So I'm genuinely confused, Gustavo. You spent the better middle of your article accusing right-leaning publications of guilt by association, then paint conservatives with a broad brush saying, "They're never around to practice this type of logical fallacy when the conservative cause is screwing up (say, anytime in the last eight years)." Then you go onto agree with these right-wing publications to say, [Ed. paraphrasing here] "Well, yeah, The National Review and The Weekly Standard are basically right, but God do I hate conservatives." I think your thesis has its good points especially with regards to Wright's ridiculous assertions regarding his "NATO defense" of himself, but it misses and distorts some very important themes.
Guilt by association is practiced by both parties. Guilt by association as a logical fallacy is not what you think it is. Conservatives are not saying that "Wright is a believer in black liberation theology. Wright is Obama's pastor. Therefore, Obama believes in black liberation theology." Conservatives are questioning Obama's judgment and honesty in staying in a church for so long and in denying ever hearing any racist remarks.
Republicans in the past such as Trent Lott and others have learned the hard way that associating with racist folks can in turn lead to accusations of racism. Hypothetically if President Bush were to be associated with a pastor who said similar things, his judgment would be questioned and rightfully so. As John Podhoretz wrote, "What if John McCain had visited the Unabomber’s cabin? Or had been photographed with Terry Nichols? Or had stopped off at David Duke’s house at some point because he was gathering support and donors? How big a story would that be?" The question I have for Obama is, "How could you have been so blind or ignorant of your pastor and your church when it was explicitly Afrocentric and moreover embraced Marxism and other ideologies that are unsuitable for a presidential candidate?"
If we are going to talk about more association, perhaps Obama's relationship with William Ayers -- one of the founders of the terrorist group The Weather Underground -- should be viewed with some scrutiny. And let's not forget Tony Rezko and the letters which Barack Obama wrote on his behalf or the sweetheart deal which Rezko gave to Obama.
The same folks who hold Bush responsible for the failings of his underlings are the same folks who are now saying that Obama cannot be held responsible for something that his "close confidant" said. Truman said, "The buck stops here." Here is right. If you want to be president, you need to take responsibility for your actions and you have to have good judgment regarding the people you place in power. If Barack Obama does not even have this judgment with his pastor, I'm questioning whether he will have it if and when he becomes the president.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Counter Scold: Stop hating on conservatives
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The comparison between Obama and Wright and Obama and "underlings" is pretty absurd.
Wright is not in a position of public trust; nor does Obama bear any responsibility for Wright's comments. Obama has not given Wright any "power".
Jeff, first off, to call The National Review or Weekly Standard "right=leaning" is like calling a hurricane a breeze. These publications have "leaned" far enough right to have formed a horseshoe.
Second of all, you can be rest assured there is nary a soul who is reading the conservative reaction to Pastorgate as some kind of judgement question.
Surely no one would be naive enough to suggest that all the conservatives want to do is question Obama's judgment.
After all, the clear and obvious problem is not that Obama stuck to the same pastor, it's that the pastor is ass-in-the-air NUTS and not reflective of blacks, black churches, or any kind of message for racial unity.
The implication is, "You can't trust this guy, his dear pastor is totally nuts, anti=American, Afrocentric, pro-Farrakhan." Let's not forget how many ignorant people still choose to believe Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate.
You still hear total retards in Pennsylvania and Indiana saying they won't vote for Obama because he's Muslim-ish, even though they "have heard" he is a Christian.
It might be unfair but sometimes you have to answer for those with whom you associate. Moreover, haven't we learned from both the Clinton and Bush administration that not having discretion in selecting your advisers can lead to disaster in policy-making decisions?
If you can demonstrate where National Review or the Weekly Standard have accused Obama of being a closet Muslim, then it would be indefensible. However, you cannot find them saying that anywhere. Putting quotation marks around journalists impugns their integrity and makes it seem as though they're Bush flunkies. Here's a definition of journalism, "the occupation of reporting, writing, editing, photographing, or broadcasting news or of conducting any news organization as a business." Explain to me why these folks don't count as journalists because of their political orientation. Furthermore, if you actually check into the folks who work in these organizations, you would find them to be not as monolithic as you believe.
If Jeremiah Wright was not Barack Obama's pastor, then he would simply be left alone to continue his diatribes. However, he is Barack Obama's pastor. How and why did Obama stay in this guy's church and consider him a close adviser when before his 9/11 comments, he was already a committed believer in black liberation theology and the Marxist ideology which underpins it? If Obama can answer this and the questions surrounding his associations with other questionable folks, then this would clear up the entire matter to me.
My beef with publications like The Weekly Standard is their distant relationship with the truth, coupled with a disgustingly close relationship with ideology.
For many months in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Standard insisted that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda, underlining and reemphasizing practically every line the Bush administration gave justifying the invasion. The Standard appeared to want its readers to believe that Saddam was more dangerous than Al-Qaeda. The Standard's incredible desire to sell the war was noted not just by liberal commie rags, but also by The American Conservative.
When the Abu Grahib scandal broke, the New York Post (like the Standard, also owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp) didn't even run the the story on the front page. You don't have to be a journalist to recognize that such a blatantly poor example of basic news judgement, taught in the first week of any journalism course, was more about giving conservative readers the worldview they want to see, rather than the unvarnished truth.
The Standard and other such "media" outlets like Fox News are perfect examples of "echo chambers." Rather than present any objective point of view, they reinforce the beliefs of the conservatives who watch them.
Post a Comment