The Wright sauce is not for the Chomsky gander

A lot has been said about the Jeremiah Wright videos, and a lot more will be. I've argued that while I don't consider what Jeremiah Wright says to be necessarily indicative of what Obama thinks, it's still fair to ask him whether he agrees, as it doesn't speak well of him to belong to a church headed by such a loon, much less that he would consider the guy a mentor. It's worrisome, and it will continue to be worrisome.

Still, I'm somewhat inclined to see Wright the way Richard Miniter sees him:

The root of it is a perpetual grudge against America. Where does this grudge come from? From the 1960s Left, who believed it and taught it. The hippies may have seemed happy, but they were also paranoid and given to cartoonish conspiracy theories. And the counter-culture survives in an intact and virulent form in only one place: the black inner-city.

The real scandal is the cynics who promoted these terrible views in the black community and sowed fears which continue to separate us.

So don't blame Rev. Wright. He is simply the victim of ideological disease, doing the best that he can to help others in his somewhat incapacitated state.

While I don't think it's much of a defense of Wright to say that his views derive from the left, what's more puzzling is why Obama (a Harvard grad and a very bright guy) would call Wright any sort of "mentor."

In an earlier post, I speculated that Obama didn't look up to Wright at all, but felt superior to him:

Like him or not, Obama has a way with words.Has anyone stopped to consider that he might consider himself to be intellectually and rhetorically to be far and above his pastor?

This is not to defend Wright in any way, but in the speech, Obama seemed to be looking down on him a bit with a hint of bemused, "tolerant" patrician condescension. The way he asked us to have a little understanding of Wright's background and analogized to his grandmother's racism reminded me of Eisenhower's "these are not bad people" remark...

If Obama was merely using Wright and never looked up to him as he says he did, then it's hard to say that Wright's views are Obama's. (Not that this reflects terribly well on Obama's judgment or character, but being a typical user politician is not the same thing as being a true believer in Jeremiah Wright's anti-American hate.)

So, while it is possible to see Wright in these contexts, I find it the opposite of persuasive to defend Wright as a sort of black Noam Chomsky, as Liz Spikol did in last week's Philadelphia Weekly:

...I don't see the need to condemn everything the reverend has said.

Other than saying black people have gotten AIDS from the government (read The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof for an interesting commentary on that), Wright's excerpted remarks suggest a man whose primary belief is that racism has caused grievous harm to African-Americans and to American society in general.

As Rice University religion and philosophy professor Anthony Pinn said on National Public Radio's All Things Considered, "Folks including myself may be taken aback by the inflammatory nature of the rhetoric, but I don't think very many of us would deny that there is a fundamental truth: Racism is a problem in the United States."

Actually, as was made damningly clear in a Pajamas Media post that Glenn linked earlier, there's a lot more to Wright than angry racialized polemics; he spouts genuine loony tune conspiracy theories:
But what's really telling are the flights of paranoid fancy -- like how Wright said that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, that Bush was going to plant WMD in Iraq just like the Los Angeles Police Department frames suspects, and, most notoriously, that the U.S. government created HIV to kill "colored people." The idea that the Jews were working on an "ethnic bomb" partakes of a genre that combines historical fiction with sci-fi fantasy. "But Daddy," an alert sixth-grade biology student might query her well-educated father, "my teacher says you can't build a weapon that only targets one kind of person." Never mind the science, honey, we're here for the sermon.
Even if we make allowances for over-the-top anger resulting from legitimate racial grievances, does that excuse bizarre and unfounded scientific claims? Paranoid nonsense should not be passed off as a call for a discussion about race, and I agree with what Lee Smith says:
Reverend Wright's sermons are signs of a bewitched mind, and Senator Obama's apologia treated them as though they should initiate a discussion among the citizens of the nation that his deeply troubled preacher assailed.
As to Liz Spikol, she doesn't mention FDR or ethnic bombs, but she sees nothing wrong or odd about most of what Wright says. Because, you know, his anti-Israel views make him guilty of simple "banality." And he might as well be just another Noam Chomsky:
Some of Wright's other remarks struck me as unspectacular for the same reason. They're either true, or they've been said many times before.

Let's break down one of them, just for fun, from 2001:

"We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yard. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Saying the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were a result of failed American foreign policy isn't new now and it wasn't groundbreaking then. One of the first calls I got after the attacks was from a college friend who said exactly the same thing, and I think he might've used the chickens line.

From Michael Moore to Ann Coulter, people from every side of the political spectrum have long suggested we made our own bed.

In June 2002 Market & Opinion Research International and Harris Interactive did a poll of Europeans regarding the reason for the 9/11 attacks. A majority of the people asked believed that U.S. foreign policy was partly to blame.

Around the same time Rev. Wright gave the sermon from which these remarks were taken, the Christian Science Monitor reported: "But from Jakarta to Cairo, Muslims and Arabs say ... a mood of resentment toward America and its behavior around the world has become so commonplace in their countries that it was bound to breed hostility, and even hatred.

"And the buttons that Mr. bin Laden pushes in his statements and interviews--the injustice done to the Palestinians ... --win a good deal of popular sympathy."

Emphasis mine. And Pastor Wright's.

The 9/11 Commission Report references the same problem--that of "millions of Arabs and Muslims angry at the United States because of issues ranging from Iraq to Palestine to America's support for their countries' repressive rulers."

Having said what he did about foreign policy, in fact, makes Rev. Wright guilty of one thing he hasn't been accused of: banality.

The phrase "state terrorism" in reference to Israel--whether you agree with it or not--is also banal. In 2004 the prime minister of Turkey--an ally of Israel--accused Israel of "state terrorism" after roughly 60 Palestinians, including children and innocents, were killed, and thousands were left homeless after their houses were destroyed.

It was the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, in fact, that posed the question: Was Israel practicing "state terrorism"? The prime minister answered, "When you look at the structure of what has happened, how else can you interpret it?"

In July 2006 The Nation published an article headlined "Israel's State-Sponsored Terrorism."

Even Tikkun--a magazine of Jewish thought--has characterized Israel's policies toward Palestinians as "state terrorism." Is it really so incredible that Pastor Wright might say the same thing?

As for U.S. complicity regarding Israel and South Africa, that too is pretty uninventive. More U.S. aid goes to Israel than to any other country. And the U.S. spent two decades opposing U.N. sanctions against apartheid.

When the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act was presented to Ronald Reagan in 1986, he vetoed it. From personal experience, I can tell you I muddied many pairs of jeans during sit-ins to get my complicit college to divest from South Africa, and I'm not sure it would've happened at all if the bad publicity didn't embarrass them.

To sum up, I guess Noam Chomsky would be a lot scarier if he were black. He'd get a lot more press too. Church of Chomsky, anyone?

OK, I've read and heard an awful lot of vitriol directed against Wright coming from the right. It's become so repetitive that I just sort of tune it out. I suspect it will become more and more repetitive too.

But there's something about a leftist like Liz Spikol telling me that Wright is really just a black Chomsky, and that's not a big deal, that made me realize something.

Assume Spikol's argument is true. Wright is like Chomsky.

That's no big deal?

Actually, it's a much bigger deal. If Noam Chomsky were Obama's admitted mentor, it would be a huge deal. People would be much less forgiving of Obama. Why?

I'm not entirely sure. But I think that Liz Spikol is very wrong to say that "Noam Chomsky would be a lot scarier if he were black."

Quite the opposite. He'd be a lot less scary.

That's because white Americans tend to be much more forgiving when anti-American leftist bile is spewed by an angry urban black clergyman (especially a Malcolm X wannabe) than when it's spewed by a privileged white professor from the intellectual classes. And they'd be a lot less forgiving of an Obama who looked up to a Chomsky than an Obama who looked up to a Wright.

Had Barack Obama dedicated a book to Noam Chomsky, had he described such a man as his "mentor," his presidential campaign would have gotten about as far as Dennis Kucinich's.

Similarly, Bill Clinton might have been able to get away with inviting Jeremiah Wright to the White House, but he'd have never gotten away with inviting Noam Chomsky.

There is nothing logical about it. There is a double standard.

UPDATE: My thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the link, and a warm welcome to all!

Whether you agree or not, I'm always open to criticism, so feel free to join in the debate below -- which might be characterized as whether or not two wrongs make a Wright. (I hasten to add that regardless of whether I am wrong, I am not on the side of Wright.)

posted by Eric on 04.03.08 at 10:31 PM


How about another double standard. Replace Wright with Duke and Obama with McCain.

Would you tune it out?

BTW Wright is Chomsky. Both are Communist to the core.

Let me add: it is no double standard. It is racism.

Obama is "passing". Pretending to be something he is not.

M. Simon   ·  April 3, 2008 10:58 PM

Whether forgiving an urban black clergymen for what would not be forgiven in a white college professor constitutes racism is debatable, as it depends on the definition of racism. I think it is possible to forgive in Wright what would not be forgiven in Chomsky without being a racist.

But what is racism? By definition, racism necessarily involves a double standard. But does that make all double standards racist?

Would I tune out accusations that McCain was responsible for statements by David Duke? Actually, I'm already tuning out accusations that he's responsible for Hagee -- and Parsley -- so it would just be more of the same. (If McCain described Duke as a mentor, though, it would be all over.)

However, once again I don't think a Ku Klux Klan leader is really comparable to an angry black minister. There's a very different historical context involved.

Eric Scheie   ·  April 4, 2008 12:00 AM

I think you're being too kind to Wright and to Obama. Wright has a doctorate in theology. Presumably, that makes him the intellectual superior to everyone who lacks a doctorate.

As for whether Obama agrees with Wright's genocidal beliefs, what is worse: A man who in his heart supports genocide, or one who does so out of political expediency?

As for Liz Spikol, she's a piece of work. This "it's not at all unique" talking point has been getting a lot of mileage of late among black supremacists and white communists alike (e.g., the Chicago Sun-Times' Mary Mitchell and Manya Brachear).

I have no recollection of Annie Coulter saying anything remotely like Pastor Wright. Quite the contrary, I recall her calling, immediately after 911, for America to invade all Moslem countries, and forcibly convert their occupants to Christianity. And citing the Jew-hating anti-Americans at Tikkun, and genocidal Moslems is supposed to make Wright look good?

Pikol leaves no doubt as to whom she was cheering on, on 911.

Nicholas Stix   ·  April 4, 2008 12:17 AM

If it is black/white it is racism.

M. Simon   ·  April 4, 2008 7:28 AM

I don't think degrees convey intellectual superiority. Hagee has a Masters degree. David Duke has a Ph.D. Bigots like to acquire credentials in order to legitimize their views.

In no way do I deny that Wright is a bigot. I don't think I'm being soft on him to note that his sort of bigotry is common in such churches, or indistinguishable from the much-honored Malcolm X. However, I may be wrong, I really don't think Obama agrees with that stuff, even if he rose to power by pandering to it.

On a more optimistic note, if Obama is the candidate, I think he might force the recalcitrant Republican right to do something they hate, and vote for McCain.

If the idea is for the Republicans to win, you can't buy a priceless opportunity like that. All GOP strategists should hope and pray that Obama makes it.

Eric Scheie   ·  April 4, 2008 7:37 AM

I tend towards the old fashioned definition of racism as the belief that one race is innately superior to another.

Acknowedging that black theology is a reaction to past white bigotry and should be seen in a different context is not (IMO) racism.

Eric Scheie   ·  April 4, 2008 7:41 AM


The context is the same. "We was robbed of our due" or "We should be on top".

That is what is so insidious about Obama/Wright. They have confused the categories.

I was born in 1944. I went to synagogue until I was 18. I never, ever, ever, heard anything towards the Germans anything like what I heard from Wrights pulpit. What did I hear? People would say PRIVATELY "I'll never buy a German product." Nothing about hating Germans. And even that mild "I'll never buy..." has faded. From the pulpit - nothing. We were never taught to hate.

This is what has so many people bamboozled: "it is justified by history". Total crap. Hatred is not justified by anything. It just leads to endless misery.

You say Obama is not responsible for what his ministers say. I'll go farther. White people are not responsible for what evil their ancestors did. Nor the good.

I am NOT guilty

It is up to each of us to embody the good. We get no pass or fail because of our ancestors.

You know - "The content of the character" thingy.

What is Obama responsible for? His 20 years of association with Wright. Obama CHOSE his religion. He sent his daughters to learn his religion.

If Obama did not understand that the message of his preacher was hateful why has he kept the preacher under a basket? If Wright is good enough for his children why isn't he good enough for the rest of us?

The Maker help us if either Clinton or Obama gets the Presidency. They are both evil to the core.

M. Simon   ·  April 4, 2008 7:52 AM

The Tikkun folks are communists. Not to be trusted on anything.

M. Simon   ·  April 4, 2008 7:55 AM

I don't think the context of "We was robbed of our due" and "We should be on top" are the same if these things are considered in the historic sense. Assuming Wright believes what he says, he is steeped in the past, in endless repeats of Klan police siccing dogs on peaceful demonstrators, of lynching, of slavery.

Saddam Hussein robbed the Kurds of their due and the Serbs robbed the Bosnians of their due. If their victims turn around and say "I HATE THE SUNNIS!" or "I HATE THE SERBS!" this is not justifiable. Nor was it justifiable for the Nazi victims to engage in reprisal killings, which many did after the war.

However, an unjustiable reaction to an provocation is not the same as an unjustifiable provocation.

Eric Scheie   ·  April 4, 2008 8:12 AM


The Romans understood politics. They said even the appearance of impropriety must be avoided.

Perhaps they knew something.

"Caesar's wife must be above suspicion."

How about that Michelle?

M. Simon   ·  April 4, 2008 8:39 AM

if these things are considered in the historic sense

And that EXACTLY is the con.

M. Simon   ·  April 4, 2008 8:40 AM

I see your point, and while I loathe Wright and don't defend him, I don't think Wright is comparable to Duke or Chomsky. It's not a con to consider historical perspectives.

Eric Scheie   ·  April 4, 2008 8:50 AM
Why Doesn't Obama Renounce His Bigoted Church? Politicians want to progress from office to higher office. Barack Obama based his Illinois political career on the black power politics of Chicago, and holds his US Senate seat because of this, and some luck in facing a senate election opponent who imploded. It seems that Pastor Wright was crucial for 20 years to Obama's connections and success.

Obama's message is: Some of Wright's statements are wrong, but Wright is basically a good guy with love in his heart. My words matter, and they are different from Wright's words.

Running for president is a wonderful opportunity and a gamble. If Obama does not win the presidency, he surely wants to keep his job as US senator. He can't burn the bridge that keeps him in national politics. Obama does not renounce Wright, because Wright's speeches reflect the beliefs of a large fraction of Obama's support for his senate seat. Obama's direct words were "I can no more disown him [Wright] than I can disown the black community".

This makes Obama a politician who has gained political power by satisfying his base. He is not a courageous statesman who gained authority by teaching a better way or by reconciling different views. Actually, Obama is supporting a church that accepts and teaches the old, divisive way.

Obama plays the old political game of saying different things to different groups. The message along the way is: I'm saying things to my political base only to keep their support. Ignore that, because I'm telling the truth to you.

Personally, I reject politicians who look for support by accepting and supporting racism, regardless of its value as a political tactic.

Andrew Garland   ·  April 4, 2008 1:49 PM

"In no way do I deny that Wright is a bigot. I don't think I'm being soft on him to note that his sort of bigotry is common in such churches, or indistinguishable from the much-honored Malcolm X."

Except that Malcolm X repented of his racism before he died. He learned (in Saudi Arabia of all places) that whites are not evil just because they are white:

"I am not a racist.... In the past I permitted myself to be make sweeping indictments of all white people, the entire white race and these generalizations have caused injuries to some whites who perhaps did not deserve to be hurt. Because of the spiritual enlightenment which I was blessed to receive as a result of my recent pilgrimage to the Holy city of Mecca, I no longer subscribe to sweeping indictments of any one race. I am now striving to live the life of a true...Muslim. I must repeat that I am not a racist nor do I subscribe to the tenants of racism. I can state in all sincerity that I wish nothing but freedom, justice and equality, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all people."

So Malcolm X renounced racism in 1964, but Wright is still preaching hate 44 years later.

Jim Thomason   ·  April 4, 2008 1:50 PM

Actually, I think that when it comes to politics, the American people are much more receptive to guilty White liberals, than the are to angry Black liberals.

A guilty White liberal politciain is percieved as someone who's just trying to be a do gooder and look out for others less fortunate, blah, blah, blah. An angry Black liberal politician comes across as being focused strictly on their own people.

It's like the animosity that Blacks in Los Angeles felt towards the Koreans during the Rodney King riots. They don't care that Koreans weren't slave owners or segragationists. They don't care that Koreans never went to jazz clubs in the 1940s where Black and White musicians were not allowed to appear on the same stage together. And they don't care that Koreans are subject to prejudice. They're just focused on their own anger, and the whole world is supposed look at them as the ultimate victims.

This why someone like John Kerry can get away with giving a speech in Jeremiah Wright's church, but Obama cannot get away with attending such a church.

The Fop   ·  April 4, 2008 2:21 PM

I think Obama was interested in Wright as an example of a rhetorical style. Obama apparently had recordings of Wright speeches that he listened to during and after law school. Wright is a certain "type" of speaker, and stripped of the content of his speech he's good at being that "type" of speaker.

As it turns out I think that "type" of speaking is way to flamboyant for the general public in a nationwide or statewide election.

Ernst Blofeld   ·  April 4, 2008 2:26 PM

Hi Eric

I think putting some of the pieces to the puzzle together may bring the picture into focus, perhaps...for folks who know bits and pieces.

Usually we find those assaults that take place in a left to right direction (we can discuss assaults that take place in a right to left direction on another thread, if it's worthwhile), generally pick one of four battlefields. Class warfare, racial warfare, religious warfare, anti-warfare warfare.

Modern American leftism has long since shed its "traditional liberalism" skin and barely contains its contempt for center right, or even centrist worldviews...much less hard right "evangelicals".

The TUCC is a Marxist inspired, theo-political institution, not easily understood by "outsiders" with little background in the movement. It is Afro-centric in nature, but Marxist in ideology.

Class warfare is a central theme, black oppression vs. white "supremacy" are central themes, anti-Jewish sentiments are masked barely through a strong anti-Zionist theme, and courting enemies of state is de rigeur.

This is the Nation of Islam in a Christian veil. Louis Farrakhan is lionized, as are Khaddafy and Hamas. The undercurrent of race/ethic based animus towards whites in general and Jews in particular, is not ever far beneath the surface.

The Hamas charter (which calls for the extermination of Jews and Israel) being compared to our Declaration of Independence, the lionization of Farrakhan who called the white man "the devil" and the Jewish faith a "gutter religion"...are not isolated incidents.

Sen. Obama sought out this church, embraced this Reverend, made him an integral part of his life, sought his moral compass to give life direction and focus, for twenty years he held onto him tightly.

It is disingenuous to suggest that one doesn't know for twenty years the brand of sermonizing came from that pulpit. That pulpit is the stained blue dress that puts truth to the ridiculous lie.

Sen. Obama intentionally sought out the most radical leftists and played footsie with them. This can't be hidden or swept under the rug. Sen. Obama sought out the most militant and virulent anti-white church, this was not a happenstance or mistake. It was by design.

His connections to Dorhn and Ayers are also "indirect" perhaps.

His connections to Brzezinski, Malley, Power, Lake, McPeak...the Carter Redux, Pan-Arab apologists fraternity is not so indirect as he would have us believe.

Coupled with the Hamas/Khaddafy, Open Letter to Oprah dealings of his adopted "uncle" and mentor, his thin resume' becomes a bit clearer and more into focus.

So, we can ignore his "connections" to class warfare, racial warfare, religious warfare and anti-warfare warfare.

We can ignore voting record, his stances on partial birth abortion, his contextualization of hatred and vitriol from his church of choice, his wife's description of this country as mean, slothful and nothing to be proud of, of his pronouncements about "typical white people" and how wasteful we are.

He and Michelle see a very different country from many of the rest of us. I think that gives us a glimpse into how he would intend to "lead" us. And where.

And that's a fair question to ask, I believe.

cfbleachers   ·  April 4, 2008 2:31 PM

I see racism in "the soft bigotry of low expectations," of which this falls into the category, the same as affirmative action. We expect more of whites than of blacks. We expect more of men than of women. We expect more of non-Muslims than of Muslims. I blame the Wests, Chomskys, et. al. of the world for this and I categorically reject their postures. Enough of being victims and blaming others. The pity pot is overflowing and drowning all of us. This, more than anything else, is why I left the Democrat party after 28 years. This is the sum total of their ideology.

Peg C.   ·  April 4, 2008 2:58 PM

Actually, the Chomsky analogy is pretty close to what Obama is trying to sell. He's saying going to Wright's church is like taking Chomsky's class in linguistics. For those who know Chomsky only for his nut case politics: he is an extremely important scientist. He essentially invented the scientific study of language acquisition. If I were studying in that area I'd put up with an awful lot of foolishness to be in his class. It would be perfectly understandable to have Chomsky as a scientific mentor while rejecting his politics. Obama is trying to argue for that type of separation for Wright. I'm not really buying it.

Bob R   ·  April 4, 2008 3:02 PM

Pinn: ... I don't think very many of us would deny that there is a fundamental truth: Racism is a problem in the United States.

This assertion is the most troubling because it is a description without detail ... detail that might lead to understanding ... understanding that would be critical for resolution.

Racism is ignorant overgeneralization. Now THAT statement gives traction. It shows us where to hack at the problem. How people think is the root of the tree of evil. People can even graduate from Harvard unthinking.

People who say "racism is a problem in the United States" just add to the noise. Wright added to the noise. Obama's speech, trying to straddle two cultures, added to the noise.

sbw   ·  April 4, 2008 3:09 PM

The pity pot is overflowing and drowning all of us.


I wonder if Obama ever takes his white grandmother to church with him?

inmypajamas   ·  April 4, 2008 3:19 PM

Obama is caught in that he cannot tell the truth and is unable to concoct a lie. The simple truth is he doesn't take Wright seriously (seeing the Rev's behavior lately, doesn't look like he takes his own crap too seriously) but joined the church for political reasons that are now, um, counterproductive. The real disgrace is not that Wright exists or is allowed to purvey his bilge but that our self-described intellectual superiors are uninterested even in the details of his denunciations, mostly because they are as denounced therein, if they are white, as is Karl Rove. Ouch!

megapotamus   ·  April 4, 2008 3:44 PM

Also look at Cone, Wright's mentor and Black Liberation Theology.

There are posts up here that will get you started.

Liberation Theology. Which was up on March 20th. If you go into the sidebar there have been more pieces since then and now.

There are also links in the piece.

M. Simon   ·  April 4, 2008 3:45 PM

I think the most telling argument is about the racial healing / post-racialism that Obama can allegedly supply. If he's got any of that, why couldn't he spare some for Wright after 20 years of close association? If he couldn't make any head way there, why believe he can do so anywhere else? And there's the whole bravery / stand up for what one believes issue which is put in to stark relief.

Annoying Old Guy   ·  April 4, 2008 4:54 PM
I'm always open to criticism...

You're kind of funny looking.

Anon Y. Mous   ·  April 4, 2008 5:21 PM

"...but he'd have never gotten away with inviting Noam Chomsky."

I doubt it. Few people who are not politically active have any idea who Gnome Chomsky is.

Bart   ·  April 4, 2008 7:03 PM

If your friend believes the earth is flat, that doesn't disqualify you from the presidency. If your friend is president of the Flat Earth Society, that doesn't disqualify you from the presidency. But if you attend Flat Earth Society meetings every week for 20 years, THAT disqualifies you from the presidency.

M. Murphy   ·  April 4, 2008 10:23 PM
"On a more optimistic note, if Obama is the candidate, I think he might force the recalcitrant Republican right to do something they hate, and vote for McCain."
Hmmm.. Do you really believe that the recalcitrant Republican right loath Obama more than we loath the Clintons (who've given us eight long years-worth of reasons to loath them)? Because I'm hoping you're not suggesting we're just bigots who wouldn't vote for a black under any circumstances. Just sayin' I wouldn't get my hopes up on that account.*

That said, if Obama wins the Democrat nomination I'm predicting a split-screen infomercial showing Wright ranting while BO sits in the front row nodding. That's not going to play well to anyone outside a few blighted urban areas. And that's just what James Carville is going to do to him, with suitable deniability, of course.

Stick a fork in him, he's done.

*I took an oath to defend the constitution. I'd sooner vote for someone who advocates sex in the middle of the street [Whatever. Think venial sins, of which Obama and the Clintons have certainly committed more than their share.] than vote for the guy who sponsored McCain/Feingold and got an F- from GOA on 2nd amendment issues. Those are deadly sins in my book, things that simply can't be forgiven or overlooked. I can't speak for anyone else, but that's why this recalcitrant Republican can't be browbeaten into voting for McCain. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

Swen Swenson   ·  April 5, 2008 10:03 AM


I think you are correct. McCain will be writing you out of the Republican coalition.

39 States have shall issue. 9 more have may issue. You think McCain will buck that?

As to McF - the internet has bypassed it. Is fookin with the intertubes a popular issue?

So ask yourself - is McCain more likely to listen to Rs than Ds? You going to get Obama's ear?

It doesn't matter. McCain will win and he will listen to those that vote for him. Remember what Baker said about the Jews? Fook them they don't vote for us anyway.

You want to be on the receiving end of that calculation? Be my guest.

M. Simon   ·  April 7, 2008 2:46 AM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits