Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a bigoted buffoon who doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about. He thinks Emanuel and Axelrod are going to keep the president away from him because they’re Jewish? No, they’re going to keep him away from you because you say stupid anti-Semitic things so that reporters can put them in the newspaper.
Another whackjob who thinks Jews are behind every disappointment in his life walked into the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC today and opened fire.
It is not just the Jewishness of it, it is the blacks, Mexicans, homosexuals….you name it the kind of sickness that runs rampant in our country is at the height of all the sickness of things going on nowadays. I can honestly say this 89 years old is a republican. It is the kind of feces that they do…these radicals kinds of ppl. They lie and wait till they cannot stand it any longer and then they move on with their tactics….This has got to come to a halt. I really must!
He’s a freeper.
That DHS report on right wing terrorism is looking more and more prescient all the time.
But of course, the Wingers wanted Janet Napolitano fired for saying “Hey, President Bush here asked for this study to be commissioned, and yeah, we have a right wing domestic terror problem in this country with anti-abortion nutjobs and anti-Semite assholes.”
she said that? I assume you made that up.
The report however did say this:
Another wingnut with a gun promoting his twisted version of justice. How many left-leaning individuals have gone on a similar rampage? Umm, hmm, let’s see. That would be, umm, none.
I think there is no doubt that Rev. Wright got a healthy dose of unfair treatment during the campaign season, especially concerning the lack of context surrounding some of his now famous sermon sound-bites. And for that reason I had a certain degree of sympathy for him in that regard.
But I’ve read and re-read his comments in the latest interview. And I simply cannot find any reason at all to give him the benefit of the doubt in this case. His statement is simply, disgustingly and incontrovertibly bigoted, ignorant and stupid. In this case he deserves all the shame and scorn that he is getting.
Agreed. Obama should have left his church a long time ago. I don’t think it creates any aspersions on Obama, I know too many people who go to hard core evangelical churches who have entirely reasonable positions on social issues, torture and economies, but I still wish he had left.
Yes, but hindsight is always 20/20. It would have taken away an attack line on Obama that was always pretty irrelevant but was a picture perfect media narrative. And the GOP played it like a Stradivarius, with the help of their info-tainment friends in the media.
Because I am a white person, one thing that I will not be able to ever truly understand or appreciate is the cultural history and significance of the church in the black community. I cannot judge the context of the message preached in the black church because my paradigm is so much different that I cannot apply the same rules I would use in my own experience. It is just beyond my capability to understand or appreciate. So I am reluctant to pass any personal judgment on what is said within the walls of their church on any given Sunday. Though the media and the GOP never had any hesitation on applying their white man rules and standards on something which was completely out of sync with their own personal standards or experiences. It was the ultimate hypocrisy and an intellectually dishonest ploy. But who ever said that politics was a gentleman’s game.
It’s not stopping the right from equating Von Brunn to Rev. Wright and by proxy, President Obama. That’s unfair.
Having said that however, the faster Obama publicly denounces Wright, the better.
He has no choice now.
I thought he already denounced Wright. Will he have to keep denouncing him every time Wright says something rude or bigoted? I thought one denunciation is enough. If someone asks his press secretary the press secretary can denounce Wright. Otherwise, why draw further attention?
Perhaps not really relevant, but fascinating: Brian Beutler and Zachary Roth at TPM found a photograph of a painting by James W. von Brunn (alleged to be the Holocaust Museum shooter.) The picture is here. I know very little about art, but it looks to me like the guy has some talent.
Hmmmm, it’s gone….
Probably moving it over to the Hitler/Nazi section on eBay as we speak.
With an infinitely high price attached, of course.
Sullivan’s got it:
painting
Sadly, he’s quite talented.
Hitler was a painter too.
If anyone recalls, Jesse Jackson walked the same line many years ago, with his NY Hymie comment. It appears that was motivated by an incident in which his daughter was refused entry into some university, and the person involved was Jewish. These are very vague recollections, but in those days there was Jewish-Black tensions in NYC. And all of it occurred in spite of the strong representation of Jews in the civil rights movement.
Other than the remark about “them Jews” not letting him see Barack, I don’t see anything all that wrong with what he said.
It’s appalling that Obama did not send a delegation to the World Conference on Racism, and it appeared clear that the main reason was that Israel’s racist policies and practices were going to be dealt with. Does anyone seriously believe that AIPAC did not have something to do with that decision? I don’t think pointing that out shows hatred of Jews or anyone else.
As for his remarks about Gaza, I would not call it ethnic cleansing, but it certainly qualifies as war crimes and crimes against humanity, and Israel is so far getting away with it completely. Further, Israel DOES have a 60-plus year history of getting away with ethnic cleansing, the most dramatic being 1948 in Palestine and 1967 in parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and in the Golan Heights where they systematically and violently removed about 96% of the Syrian population. They also have conducted violent ethnic cleansing in southern Lebanon, and in the Syrian city of Quneitra when they were forced to withdraw from it in 1973 (in fact, they destroyed the entire city before they withdrew). They have also used quieter and more gradual means to ethnically cleanse areas inside Israel, and, of course, for more than 40 years have been conducting what some Israelis have called “quiet ethnic cleansing” in East Jerusalem and the West Bank. That is, to a very significant extent, what that “separation wall” – only the latest in Israel’s mechanisms – is really about.
I for one do not see anything at all anti-Semitic or Jew-hating about calling Israel on its racism, and its ethnic cleansing, and its war crimes and crimes against humanity. I also do not see anything at all anti-Semitic or Jew hating about pointing out the obvious – that expected criticism of Israel’s racist policies and practices was a significant factor in the decision not to attend the World Racism Conference. No other state that did these things would be immune from condemnation for them.
did I mention his comments about the UN?
but, since you raised the issue, it’s obnoxious to talk about ‘The Jews’ when you are being critical of Israeli policy. There are almost as many Jews in America as there are in Israel, and most American Jews oppose the settlements and many other elements of Israeli policy.
If the good reverend wants to make points about U.S. policy towards Israel, he ought to be less of a dick about it and not suggest that ‘The Jews’ are the problem.
The part of his comment I chose to mention isn’t even remotely defensible. Or accurate.
No, you did not mention them, and I did not see any comments about the UN.
I agree that it is inaccurate and obnoxious to talk about “the Jews” when you are criticizing Israel and/or Zionism, and I call people on it frequently. However, it is not necessarily a sign of Jew hatred when people do so. It is at least as likely to be a sign of carelessness, or ignorance, both of which can easily exist without anti-Semitism.
Being a dick does not equate to be anti-Semitic. Not defending the guy, I’m just sayin’…
That’s true, Hurria.
I think what’s bothersome with Wright here is that there’s a seeming presumption by him that a Jew in a position of power will automatically be aligned with policies of Israel to the detriment of the U.S. specifically or the world generally and that is based on the “Jew’s” faith. The problem is that most Jews in a position of power, like most American politicians of any religious stripe, are strong supporters of Israel. It would have been better to say that Obama’s staff want to keep Wright away from the President because of his differing positions on Gaza, etc.
Invoking “Jews” as shorthand is never a good idea, considering history. Having said that, when I’ve listened to Wright in full context he actually seems relatively coherent and progressive in his positions.
Having said that, it’s a little disturbing, and not terribly enlightening, to link Reverend Wright to von Brunn. Much like the writer who links von Brunn to people who condemn neo-cons like, say, you, Booman, because “neo-con” is code for Jews. The problem with linkage is that pretty soon you find yourself in the same pew because you’ve been linked.
I don’t know how popular this Wright clip was before the shooting, but Fox News has used an account of this interview to claim that there are hate groups equally on the right and left.
I do not agree with Rev. Wright’s interpretations in this interview. However, after listening to the part of the tape that dailypress has released and read the article you linked, I think that Rev. Wright’s words are being misrepresented.
It seems pretty clear that by “them Jews,” Wright is talking about Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Because of his connections to Israel (as well as his father’s words), many critics of Israel were concerned about the choice of Emanuel in such a gate-keeper position when the appointment was announced. For most Critics of Israel, those fears have been allayed by Obama’s words and actions in his first few months in office. Whatever choices he is making, it is clear that he is well-informed and that people with a variety of perspectives are getting a chance to talk to him.
Most, but not all, people are getting through to speak to Obama. For those who used to have his ear, like Wright, they may still believe that they can’t get to him because Emanuel controls the gate (as chiefs of staff have used that position in previous administrations). Wright does not want to believe that Obama does not want him let through the gate, so he blames the gatekeeper. Wright (and members of Trinity UCC), still do not accept that Obama chose to throw all of them under the bus as part of the price of winning the primary. They remain fiercely loyal to him even as it is clear to many other constituencies that they have been and continue to be sacrificed by Obama for political expediency.
Wright is an intelligent and articulate leader. Unfortunately, his delusions about Obama and their relationship have contributed to generalizations about other influences on Obama that give fuel to racists and anti-Semites and undermine his authority to criticize Israel.