Comments on: A More Perfect Union

By: Arun

Arun — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 02:37:26 +0000

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/03/rights-and-wrongs-of-reverend-wright.html

Well worth the time spent reading it.

By: Todd

Todd — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 01:57:01 +0000

Simply put, Reverend Wright is a bigot. In this speech, it feels like Obama is trying to rationalize his disgusting rhetoric as somehow representative of a broader racism problem in America.

If someone is black, white, or green, spouting this sort of bile only reveals their internal prejudice. Wright is a bigot. Case closed.

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:16:22 +0000

It is a great speech.

Trouble is, it doesn’t tell us how to move on from the Bush/Clinton era of gotcha cherrypicking, base busing, and dumbing down. If Obama can’t figure out how to translate better and more honest arguments into wins, he’ll get ground down by the politics of the last two decades.

By: Dr Zen

Dr Zen — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:56:09 +0000

Obama is obviously full of shit. He’s a pollie, what do you expect? But it was a nice speech.

And he’s a liberal in the same way John McCain is a centrist.

By: Anon

Anon — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:17:00 +0000

Obama’s calls for tolerance, now that he is on the receiving end of bigotry, would be more believable if he practised what he preached. However, it is hard to buy what he is selling, given the following story, quoted from various sources:

In 2004, at the height of the firestorm that was set off by Mayor Gavin Newsom authorizing same sex marriages in San Francisco, previous Mayor Willie Brown held a fundraiser for U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama. The candidate had a request to Mayor Brown:

“And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn’t get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin.”

Given this, his latest speech is, to me, nothing more than a political speech motivated by cynical political ambitions. He is someone who will do what he thinks he needs to win. In particular, you can bet your ass he will not touch gays or gay issues with a ten foot pole during this election.

By: Neil B.

Neil B. — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:34:36 +0000

Obama just picked up an endorsement from a conservative legal scholar, see at http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx:
I usually fumble the italics HTML, but below is all quoted:
*

Endorsing Obama

Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights.

…

9/11 and the radical Islamic ideology that it represents is a continuing threat to our safety and the next president must have the honesty to recognize that it, as author Paul Berman has written, “draws on totalitarian inspirations from 20th-century Europe and with its double roots, religious and modern, perversely intertwined. . . .wields a lot more power, intellectually speaking, then naïve observers might suppose.” Senator Obama needs to address this extremist movement with the same clarity and honesty with which he has addressed the topic of race in America. Effective criticism of the incumbent for diverting us from this task is a good start, but it is incomplete without a forthright outline of a commitment to undertake, with international partners, the formation of a world-wide entity that will track, detain, prosecute, convict, punish, and thereby, stem radical Islam’s threat to civil order. I await Senator Obama’s more extended thinking upon this vital subject, as he accepts the nomination of his party and engages Senator McCain in the general campaign discussion to come.

Published Sunday, March 23, 2008 9:18 AM by Doug Kmiec
Filed under: Iraq, John McCain, Douglas W. Kmiec, Barack Obama, OLC, 9/11 plotters, speech, Roe, abortion, terrorism, rule of law

About Doug Kmiec

* Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, Professor Kmiec was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.

By: Arun

Arun — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:33:57 +0000

How do I know I’m not NB?

By: N. B.

N. B. — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 22:00:03 +0000

Grady, two flubs there. First, you can’t honestly compare the encounter with native Americans to a legitimate conflict between national beligerants that was settled with an honorable treaty. Americans used subterfuge and sheer seizure much of the time, it wasn’t classical spoils of war. (However, an honest historian would admit that tribes supporting the British during the Revolution or the South during the WBTS did subject themselves to warned of consequences of loss - that isn’t talked about much. But did we reward the ones on the federal side either time? Not for long …)

Second, you have no right to proclaim “Barck Obama would like to see the [continuation] of post-1965 immigration policy because over time this policy will reduce White Americans to a racial minority.” That is a motivational claim, not a fact. Anything that lasted since 1965 clearly has a lot of fingerprints all over it, mostly from corporate America that wants to suppress wages. I would like to see strong support of border security, but who else would stand up to corporate America and do that right? Racial issues are a distance nth factor leading to support, perhaps among specific direct interest groups. Obama wouldn’t be any worse than the other contenders, and is likely to mellow the affirmative action issue not make it more strident. Your final sentence is manifestly outrageous, especially on a blog dedicated to scientific style thinking in every area.

By: Horace Grady

Horace Grady — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 16:54:39 +0000

The Indian tribes mentioened above used force and and terror,,,and in some cases outright genocide…against other ameridian tribes to secure space and resource. The Indians(Ameridians) were not our moral superoirs.

Whites won. Too bad. I suffer no White guilt over it. It doesn’y follow from this that Americans Indians should be treated badly.

Barck Obama would like to see the contiuation of post-1965 immigration policy because over time this policy will reduce White Americans to a racial minority. So clearly Barck Obama’s intetnios towards White Americans are quite nasty.

If he were elected president, Barck Obama would increase the scale of the currently intractable social,economic and environmental problems. Do you really think afirmmative action for hispanics ,jamaicans,nigerians,ghanians and other post-1965 demographic groups is a long term viable policy option? Complete nonsense.

Barck Obama in his orientation is 100 percent racial. Manifestly obvious.

By: NB

NB — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 15:51:59 +0000

Arun - a touch of synchronicity here?