April 30, 2008

The Greatest Story Ever Sold

It isn't "what did he know, and when did he know it," but instead appears to be "he knew it all along, and is trying to hide it."

That is the impression left when reading this article in the NY Post today.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright would be happy to see Barack Obama's presidential campaign derailed because the pastor is fuming that his former congregant has "betrayed" their 20-year relationship,

The Post has learned. "After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn't know about Jeremiah's views during those years, that he wasn't familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn't hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal," said the source, who has deep roots in Wright's Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.

And perhaps most damning:

"Rev. Wright, as well as other senior members of his church, believe that Obama has betrayed over 20 years of their supposed friendship."

If the source is correct, other senior leaders of Trinity United Church of Christ know that Barack Obama was familiar with the radical content of Jeremiah Wright's sermons. For Obama to say otherwise is a betrayal of the pastor and the church.

The obvious implication is that Obama knew precisely what Wright's views and positions were for 20 years, and Obama "never batted an eye" until Wright's positions became too much political baggage for the Senator's presidential aspirations.

The implication is obvious. Either:

  • Barack Obama believes in the angry, paranoid and racist teachings of Jeremiah Wright and the Marxist liberation theology of his church, and is lying about it in public in hopes of getting elected, which is essentially the betrayal Rev. Wright accused him of in front of the National Press Club Monday morning, or;
  • Barack Obama's membership in Trinity United Church of Christ and his relationship with the pastoral staff and congregation were nothing more than a 20-year lie of convenience and exploitation of the Church and Wright of Homeric proportions.

No matter how you slice it, Obama is guilty of an epic deception in his quest for power, and potential supporters should start to wonder just how much he's willing to lie to them to get elected if he's already betrayed a 20-year-old relationship in that pursuit.

I don't know if the United Church of Christ has a process for excommunication, but it would be interesting as an intellectual exercise to speculate about Trinity excommunicating Obama for his actions. He has obviously embarrassed the church and the man who grew it into what it is today, and has done as much as he possible can to separate himself from the church, short of locking the door and burning the congregation inside (a tactic, by the way, actually used by his cousin's supporters in Kenya this past January).

Exit Question: If TUCC did excommunicate Obama, would it hurt him or help him as a candidate?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 30, 2008 11:54 AM

TUCC's excommunication of Obama would absolutely be the only thing that would trully end the current controversy. His current membership in the church would no long hang over his head. That, in itself, would be a plus for him as a candidate.

He would still have to answer the question of why he sat in those pews for 20+ years and said or did nothing regarding the church's and ministers views.

The possibility of his nomination by the Democratic Party brings to life the old story that the Dems could nominate a Yellow Dog and still get people to vote for it!

Posted by: SShiell at April 30, 2008 12:24 PM

A TUCC excommunication wouldn't matter much anymore. The damage done can't be undone and further damage will happen either way. It will be with different people but the numbers are about the same.

Wright will do anything he can to undermine Obama. An Obama win would render his "everything is racism" philosophy as silly. That might be the best reason to support Obama. It's not a very good reason but it's the best one I can think of.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at April 30, 2008 01:00 PM

Isn't this distraction over? Obama denounced Wright yesterday. Can't we move on? I mean McCain denounced Hagee's stupid statements and there was nothing like Obama's tight 20 year relationship with Wright between McCain and Hagee. You never hear the left bringing up Hagee anymore do you?


Oh, nevermind.

Posted by: daleyrocks at April 30, 2008 01:55 PM

I simply cannot wait for Rev Otis Moss' sermon this Sunday. You'll recall his sermon that found Wright being both lynched and crucified simultaneously (and metaphorically) in sort of a sadistic Reeses, along with admonitions to the congregation that they should not talk to the visitors present.

Sunday should be mighty interesting. Who will get the demonization? Wright? Obama? Whitey? OK, Whitey is a given, but who else?

Posted by: Pablo at April 30, 2008 04:56 PM

Yeah, Otis is another figure Obammy would wish a prosperous vacation upon. Barry is waking up to the notion that the quaint eccentricities he has indulged over the years in his associates are actually raging and bizarre pathologies. These are pathologies shared by the milieu he has so snivelingly ingratiated himself to, the one that nominates Dem candidates, and gosh darn it, he just couldnt' see it. Probably because he is such a uniter and peacemaker he just couldn't see serious harm in "AmeriKKKa". These raving lunacies are "mainstream" in his view, as he has said of Ayers. Of course everyone thinks THEY are centrists; it is the nation that is wrong. Electorally this is problematic. But hilarious!

Posted by: megapotamus at April 30, 2008 05:07 PM

Who cares? Plus, McCain has his own wacko preacher issues (Hagee, Robertson, Falwell (dead)), so it's zero sum, IMO. As much as you guys look forward to Rev Wright commercials in the Fall, you can expect the DNC will run Hagee commercials (anti Catholic slurs, Katrina was God's punishment to NO) and showing McCain on stage with him. Mutually assured destruction.

Posted by: Craig at April 30, 2008 05:31 PM

Here's a question for you guys: Should I renounce my Catholic faith because of the recent sex-abuse scandal? I mean, I know the Church has done a lot of good around the world with its social programs, but if I were to hold myself to the same standards that you all hold Obama, then I'd have to kick the Catholic Church to the curb. Covering up sexual abuse by priests at least to me seems much worse than Wright's comments, as inflammatory and stupid as they were.

Moreover, why doesn't stuff like this get more press around here? CY, for someone who criticizes the MSM so much, you seem pretty in sync with their recent news cycle.

Posted by: Juan Manuel de Rosas at April 30, 2008 05:41 PM


Who cares?

Obama cares. Pay attention.


Should I renounce my Catholic faith because of the recent sex-abuse scandal?

No, you should speak out against it, as the vast majority of Catholics did. And as Obama is finally doing with Wright.

Posted by: Pablo at April 30, 2008 05:48 PM

Craig - Good luck with those ads if you think they'll be as effective as the potential GOP ads. Smearing dead guys is always a winning tactic I think.

Juan - Faith is a personal matter in my judgement. I don't understand why your are soliciting advice here. Speak to your priest.

If you are unhappy with the topics covered by CY, it is not difficult to start your own blog and cover them yourself. Is anybody forcing you to come here and comment? Idiot.

Posted by: daleyrocks at April 30, 2008 05:57 PM

"Covering up sexual abuse by priests at least to me seems much worse than Wright's comments, as inflammatory and stupid as they were."

As far as I know you are not running for president and claiming that the priest abuse is mainstream, something your wacky uncle would do, a little bit like the comments your dear granny used to make and just a big misunderstanding by white America.

Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 30, 2008 05:57 PM

Craig - Does this mean Farrakhan is out of the running for VP if Obama wins the nomination? I'm not clear on that point.

Posted by: daleyrocks at April 30, 2008 06:00 PM

Craig... feel free to run those ads if you think they'll help you.

After all, the Obamamessiah has never miscalculated in his life, has he? He is, of course, perfect.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 06:39 PM
Is anybody forcing you to come here and comment?

Yes, Daley, I'd imagine that MoveOn has told him that April is his month to troll CY... he either obeys or they take away his secret decoder ring. Since tomorrow is the start of May, we should see another troll show up within the next week or so.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 07:02 PM

This really is a load of unimportant ordure, but I'm not surprised that you're all fixated by it.

We wouldn't want to talk about McCain's dismissal of a new GI Bill, or the bogus band-aid highway tax holiday embraced by McCain and Clinton, those would actually be about, you know, issues.

But Bob, you keep hammering away at the one candidate who might, possibly, maybe, get beyond the Atwater/Rove politics of personal destruction that has paralyzed any sort of real progress on important issues like veterans care, health care, the war, the budget deficit, and a rational energy policy.

Wouldn't want to do that, would we?

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 07:49 PM

David - Very interesting points given that there is absolutely no evidence that he has the ability to move beyond the politics of personal; destruction when you consider the mechanism he used to reach the Illinois legislature and submarine the campaign of his Republican opponent for the U.S. Senate, who was leading at the time. His subsequent opponent, Alan Keyes, would have lost to a ham sandwich.

Looking at Obama's laundry list of legislative accomplishments, or should I say lack thereof, I find it stunning to say the least that you find hope for him to achieve bipartisan breakthroughs on such a wide range of issues. Are you already drunk again tonight David?

Posted by: daleyrocks at April 30, 2008 08:02 PM

David, please show us any evidence at all that Obama can make the hard decisions on important matters.

In point of fact, the actual record of his political service is downright dismal. He has never authored or sponsored an important bill, and in fact has missed a number of votes on important matters.

By all means, let's tell the American public about the legislative career of Senator Barack Can't-Say-That-His-Middle-Name-Is-Hussein Obama.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 08:19 PM


I'll admit, his resume is thin. And I'll admit I'm desperate. I do not want a third Bush term of irresponsible fiscal and energy policy. I don't want another episode of the Clinton soap opera. So where do you suggest I go?

I like the guy. I think he's genuine. Given a shot, I think he might prevail over politics as usual. I hope so, anyway.

McCain has sold his soul to become the nominee and Clinton had no soul to begin with. So I ask again, where do you suggest I turn?

As for being drunk, it's the last solace for thoughtful men who have endured the last seven years of ineptitude.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 08:24 PM

David, Obama has shown that he's just as blatant a politician as Clinton is. There was nothing in Wright's speech Monday that he hadn't said before. All that changed was that Wright himself showed that the "sound bite" and "looping" and "snippet" defense wasn't going to work anymore, so Obama did--as Wright had said--what a politician had to do.

Anyone who doesn't think that's "politics as usual" must not have been watching politics for very long.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 08:35 PM


I've been active in politics since Goldwater. There have been rare times, and rare men, who have come along and inspired us to see above the mud.

I believe this guy might be one of those men. At the very least, he's not McCain or Clinton.

No one is perfect. We all have baggage in our history. This election, more than any other in my 58 years, is one where we can choose to go with the failures of the past, or we can take a leap and hope.

Do I expect you, a hardcore GOP supporter to jump with me? No. But I do hope you and others will choose to be positive this year instead of negative. Negative is easy. Choosing to go a different is hard.

But if you're satified with the direction we're going in, by all means, vote for McCain or Clinton. It'll be 4 more years of the same.

As I said, I'm desperate. Can you make a positive argument for Clinton or McCain? Because I can't.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 09:13 PM

I know a lot of Bob's readers support our soldiers. So I ask why, or how, you can support McCain's stand against a better GI Bill?

The GI Bill of my father's generation paid for a full ride, the GI Bill of my generation barely covered the cost of books. It was another slap in the face of the Vietnam generation, which makes me want to fix this for our vets.

And, a bigger issue, why isn't the media, Bob included, spending as much time on this as they are Obama's pastor?

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 09:24 PM

David, how about I turn your statement on its head? I support McCain because he isn't Obama or Clinton.

Does that satisfy you?

Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 09:27 PM

I expected no less.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 09:29 PM

David - Unfortunately everybody's choices are limited at this point. If you are desperate and serious, however, the last place I would turn for responsible fiscal and energy policy is to a democratic candidate.

Posted by: daleyrocks at April 30, 2008 09:36 PM

David at 9:13 PM
Maybe you should read over your post again. The man is running for POTUS, the most important and powerful position in the world. You wish to hitch not only your horse but the entire corral to a man with no discernable executive experience and HOPE he represents change? I'd go along along with you if this were the PTA.

Posted by: RicardoVerde at April 30, 2008 09:40 PM

Actually, David, I am only echoing your own arguments. You said yourself: "At the very least, he's [Obama's] not McCain or Clinton."

And now when I turn it back on you, you realize just how weak an argument it is, so you stick your nose in the air like the self-anointed elite you are and attempt--not very well, I might add--to look down at me.

Next time, try using arguments with a little substance to them, or, at the very least, arguments that can't be turned around so easily.

Or you could just go back to DemocraticUnderground where the trick you tried is no doubt considered the height of cleverness.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 09:43 PM
I'd go along along with you if this were the PTA.

I wouldn't even go along with that for PTA... in fact, not even if Obama was running for Second Assistant Dogcatcher would I buy that line of argument.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 09:44 PM

Wow, I'm an elitist? I can take you to a parking deck here in town I helped build as a laborer. I've spiked ties for the railroad, was an enlisted man, went to West Virginia University on the GI Bill and worked as a short order cook.

If that's an elitist resume, I'm the fricking Pope.

I understand the man's running for POTUS. Look at the man who holds that office now and ask if any of these candidates could possibly do worse?

You have two candidates who stand for the status quo, McCain and Clinton. Both have shown themselves eager to pander to whatever audience they face. Clinton even puts on a southern accent when she talks to us rednecks. McCain has backed away from his very own bills and embraced Falwell and Robertson and Bush.

McCain and Clinton are the politics of the past. I hope Obama is a part of the future. I want to be part of the futute because, frankly, I'm sick of fighting the politics of the 60's over and over.

My wife's brother was at Pensacola with McCain. I believe McCain's an honorable man. But I also believe his time has past. His changing course is pure politics, and it does not do him honor.

That all of you go for McCain doesn't surprise me. You're Republicans. That's fine. I only want to ask you to consider that maybe McCain's policies might be slightly more important that Obama's pastor.

That's all I'm saying.

But if it makes you feel better thinking I'm some kind of Democratic Underground troll, you go right ahead. There's not much I can do about that kind of ignorance.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 10:07 PM

[[McCain and Clinton are the politics of the past. I hope Obama is a part of the future. I want to be part of the futute because, frankly, I'm sick of fighting the politics of the 60's over and over.]]

Yikes have you ever got it turned around David. Obama is stuck in the 60's. To him whitey is still opressing the brothers and black liberation theology has relevence in the modern era. As to why obama would be a crappy president,

1) He will raise taxes and throw the economy down the drain.
2) He will surrender in Iraq and throw Iraqs new democracy to the wolves.
3) He wants to appease Iran and Syria.
4) He is pro-abortion.
3) He has the most liberal voting record in congress.
4) Its is becoming increasingly clear that he is a liar.

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 30, 2008 10:23 PM

Right, David... tell me, what color is the sky in your world?

And while you're at it, tell me one--just ONE major legislative accomplishment with Senator Obama's name on it as something other than a senator voting on it.

And since you can't do that (there are none), please change your name. You're making Davids everywhere--including me--look bad.

Posted by: C-C-G at April 30, 2008 10:29 PM


You're angry. That's good. We should all be angry. I'm as angry as any man I know.

You list things you don't like about Obama. That's progress. At least it's not about his pastor.

Other than that he's pro-choice (I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion), the other points can be argued. What about Obama's tax policy don't you like? Do you prefer McCain's policy of making the Bush tax cuts permanent. That's not very sophisticated, but simple. Do you think our current policy of borrowing from the Chinese is a good, long term strategy?

I missed the part about him surrendering in Iraq and about appeasement with Iran and Syria. He will talk to them, which I prefer rather than having another war we can't afford. But we can discuss.

I don't know what a liberal voting record is. What votes, specifically? Did his work in preventing proliferation of nukes liberal?

He's a liar? OK. I don't know how he's a liar, but people who run for president always say things they later regret.

But you're angry. That's good. Now get angry about things that matter like this GI Bill, combat pay and the declining dollar.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 10:39 PM

David aka CCG,

It took me a moment to find this:

You may not like what Obama's done, but he has done something. Now, tell me what of McCain's legislative accomplishments you like. Campaign finance? Immigration? The opening of Vietnam to trade? I happen to like that last one.

That you are so willing to swallow Chris Matthews' talking points tells me you haven't really been following this race seriously.

And I suggest that those who have had this name for more years gets to keep it.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 10:49 PM

Oh, and in the day time, the color of my sky is usually a beautiful Carolina blue, which is one of the reasons I live here.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 10:56 PM

[[You list things you don't like about Obama. That's progress. At least it's not about his pastor.]]

Way to miss the point. Its directly related to his pastor of 20 years, a foolish and disgusting man who Obama clearly has an affinity for and similarities with.

[[(I don't know anyone who is pro-abortion)]]

Well, except, of course, all the folks who support err, abortions.

[[What about Obama's tax policy don't you like?]]

The fact that he wants to raise them. Bad at the best of times, worse in a weak economy.

[[Do you think our current policy of borrowing from the Chinese is a good, long term strategy?]]

No, thats why we have to stop spending like drunken sailors. Do you really think the guy with the most liberal voting record in congress will be a good fiscal conservative?

[[I missed the part about him surrendering in Iraq.]]

Wow, really? Let me fill you in. Hes a hard core "defeat at any cost" lefty.

[[I don't know what a liberal voting record is. What votes, specifically?]]

Let me help. Heres how its done in a quantitative manner.

Obama was most liberal. For example, he voted against a measure that would prevent a doctor killing a baby accidently born alive during a botched abortion. Nice guy isnt he?

[[Now get angry about things that matter like this GI Bill, combat pay and the declining dollar.]]

Im not mad about the GI bill, either Webbs inferior version will pass or McCains better version. I like a weak dollar, it helps Americans sell thing abroad and makes us seek domestic alternative to foreign stuff.

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 30, 2008 11:00 PM


When the petroleum producing countries, and the Chinese, decide to take Euros over dollars, come back and tell me how this whole Chicago school of economics has worked you.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 30, 2008 11:08 PM

[[Now, tell me what of McCain's legislative accomplishments you like.]]

Hes a tax cutter, not a tax and spend liberal (like Obama does).

He dosnt support the killing of babies born alive during a botched abortion (like Obama does).

We will get a 60% conservativism out of McCain, not a 0% conservativism which is what Obamas "most liberal in congress" record indicates we will get out of him.

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrr at April 30, 2008 11:28 PM

Actually, David, I've never watched a moment of Chris Matthews in my life. I don't even own a TV.

So tell me this... why isn't Obama running on his legislative record? Why isn't he coming forward and saying, "this is what I have done" instead of offering us fluff and empty words?

I think I know why... because those items that Obama worked on support the idea, pointed out by Grrrrr above, that Obama is a knee-jerk lefty, and he knows that he can't get elected that way.

So he campaigns as the candidate of HOPE, by which he seems to mean that he HOPEs you won't notice his far-left record, he HOPEs people won't ask him tough questions at press conferences or debates, he HOPEs his friends and associates won't come to light, and he HOPEs his wife won't make asinine statements about not being proud of the USA.

There's your candidate of HOPE, David.

Posted by: C-C-G at May 1, 2008 07:55 AM

"Exit Question: If TUCC did excommunicate Obama, would it hurt him or help him as a candidate?"

I doubt that it would do much either way, CY. The issue hasn't been so much that Obama is a member of the church but what it says about his character and philosophy that not only did he join but also that he stayed. For twenty years.

If he were to be excommunicated, that would only show that the church doesn't want him, not visa versa. It wouldn't change his views or his affinity for them. And his excommunication would most likely be for his public repudiation of his friendship, not their beliefs.


As for the comparison to McCain and Hagee, or Robertson or Falwell. None of those are McCain's pastor. But more importantly, the comparison is different in many ways that make it more inappropriate than appropriate. One I think is fundamental is that in Wright's case, it is easy to suppose he would accept all comers to follow him for that is his purpose. Obama chose to have Wright lead him and, obviously, Wright's beliefs take precedence here as they are the guiding philosophy. After all, a pastor's job is to lead, guide, shepherd. In Hagee's case, however, it is McCain who is accepting all comers to follow him for that is his purpose and McCain's beliefs transcend those of his followers -- including Hagee -- not the other way around.

Thus, for the comparison to stick one must look further to a coincidence of values in McCain which in Hagee you decry. As for Hagee, it is not there. I think you can make the same argument for Robertson and Falwell.

Posted by: Dusty at May 1, 2008 10:04 AM

Why does everyone so easily buy into Davids premise? I've had a GREAT 7 years!!! In 2000 I was struggling mightely with my business, by 2003 I was really starting to make some money and by 2006 I was able to sell my small bar in Chicago and buy a nice size bar/restaurant in Monroe North Carolina with my salary approaching 6 figures. The last 5 years were the BEST 5 years of my life so I have absolutely no problem extending the "Bush" years!

When the Bush tax cuts were made in 2003 it helped my struggling business greatly. That's the reason I started to make real money. Since I was in the bottom half I got the biggest tax break personally and the help he gave small businesses was a saving grace to my business.

I reject the left wing media premise that things are so bad. Bullsh*t! I couldn't have asked for more. Except for maybe a 5'9" blonde 34/24/35....:)

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 1, 2008 06:28 PM

Cap, clearly, the last seven years have been terrible... terrible, I tell you...

...for BDS sufferers and others who can't "Move On" past the 2000 election.

(can I get a rimshot?)

Posted by: C-C-G at May 1, 2008 06:37 PM


I guess I could blame Bush for not finding that 5'9" blonde blue eyed 36-25-35 :)

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at May 1, 2008 06:51 PM

Well, Cap, at least you could trust Bush with such a blonde... there are some ex-Presidents you couldn't trust with one.

Posted by: C-C-G at May 1, 2008 07:06 PM

Oh, yes. It's all about HOPE.


Posted by: Conservative CBU at May 1, 2008 10:53 PM

The Obamites remind me of the liberal callers to conservative radio programs. They try to fill up time so others do not get the chance to talk.

Forget about Obama and Wright's talks, just read Obama's books. They show that he is in the tank for Wright's Black supremacy views.

Posted by: davod at May 2, 2008 07:45 AM

A third implication of the Wright-Obama drama commanding 24/7 media coverage is that it is a remake of the George C. Scott movie, The Flim Flam Man, in which an old con artist and his young trainee pull off the grand double-gotcha by staging a fake hatred for each other. Wright-Obama have everybody looking the other way.

Posted by: twolaneflash at May 2, 2008 10:37 AM