Liberals Are Dumb Too, Part 2

Yesterday I wrote about liberal handwringing over Markos' book American Taliban. Meanwhile back at the reality ranch, David Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy writes about Anne Coulter's claim that President Obama is an atheist:

Ann Coulter’s column today argues that Obama is not a Muslim; rather, he “is obviously an atheist.” [. . .] I disagree with both the facts and the conclusion. Coulter is accurate in calling Jeremiah Wright “a racist nut.” However, that does not prove that Wright (and by extension Obama, to whatever extent Obama believes in Wright’s theology) is not a Christian. Some practitioners of “liberation theology” (including the black liberation theology variant) may simply be Marxists looking for some broadly-appealing rhetoric to add to their political program.

(Emphasis supplied.) This discussion of "liberation theology" of course is the new talking point delivered by Glenn Beck. Glenn Reynolds also writes about it:

[T]o take things beyond the Obama question — on a similar moral plane. In fact, if you look at a Marxist Utopia — say, Cuba — what you’ll see is basically a plantation. At the top, you’ve got the Massa and his family — Fidel, Raul, et al. — followed by various layers of overseers — the Communist Party apparat, the secret police — and House Negroes — e.g., the state-controlled media — all living off the surplus labor of the Field Negroes, whose produce is disposed of not according to their own desires (that would be capitalism!) but according to their betters’. This, we’re told, is for the best, since they aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions anyway, and the Massa looks after them with food, housing, and health care. Slaveholders even defended their system as more humane and less exploitative than atomistic capitalism, conveniently ignoring the role of the lash, just as apologists for Marxism conveniently ignore the role of the gulag.

I think Reynolds, in his oblique style, is arguing that Castro's Cuba is somehow related to progressivism. "Liberation theology" don't you know.

Do you think the guest posters at Fifth Column Sully's site will add this to their Miss Manners Guide To Political Discourse? Me neither.

And yet, the liberals at The American Prospect are very, very concerned with progressives analogizing among extreme religious movements in the United States and around the world. Obviously, religion has never ever been a force for discord and violence right?

Liberals can be as stupid as anybody.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Morning Open Thread | "Moderate" Dems Fighting For Tax Cuts For The Rich, Oppose Tax Cuts For The Middle Class >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    the mote and the beam (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 10:35:09 AM EST
    Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

    Matthew, chapter 7, verses 5

    for this (none / 0) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    And yet, the liberals at The American Prospect are very, very concerned with progressives analogizing among extreme religious movements in the United States and around the world.

    Not even a communist (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:04:01 AM EST
    would claim Cuba is a "Marxist utopia."  There are no "Marxist utopias" on the planet by anyone's definition.  Silly people.

    That is Reynolds point (none / 0) (#16)
    by me only on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:43:05 AM EST
    you can't get Utopia under Marxism.  You have to have the gulag or the whip.  Once you introduce these items Utopia is simply not achievable.

    The "gulags" in Central America (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:22:18 PM EST
    were not created or espoused by those believing in Liberation Theology.

    The "gulags" were run by right-wing military dictatorships.  And there is evidence that the CIA assisted those running the "gulags" and may have actually run a couple themselves.

    Good grief.  The illiteracy on this subject is a amazing....Liberation Theology was developed by Catholic priests in Latin America....and became popular well after Castro assumed power in Cuba, and so Castro is largely irrelevent, I would argue, to a discussion of Liberation Theology.

    The moniker is instructive.  "Liberation" because right wing military dictatorships were oppressing the people.  By "oppressing" I don't mean insulting--I mean killing, raping, torturing, stealing land.....

    "Theology" because those resisting the dictatorships were very highly religious.  They quoted the Bible extensively in arguing that the dictarships should be opposed and ideally replaced.  They were not Marxist atheists....

    That Liberation Theology shared some concepts of class struggle with Marxism does not make Liberation Theology Marxist.....The class struggle in Latin America was not a philosophical economic theory--but reality as the rich killed, raped and tortured the poor.....  



    My comment was solely on (none / 0) (#36)
    by me only on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 01:15:54 PM EST
    Marxism.  Cuba is not modeled after Liberation Theology.

    The illiteracy on this subject is a amazing

    Save the attitude for someone else.


    No, not exactly (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 01:25:45 PM EST
    You were referring to "Reynold's point," which admittedly was a congealed mess of Cuba and Liberation Theology.

    My attitude?  Well earned on this subject....


    I was referring to Reynolds point (none / 0) (#38)
    by me only on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    about Marxist Utopia.  It cannot exist.  It requires tremendous coercion.

    gyrfalcon did not address liberation theology.  I never commented on it.


    or any other utopias (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 08:32:18 PM EST
    for that matter.

    Some people in this country don't even like the concept of "society" for it's implied utopianism.


    I don't understand any of this anymore (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:13:40 AM EST
    All this insanity about religion.  So far Obama is some sort of liberation theology Muslim atheist....hours and hours and columns spent on mental vomit.  I just don't care what Obama believes when he's in a foxhole, I care about the policies he is saddling me with in this life.

    So true :( (none / 0) (#11)
    by star on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:25:08 AM EST
    "mental vomit" indeed..

    I really wish (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:31:55 AM EST
    he would call a press conference and say you know what, its none of your damn business.

    Trying to conjure up an image of (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:12:56 PM EST
    Obama in a foxhole.  Can't do it.  "Mental vomit."  Good one.

    Beck and Reynolds don't (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:05:02 PM EST
    understand Liberation Theology or have even the slightest idea what they are talking about.

    Liberation Theology was about resisting and in some cases overthrowing dictatorships that killed their own people.....

    Most of its adherents were not Marxist at all but actually Christians who wanted Democracy.  People like Beck and Reynolds pooh-pooh the Liberation Theology talk of being oppressed.....but they never saw what a right wing military dictatorship could do to the very poor in Latin America.

    Liberation Theology as espoused in Latin American was quite consistent with American values.....more so than the politics of the landed (European) aristocracy supported by military death squads, which were in turn supported by conservatives in this country.....

    Wasn't George W. Bush applying (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:17:59 PM EST
    "liberation theology" when we invaded Iraq?

    No (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:48:49 PM EST
    Bush was an outside invading force using the rhetoric of the Crusades.

    Liberation Theology was about the internal poor trying to resist or get rid of their dictators via their faith....


    actually (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:54:51 PM EST
    The historical roots of liberation theology are to be found in the prophetic tradition of evangelists and missionaries from the earliest colonial days in Latin America -- churchmen who questioned the type of presence adopted by the church and the way indigenous peoples, blacks, mestizos, and the poor rural and urban masses were treated.

    it goes farther back than that.  it goes back to a point I made the other day and was called names for.
    which is that the roots of racism not only in this country but the west in general can be traced directly back to the bible.
    just to be clear lets check out a few examples, k?

    Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

    Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

    Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

    Ephesians 6:9:And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

    Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

    Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

    Titus 2:9:Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

    1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

    The Pauline letters (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 06:02:35 PM EST
    do go on about slavery....

    One argument I heard is that Paul uses the word "doulos," which merely translates as servant, not slave.  So, Paul was just telling employees to do their job well......

    Apologists are amazing contortionists....

    And De Las Casas--cited in your link--is a favorite of mine....Implored the court at Spain to stop trying to militarily conquer the Maya in Guatemala....


    yeah (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 07:33:03 PM EST
    seen some of that.  also well, he is just telling slaves not to do bad a dangerous things since they could get hurt and all.

    and because if they were christians it might hurt the "cause".  seriously.


    Liberation Theology comes (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 06:08:09 PM EST
    from the Sermon on the Mount and caring for the poor.....

    Bush was about being an avenging angel and bringing a sword to smite the evildoers....wrong set of evildoers that they might be....


    Wright (3.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jarober on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:23:35 AM EST
    Sitting in Wright's church for 20 years and not noticing that the man is a nut can only mean one of three things:

    -- Obama slept through every service
    -- Obama largely agreed, and saw nothing wrong
    -- Obama sat through it in order to get a political in with a useful local group in Chicago

    While I'd guess it's the third one, I seriously doubt that a white politician attending hate meetings for 20 years would get cut the same level of slack.  At the very least, this illustrates an enormous double standard.

    "Not noticing that the man is a nut" (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:47:41 AM EST
    is my problem with it, too.  Of course, many people go to church for reasons other than listening to the sermons.  But Wright's sermons?  It had to be hard to not listen for two decades.  

    So maybe it was a tipoff that Obama was not going to listen to a lot of good advice, too. . . .


    Sigh, (none / 0) (#18)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:52:54 AM EST
    You assume every sermon was like the 2 or 3 that were featured in the campaign.  As if every sermon was just like those 2 or 3.

    Most pastors have kooky sermons they have given.....

    Why are we still talking about this?


    Of course (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:30:16 PM EST
    If your mentor said something do shocking and that you disagreed with, I bet you would remember hearing it.

    Let's be honest here: Obama did hear Wright's rants, and while he may or nay not have agreed with it, he made a stupid mistake by saying "I never heard that.". A pol got caught lying - film at 11.


    You know, you are obliquely (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    dumping on the whole congregation....

    After all, why were all those people going to church with than preacher giving those sermons....

    It was an influential Black Church in Chicago....So, if you are going to condemn Obama, then you should of course condemn the entire congregation too.


    For every sermon I have heard (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:42:30 PM EST
    I have had parts of it I disagreed with....

    You still extrapolate from 2 or 3 sermons....There was no evidence that placed Obama at those sermons....So, no film at 11.

    And the G-D American sermon, the one that got Obama in the most trouble, is actually based on accepted theology by a lot of Christians including many conservatives.....He just said it in a very emphatic and disturbing way.....Perhaps the more palatable way of putting it is the parable of salt losing it savor....


    Well, not every one (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:53:17 PM EST
    but a quite a few.....

    Well (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 10:21:20 AM EST
    Many of your comments seem to paint all Christians as crazy zealots, so pardon me if I take your thoughts on this with a grain of salt.

    The point is - you wanna take bets these 2 or 3 sermons were  the only ones Wright gave.

    And yet you still won't accept the truth before your eyes - Obama said the politicay expedient thing, got caught in a whopping lie, and tried to back away from it.  Put this up there with "I didn't inhale."


    Rev. Wright and Bill Moyers (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 12:36:44 PM EST
    Rather than align with hate monger Glenn Beck, and reduce Rev. Wright's life work to out of context sound bites, why not see what he has to say, and others have to say about him. who are not coming from a bigoted POV, or the POV coming from  those who have an ax to grind.

    I think it is a mistake to write off 8,000 people who attend his services as radical hate mongers. His church is not so different from other fire and brimstone preachers, both black and white.
    Transcript Bill Moyers Rev. Wright April 25, 2008

    Transcript of Moyers on Rev Wright with Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Christopher Cerf, and Victor Navansky., May 2, 2008


    fire and brimstone.. (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 12:52:22 PM EST
    well, we want a shining city on a hill and morning in America..

    Hallmark cards and smiling Koolaid pitchers..

    Not crazies telling us to cast the mote out of our own eye..


    Since my point (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 03:08:54 PM EST
    Was not about Wright's congregation, but about Obama, like all pols who get caught in a lie and try to unsuccessfully wiggle out of it, your rant is totally irrelevant to the conversation.



    Prove the lie (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 03:10:55 PM EST
    Cite some evidence--or even try to paraphrase it.

    Or be part of the birther contingent in terms of the evidence you rely on....


    because Obama was member of the congregation (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 03:20:59 PM EST
    doesn't necessarily mean he was present to hear those particular horrifying words that shook white bread America to it's very foundations.

    Besides, sometimes pols have other important things to do on the weekend, like braving sniper fire in Bosnia in order to carry out peace keeping missions..


    Rant? (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 04:16:09 PM EST
    Hardly a rant, maybe you should cut down on the coffee or stimulants...

    Don't drink coffee (none / 0) (#73)
    by jbindc on Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 07:31:05 AM EST
    And I don't use stimulants.

    Mirror, mirror....


    No, I don't paint with that broad (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    a brush....But there are crazy Christian zealots....You seem to take offense at what I say about religious conservatives....Well, it does not apply to you unless you put yourself in that category.  I have actually defended religion here....and my criticism of the religious conservatives stems from a favorable view of Christianity and a desire that it not be tainted with right-wing natavism.

    And, no need to take bets on the sermons.....The sermons are on tape--apparently all of them going way back.  So, if you really think there are more of them, they should have surfaced by now....

    Why do you say it is a lie?   As I recall, there was evidence that Obama was not at one of the Sermons because he was at a campaign event out of state.  No evidence surfaced placing him at the 3-4 sermons that were featured (and only two of those were the ones getting all the attention.)

    Out of 20 years, you anti-Obama people only came up with 3 or 4.

    You say it is a lie about Obama and the sermons, without citing any proof, because it fits your narrative.  (I can see the wagons circling for the Hillary supporters.)

    The anti-Obama bias on this site is legendary.  It is the same rump group of Hillary supporters.  Too eager to believe the worst personally about Obama.  He flipped Hillary the bird--nonsense; he was hiding something in his book Dreams of my Fathers--unbelievable, as that book was chock full of otherwise less than flattering details;   I can't stand the sound of his voice (speaks for itself)...

    Too many here engage in all kinds of conspiracy theory hate mongering against Obama....

    I don't think it is a coincidence that it was a Hillary supporter, TexasDarling, who became one of the chief Birthers.....And I would not be surprised if the Hillary group here believes it too.  In fact, the reflexively anti-Obama folks here (and, no, I am not putting all Obama critics here in that category) are just the flip side of the birthers and tenthers and tea partiers who make up anything to slam Obama.

    You, in fact, seem to relish all things anti-Obama.  Bad polls for Democrats seem to really make you happy.



    TSFW (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 04:17:32 PM EST
    I don't think it is a coincidence that it was a Hillary supporter, TexasDarling, who became one of the chief Birthers.....And I would not be surprised if the Hillary group here believes it too.

    It wouldn't "surprise" you?  


    Gotta remember that little, rhetorical trick.  You can make the most ridiculous accusations, with zero evidence, simply by adding a pusillanimous qualifier.  Hey, I didn't actually say they believe the same things as the Birthers.  I just said it "wouldn't surprise" me if they did.

    I bet there's two or three others it "wouldn't surprise", either.


    A few here (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jbindc on Sun Sep 05, 2010 at 07:32:49 AM EST
    Do seem to love to stretch to make nay argument around here, don't they?  And bonus points if you can slip in "Hillary" too.

    And you assume those were unusual (none / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:30:22 PM EST
    sermons.  Evidence suggests otherwise.  Even so, even hearing that sort of tripe from the pulpit even once ought to have caused concern.

    As for your next point, have you listened to sermons by many ministers for many decade?  I have, and I never have heard anything "kooky."  So I am fascinated with your evidence for that statement.

    As for why you are still talking about this. . . .


    "Evidence"--not really (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:46:41 PM EST
    They had three or four sermons over a 20 year period that they played repeatedly.....

    You have never heard anything kooky from anyone giving a Sermon?  Okay....But that is more likely to occur in a mainline Protestant religion....than in charismatic congregations....

    As to evidence, all you need to do is read the news.....

    I talk about this to respond to your bias and those of the "others" here.


    I'm sure someone like (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 08:27:39 PM EST
    John the Baptist or Isaiah - assuming for the moment that they existed - would've delivered a nice, tepid, bourgeois Robert Schuller style sermon to Americans..

    Something to send everyone home with warm, fuzzy feelings about how unique in history we all are..



    Wright (none / 0) (#20)
    by star on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:54:49 AM EST
    The said "Nut" was an important part of Obama's life - Mentor of sorts, married the O's and much more. so to cut off all ties with Wright after his back to back appearance and rant on TV over a weekend was highly suspect and politically expedient.

    Obama got a lot of pass during 08 and his religious inclinations or lack of it is the least important of it all that is going to come back to bite us.  


    I applauded Obama (none / 0) (#29)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:32:03 PM EST
    for cutting Wright out of his life, hard as it must have been, as soon as those sermonic rants came to the candidate's attention.  

    What I still don't understand is not doing so sooner; see above re concern about listening well.


    What I find hilarious (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:44:12 PM EST
    or sickening (pick one), was the coverage that that unsettling black demon Rev Wright got here, while the Rev John Hagee was concurrently preaching in a church in San Antonio four times the size of Wright's that the Lord demanded we launch immediate preemptive strikes against Iran..

    If that isn't a perfect metaphor for what so often passes for "liberal-progressive" coverage of the issues in this country, I don't know what is.


    it really simple (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:15:48 PM EST
    he is white.  in this country you dont f*ck with white preachers.  no matter how crazy they are as long as they are not married to more than one woman.

    different standard for black preachers.  they can be crazy.


    I thought it might (none / 0) (#50)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:26:11 PM EST
    have something to do with Hagee being a useful idiot for a certain country in the ME, that the divine Miss C will "obliterate" if they ever try anything..

    Call me cynical.


    I meant to say: (none / 0) (#51)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:28:49 PM EST
    "whose enemies will be obliterated.."

    try this (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:32:07 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton for president ad hits airwaves

    The commercial was paid for by a Chicago dentist named William DeJean.

    When asked why he put the ad up, DeJean told CNN Thursday that "I'm a dentist and I don't think this country is headed in the right direction."

    heres (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:39:22 PM EST
    Yeah I get it.. (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 07:09:42 PM EST
    with all the sufficiently vague, ambiguous hyperbole about "experience" that we've come to expect from a political ad. And of course, that beautiful look-for-the-silver-lining, look-to-the-future smile. Forever on display..

    I would've voted for her, but I never would've kidded myself about the progressive millennium beginning to kick in a month after the swearing in and gone into teeth gnashing, breast beating mode when it didn't start on schedule.

    The entire inertia of the system in Washington is resistant to radical alteration. And is also rigged, imo, to keep out the kind of "leaders" those who favor progressive change want in office.



    indeed (none / 0) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 07:30:57 PM EST
    that ad was simply a really tacky example of conspicuous consumption

    Obama is such a thorough (none / 0) (#22)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:04:02 PM EST
    moderate in his governing that I doubt he ever paid attention to a word Wright said.

    Explanation (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:13:09 PM EST
    The "rating" is for the hard-to-miss "reverse racism" insinuation of the last paragraph. I did not know that we were headed down the Republican talking points path here. If there is a misinterpretation by me, I'll revise and apologize.

    Excuse me: my comment above is directed to jarober (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by christinep on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:14:21 PM EST
    Shocked! (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:24:55 AM EST
    You mean people sit in church for reasons other than faith?

    Knock me over with a feather.

    Next you'll tell me Bush's brush clearing was just a political ploy.


    People in church (none / 0) (#14)
    by star on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:30:24 AM EST
    I had a co worker - Chinese american, who goes to church only to create a social network and has never seen the inside of a bible ever.

    Organized religion IMO has lot more to do with politics than religion ;)


    Nonsense (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:54:21 AM EST
    Obama got no slack.   The whole issue consumed weeks of air time.

    You assume that every sermon for 20 years was like the 2 or 3 that were featured....


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#21)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:58:30 AM EST
    There were several reports (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:33:15 PM EST
    in the Chicago black press, for example, that those sermons were not unusual for Wright.  Why do you think otherwise?

    Heavans to Betsy! (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:28:20 PM EST
    all that ungrateful, thunderous, Nat Turner-like indignation! It was enough to scare a hundred suburban housewives right out of their pantsuits..

    Imagine some of those people still being angry about so-called "injustice" after all we've done for them..


    Because if there were (3.50 / 2) (#33)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 12:50:24 PM EST
    others--and they were all on tape--they would have played them....

    I don't think Obama's opponents were holding anything back.....


    Solidarity (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:50:32 PM EST
    It is always interesting when liberals agree with Beck.....

    They're not liberals (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:20:58 PM EST
    they're the avenging angels. Still blinded by rage at the usurper.

    Reports are not tapes (2.00 / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:06:03 PM EST
    Don't put words in my comment that are not there.

    That is getting too common around here.


    Did you ever read (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 04:21:26 PM EST
    that Mother Jones article on Hillary's affiliation with the secretive christian group "The Fellowship", Cream?

    I'll take ten Wrights any day of the week over those birds..



    WTF? (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:12:20 PM EST
    How you can take offense at my comment is beyond me....

    You were asking me about Wright's sermons...I gave you a response....about his Sermons.....

    The Sermons played endlessly during the campaign were on tape.  Wright apparently tapes all of his Sermons and then sells them.....So, the opposition research folks apparently just bought the set and cherry picked the most inflammatory ones.

    You asked me why I thought there were no other inflammatory sermons, and I gave you my answer.....

    This is not like the statement that no one hurled the "n" word during the Health Care debate because it wasn't on tape.  The reason why the issue with Wright's sermons is different is that that all of Wright's sermons--or years's worth of them--are not only on tape but also on sale at the Church.....

    If you want to know what Wright's sermons were like--your question to me--then consult the actual evidence....And, I assume that is exactly what Obama's critics did....

    Your bias against Obama here has led you to jump the gun mightily.....

    I put no words in your comment--I plainly answered your question.  


    Ted Olson and David Boies (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 05:39:58 PM EST
    have really been instructive.

    I never thought a trial on gay issues and making the anti-gay forces produce admissible evidence made sense--that issue really did not lend itself to such an examination.  It was about values, etc.

    Their view was that if and when forced to really come up with concrete evidence to support their bias, the anti-gay folks couldn't and wouldn't.

    Such an approach would be similarly instructive on the canard of Obama sitting through 20 years of sermons just like the 3 or 4 that were played during the campaign.

    Cream, you asked me about the content of the Wright Sermons--and cited as your evidence that the Black Press reported they were typical of other sermons....Much like the anti-gay literature....relying on vague hearsay....

    Go to the actual evidence.   The source.....If there were other sermons that were inflammatory, they should be on tape as many, many (almost all, I think) of his sermons were.  If you find another inflammatory sermon, then you can say that there were more than the ones played during the campaign....

    Sean Hannity took credit for reviewing the tapes and finding the three or four that were played. I have no doubt that if his staff had found others that he would not have held those back.....Of course, he would have played them.  Do you really doubt that?

    I am totally mystified why you missed the import of my comment--which was without any rancor whatsover.  If you want to rely on the Black Press account of the sermons rather than on Hannity's review of years' worth, then that is your argument--and not the best one imo.  But how you say that my position is somehow putting words in your comment is beyond me.



    Umm (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    WTF?  First of all, the hate for liberation theology surprises me, of course it shouldn't.  I wasn't aware Desmond Tutu was our charlatan antichrist.  Secondly, why is anyone at the Volokh Conspiracy responding to an Ann Coulter column?  Really?

    And Glenn Reynolds, yuck, how condescending/racist.

    But TAPPED is on the case . . . (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 10:55:27 AM EST
    against Markos.

    I like this (none / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:00:38 AM EST
    from the original prospect piece you linked to:
    Unlike myself, Moulitsas isn't a journalist, and his job isn't to be an honest broker for ideas

    Did you read the follow up (none / 0) (#8)
    by lilburro on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:21:50 AM EST
    of Bouie to Digby?  Here:

    The conservative movement is a perfect example of what happens when you let dishonesty consume your argument. In its drive to demonize liberals, it has become an incoherent mass of rage and resentment, devoid of anything approximating a governing agenda. The right has become so doctrinaire that it has lost its capacity for self-correction. This year's Republicans will win because of high unemployment and poor growth, not because the American people have suddenly become more receptive to conservatism (they haven't).

    Granted, hyperbole and distortion has helped the right win elections for almost 30 years, and during that time, they have successfully changed the terms of American politics. But for all its electoral success, the conservative movement hasn't really changed the guiding assumptions of American governance or stopped the expansion of the welfare state. Liberals might be arguing in the house that Ronald Reagan built, but conservatives are still trying to breach FDR's fortress.  [emphasis mine]

    The similarities to your thoughts on the matter I find interesting, opinions on Markos' book aside.

    I haven't read Markos' book.  I don't love the title and I think it's one of those things that lead Dem politicians to say "there's wingnuts on the left and on the right."  That's my only concern.  I'm sure the content of the book is absolutely correct, but the title I don't like.  I'm sure Markos has his own reasons for choosing it.


    Not loving the title (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:26:20 AM EST
    is one thing.

    Bouie has basically rewritten his original post on how successful demonizing politics has been and still gets it wrong.


    Amazing. (none / 0) (#13)
    by vicndabx on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 11:29:19 AM EST

    Indeed.  I told you Obama couldn't talk about his church.  Or any other black church for that matter.  

    We're all equal now, don'cha know?  No one can have any grievances against someone of another race ever again. Period.


    I like this post. (none / 0) (#39)
    by kindness on Thu Sep 02, 2010 at 03:04:47 PM EST
    Much better than yesterdays, although in hind sight, I think I misjudged yesterdays.

    I don't think liberals/progressives are the circular firing squad types that the tea party types are, but they get a hair too close for my tastes.  But honestly, if you are talking about Senators Nelson, Conrad, Ladreiu(?) or Lincoln.....well I think they have done more to diminish Democrats from looking good than anything Fox news has thrown up on the wall.  Those 4 (and a few others) have stopped actual progress from taking place on just about every single big issue to come down the pike.  How can we get rid of them?