative foreign cult leader jetting around with senior Republicans saying it. Well then, no story there...

Dave, what point are you trying to make?

Is it that newspaper reporters aren't generally liberal?
Is it that Rev. Wright's sermons should not have been part of the Democratic primary news cycle?
That somehow the article you linked to should give undecided people a reason to support Obama or Clinton over McCain?

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Dave, what point are you trying to make?

Is it that newspaper reporters aren't generally liberal?
Is it that Rev. Wright's sermons should not have been part of the Democratic primary news cycle?
That somehow the article you linked to should give undecided people a reason to support Obama or Clinton over McCain?

Gordon, what point are you trying to make?

Is it that it is okay for rightwingnuts to hang around with people even nuttier than they are, but it isn't okay for liberals to hang around with people that rightwingnuts, such as yourself, disagree with?

Is it that no one has the right to condemn the Unites States, as Rev.Wright did, without being tarred, a la Joe McCarthy, as a fellow traveller?

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Dave, what point are you trying to make?

Is it that newspaper reporters aren't generally liberal?
Is it that Rev. Wright's sermons should not have been part of the Democratic primary news cycle?
That somehow the article you linked to should give undecided people a reason to support Obama or Clinton over McCain?

He was showing us an example of Dr. Dave's First Law of Politics: For every left wing nutcase there is at least one equal and opposing right wing nutcase.

[Monte Smith]

For every left wing nutcase there is a right wing nutcase, that's true. But they aren't always equal and opposite in terms of their political inconvenience. Moon is neither equal nor opposite Wright: he's not opposite because he receives hosannahs from members of both parties. He's not equal because a loopy newspaper owner who holds pro-American views is less distressing to a candidate not intimately connected to Moon than a loopy preacher who holds anti-American views is to the politician he mentored.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

For every left wing nutcase there is a right wing nutcase, that's true. But they aren't always equal and opposite in terms of their political inconvenience. Moon is neither equal nor opposite Wright: he's not opposite because he receives hosannahs from members of both parties. He's not equal because a loopy newspaper owner who holds pro-American views is less distressing to a candidate not intimately connected to Moon than a loopy preacher who holds anti-American views is to the politician he mentored.

You're indirectly arguing JMJ's Corollary to Dr. Dave's First Law of Politics: a back-pedaling politician tends to keep back-pedaling.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

For every left wing nutcase there is a right wing nutcase, that's true. But they aren't always equal and opposite in terms of their political inconvenience. Moon is neither equal nor opposite Wright: he's not opposite because he receives hosannahs from members of both parties. He's not equal because a loopy newspaper owner who holds pro-American views is less distressing to a candidate not intimately connected to Moon than a loopy preacher who holds anti-American views is to the politician he mentored.

Monte, can you imagine a Democratic or Republican candidate becoming the nominee of his party if he had been a long-time member of the Unification Church?

The thread title lead does not support JMJ's contention that Dave's point that nutty religious leaders fall on both political extremes.

McCain and Obama both qualify as media darlings. Clinton and Romney and their fans would certainly attest to that.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

The thread title lead does not support JMJ's contention that Dave's point that nutty religious leaders fall on both political extremes.

Huh?

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

You're indirectly arguing JMJ's Corollary to Dr. Dave's First Law of Politics: a back-pedaling politician tends to keep back-pedaling.

Oh come on, jmj. Enough with the personal attacks. Jazz Corner wants change. That's the politics of yesterday. What about health care? You're unelectable.

Originally Posted by Gordo

Monte, can you imagine a Democratic or Republican candidate becoming the nominee of his party if he had been a long-time member of the Unification Church?

Can't see it. The closest thing was Romney's communion with the Latterday Days. Like the Moonies, the LDS is a New Religion and an interpretation of Christianity. Didn't work out in Romney's case, but I don't know that Mormonism was the whole obstacle.

[Al in NYC]

My guess that Dave's main point is that, despite all of the spurious complaints to the contrary, our corporate-controlled media is remarkably uncritical of and even hospitable to the right.

So a moderate left candidate is demonized for his basically tangential tie to a minister whose statements, while dramatically delivered, are not really very far out of the African-American mainstream, particularly for his generation, and is forced by constant media pressure to publicly disassociate himself from him. While the Republican's ties, both political and financial, to a complete nutball like Moon (or a truly hateful SOB loony like Pat Robertson) get pretty much a free pass from our media.

Damn liberal media...

[bernard lyons]

Is it that no one has the right to condemn the Unites States, as Rev.Wright did, without being tarred, a la Joe McCarthy, as a fellow traveller?

Wright is wrong and right.

The actions of this administration and previous ones seem to have no regard for real the world outside of the US.

I am not an apologist for terrorism in any form but people have to realise that actions have responses,however twisted they may be. Most of the major powers now seem to think they can impose their worldview without taking into account the human element.

Wright is wrong for his inflamatory rhetoric . The US administration is wrong today for granting another contract to the mercenary team at Blackwater

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

minister whose statements, while dramatically delivered, are not really very far out of the African-American mainstream

are you sure about that? Now you sound like a right-wing nut.

[Dr Dave]

Barack Obama goes to a church where he is friendly with the pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Wright is an old-school civil rights guy who is prone to making inflammatory statements about race. Obama is excoriated in the mainstream media for his relationship with Wright.

John McCain and many other Republicans are friendly with a religious figure, Sun Myung Moon, who heads a very controversial religious group, The Unification Church. Moon owns a newspaper, The Washington Times, that is prone to printing unsubstantiated stories that favor conservative issues. But that's not all: He claims to speak to dead Presidents, and to receive their endorsement. He is, by any definition, an extremely controversial figure. The mainstream media is completely silent on his relationship with Republican leaders.

Have I spelled it out clearly enough for you?

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

Barack Obama goes to a church where he is friendly with the pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Wright is an old-school civil rights guy who is prone to making inflammatory statements about race. Obama is excoriated in the mainstream media for his relationship with Wright.

John McCain and many other Republicans are friendly with a religious figure, Sun Myun Moon, who heads a very controversial religious group, The Unification Church. Moon owns a newspaper, The Washington Times, that is prone to printing unsubstantiated stories that favor conservative issues. But that's not all: He claims to speak to dead Presidents, and to receive their endorsement. He is, by any definition, an extremely controversial figure. The mainstream media is completely silent on his relationship with Republican leaders.

Have I spelled it out clearly enough for you?

1. I think "old school civil rights guy" is a rather kind description of Wright and a rather strong insult to old school civil rights guys.

2. Do you mind providing links that show just how close McCain is to Rev. Moon or the Reunification Church? McCain's name does not show up at all in either his or Moon's Wiki entry but I'm sure you know more than me about their closeness. I don't care about ties to other Republicans; McCain is the one running for the White House.

If McCain indeed is as close to Moon as Obama is to Wright, you've got a great point, here. However, it's news to me if this is true. I'll read any stories you link to that show how close in fact McCain is to Moon.

I maintain that the press has overall been very good to Barack Obama and to John McCain. I see nothing in this political cycle to lead me to believe that the mainstream press has been moving right.

[Dr Dave]

Here's your link, Gordon. Here's the juicy part:

[DS: So as soon as we talk about the close association between Moon and the GOP, there will be the inevitable "But democrats take his money and kiss up to him too." What's the real story on that?

John Gorenfeld: Listen, there's nothing liberal about the Unification Church. People often bring up progressive congressman Danny Davis's role in bringing Moon a golden crown on a pillow, during the 2004 scandal, and don't see what's so conservative about the Unification Church.

Well, first of all, the event was set up by a veteran Religious Right lobbyist, Gary Jarmin, one of Ralph Reed's friends, and the host committee included Charlie Black, John McCain's senior political adviser.]

It's not all that much, but that's not really my point. McCain is the Republican candidate, the Washington Times is a house organ of Republican opinion, and it is owned and operated by a raving lunatic, and nobody in Big Media has a word to say about it.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Oh come on, jmj. Enough with the personal attacks. Jazz Corner wants change. That's the politics of yesterday. What about health care? You're unelectable.

See? You can't escape the reach of the Law!

[Gary Sisco]

So ... speaking of healthcare, Female Clinton's campaign is 290 grand in debt for unpaid *health insurance premiums* for its employees.

See, everyone else should be saddled with *mandatory* health insurance premiums and hence presumably mandatory payment of premiums ... except for ... once again ... Ms Clinton.

Seems like there's nothing mandatory for Clintons.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

Here's your link, Gordon. Here's the juicy part:

[DS: So as soon as we talk about the close association between Moon and the GOP, there will be the inevitable "But democrats take his money and kiss up to him too." What's the real story on that?

John Gorenfeld: Listen, there's nothing liberal about the Unification Church. People often bring up progressive congressman Danny Davis's role in bringing Moon a golden crown on a pillow, during the 2004 scandal, and don't see what's so conservative about the Unification Church.

Well, first of all, the event was set up by a veteran Religious Right lobbyist, Gary Jarmin, one of Ralph Reed's friends, and the host committee included Charlie Black, John McCain's senior political adviser.]

It's not all that much, but that's not really my point. McCain is the Republican candidate, the Washington Times is a house organ of Republican opinion, and it is owned and operated by a raving lunatic, and nobody in Big Media has a word to say about it.

Charlie Black is a lobbyist who's also been a hired guy for John McCain. The latter isn't responsible for Black's activities when Black isn't being paid by McCain. As you say, it's not all that much.

Yes, the press loves McCain. It also loves Obama. Bill Clinton got media love; Hillary Clinton does not. It's not all about ideology.

[Gary Sisco]

No, it's not, you're right. Ms Clinton has major likeability deficits. I'm surprised it's taken so long for so many people to figure this out.

There's really only a minority of any streak that votes on ideology alone (a good thing, in the US, since there's really only one ideology, in power circles). Likeability, respectability, and feeling like one can trust the person, are more important for many.

Ms Clinton seems unable to stop doing things to create endless objections and mockery. Her absurd, seriallychanging story about Bosnia being an example. Turning brazen lies into comedy on the Leno show is perhaps the ultimate.

Yep, I lied and isn't it funny as hell?

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

No, it's not, you're right. Ms Clinton has major likeability deficits. I'm surprised it's taken so long for so many people to figure this out.

There's really only a minority of any streak that votes on ideology alone (a good thing, in the US, since there's really only one ideology, in power circles). Likeability, respectability, and feeling like one can trust the person, are more important for many.

Obama scores highest on likability and trustworthiness but we won't know if it's warranted until we've seen him govern, assuming he wins.

Obama has another big advantage--a short track record. He also kills Hillary and McCain on physical appearance and rhetorical skills.

If Romney hadn't come across as a faker, he'd probably be the nominee.

[Gary Sisco]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

Obama scores highest on likability and trustworthiness but we won't know if it's warranted until we've seen him govern, assuming he wins.

Obama has another big advantage--a short track record. He also kills Hillary and McCain on physical appearance and rhetorical skills.

If Romney hadn't come across as a faker, he'd probably be the nominee.

He also has the best and most organized campaign, by far, while having started out an underdog to say the least, which tells us something about his executive abilities. He's shown also a calm but alert mentality, and that he can listen to other people. And also that he can remain calm and rational, and still tell the truth, when under the glare.

This is no small thing for one who will be a war president, as whoever gets elected will be. A calm, stable personality under pressure is a job requirement.

Also, I don't think he's the kind who needs to be surrounded by yes men and women. That would be refreshing in itself. Especially in a war president but not only.

As for track records, few have one that matters for the presidency. There aren't any like jobs. Congress hasn't produced many good presidents, never mind great ones.

In my lifetime, LBJ only. The older I get and the more I understand the predominant context at the time, the more I like LBJ, Vietnam notwithstanding. I think LBJ in his later days, but still while in office and moreso as he aged in civilian life, really did finally grasp just what colossal mistakes he made in the war, and felt real remorse and humility in later life.

Post WW2, I think there've been two great presidents: Truman and LBJ.

[tippy]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

So ... speaking of healthcare, Female Clinton's campaign is 290 grand in debt for unpaid *health insurance premiums* for its employees.

See, everyone else should be saddled with *mandatory* health insurance premiums and hence presumably mandatory payment of premiums ... except for ... once again ... Ms Clinton.

Seems like there's nothing mandatory for Clintons.

My reading: What that really means is that they are covered and the campaign is in debt for it. Not that the workers don’t have coverage. If they didn’t have coverage, there would be no debt. Her campaign is in debt as of last week I heard 9 million so the percentage of the health care debt in relation to her overall campaign debt at the time this information was released is approx. 3%.

With the release of her taxes, we know she can pay the debt and have millions left over besides.

[Gary Sisco]

I didn't say anyone wasn't covered. I said it makes a mockery of her idea to force everyone else to pay premiums when clearly -- as do most people in their lives if it's not provided for them -- she has to prioritize what gets paid and what doesn't.

Yet, she's willing to make it a law that everyone else, all of whom are unlike herself not wealthy, be forced to pay the premiums.

We know she can pay, yes -- she has more money than almost all she'd be ruling -- but we also know she's not going to.

As usual, it's everyone else who must "tighten the belt."

It's also not the case of course that people who aren't Hillary Clinton would be allowed to be that much behind on premiums and still have coverage, let's face it.

There's more than one America, but almost all Americans live in one of them. The rest in others.

If I were forced to pay, for example, it would be the last financial nail for Bronwyn and me. Clinton's never had to live in anything resembling that reality. Other people's wages and work have been providing for Them for nearly the whole of their lives. Easy, then, to decide what other people have to do with what's left of their money once people like the Clintons and many others take their share off the top.

There is nothing that will break the back of Clinton finances, no matter what they do. They can evidently pull millions out of a hat. Other people will pay back the five mil she lent her own campaign, too.

I'm fucking tired of being ruled by people, many of whom have never had to make their way on a paycheck from an actual job like most have to do.

[Bluebrew]

So we've got a preacher who talks to Thomas Jefferson and a president who talks to God...??? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Bluebrew

So we've got a preacher who talks to Thomas Jefferson and a president who talks to God...??? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

That's a good point.

Hillary Clinton famously spoke of talking to the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt. What a fruitcake. That happened in the 90s when it was her turn to go awkwardly metaphysical. Reagan, of course, was supposed to give undue weight to the opinion of his wife's nutty astrologer. This all has precedent. Grover Cleveland forbade the presence of cats in the White House, fearing they'd anger a resident breed of potent and irascible faeries. When inspiration seized him, James Madison spoke in the voice of Marmuk the Bloodstained.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Gordon B

are you sure about that? Now you sound like a right-wing nut.

Well, I did use the qualifier "of his generation," which basically accords to what Obama said in his speech addressing the issue. But upon re-reading the speech in question by Rev. Wright I would go further and say that it is probably pretty close to the mainstream of African-American political opinion full stop. Now, of course, no one I know of has taken a serious poll on these questions, so I'm just going on the anecdotal evidence from close friends and acquaintances, and years of working in primarily African-American political settings.

Here, from CNN, is the excerpted text of the portions of Rev. Wright's speech given on Sept. 16, 2001, from which many of the "money quotes" in the inflammatory video were taken (the video itself was a composite). As I said on another thread, beyond the religiosity at the end of his sermon, I sure can't find much that I disagree with here, and certainly nothing that is so far beyond the pale that someone else not directly involved in writing or delivering the speech should be called to account for it.

It begins with his discussion of a post-9/11 Fox News appearance by Edward Peck. former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force:

“I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday did anybody else see or hear him? He was on FOX News, this is a white man, and he was upsetting the FOX News commentators to no end, he pointed out, a white man, an ambassador, he pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he was silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true, he said Americas chickens, are coming home to roost.”

“We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, Arikara, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism.

“We took Africans away from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism.

“We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel.

“We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenage and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.

“We bombed Qaddafi’s home, and killed his child. Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against the rock.

“We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of hard working people, mothers and fathers who left home to go that day not knowing that they’d never get back home.

“We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.

“Kids playing in the playground. Mothers picking up children after school. Civilians, not soldiers, people just trying to make it day by day.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff that we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

“We have got to change the way we have been doing things as a society,”

“Maybe we need to declare war on AIDS. In five minutes the Congress found $40 billion to rebuild New York and the families that died in sudden death, do you think we can find the money to make medicine available for people who are dying a slow death? Maybe we need to declare war on the nation’s healthcare system that leaves the nation’s poor with no health coverage? Maybe we need to declare war on the mishandled educational system and provide quality education for everybody, every citizen, based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. This is a time for social transformation.”

Now, if I was Obama, and called to account by Fox News for how I felt about this I would've said something like "fuck you for asking you crypto-racist asshole on your openly racist network, and I hear nothing Rev. Wright said that the rest of America doesn't need to hear, and fast. So let me ask you a question, why, given all that's happened in this country, do white people always act so surprised whenever a black public figure challenges them even a little bit, and shows even a little bit of anger over all you've done to us? Are we not allowed to have our own views of America's history and its heritage of oppression and terror?"

But then that's why I'm not a politician and Obama is. I certainly wouldn't have called Wright's speech "inexcusable" like Obama did, because I think it's not only excusable, but mostly right on the mark. But instead Obama gave a very gracious conciliatory speech where he said:

"The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow."

"For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. 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 in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races."

Not really a whole lot to disagree with there either, and admirably restrained and plain-spoken. But again, nothing that removes Wright from the context of African-American mainstream of political opinion for his generation, simply because he isn't outside of that stream. However, Obama's refusal to totally disavow Rev. Wright and completely denounce his justifiable criticism of American policy landed him in a continuing shitstorm. While an asshole like Robertson, who openly says vile and hateful things about a large percentage of the American population on a seemingly unending media platform, is seen as just another political/religious figure. And an outright loony nut like Moon, who owns and operates a major media outlet in the nation's capital, gets little or no scrutiny despite his connection to one of the country's major political parties.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

...While an asshole like Robertson, who openly says vile and hateful things about a large percentage of the American population on a seemingly unending media platform, is seen as just another political/religious figure. And an outright loony nut like Moon, who owns and operates a major media outlet in the nation's capital, gets little or no scrutiny despite his connection to one of the country's major political parties.

Thank you, Al. I was beginning to think nobody was going to get the point.

The state of news reportage in this country is dire. Reporters are completely cowed now; any political figure--or anyone with any kind of power--can demand and get "off the record" privileges. Reporters who should be reporting news instead turn news into an insider game. That way they can feel they're part of the Elite, too: They know what's really going on, but prefer to share it with each other rather than with their readers. It's disgusting.

[patricia]

And thank you from me too, Al.
Too few people bothered to find and read any of Rev Wright's speeches, preferring a kind of Cliff's notes version as presented on television, designed to inflame.
Wright said nothing that couldn't be backed up with facts.
Although the jury is still out on how AIDS came to be, the Tuskeegee "Experiment" is still fresh in many black people's memory.
Why should black people trust the government when it comes to a deadly disease??
I read about the Tuskeegee syphilis study in 1962, when it had been in existance for thirty years.
The program continued until 1972, even though it was well-known that penicillan cured syphilis.
None was given to the 399 indigent black men who were hospitalized, untreated, in order to study their autopsies.
The object?
To see if syphilis affected black people's organs differently than it did white people's.

Again.
Thank you Al.