Andrée Seu Peterson on the "Time" cover 
Click to Print
Include Comments
The New Yorker cover
The Obama campaign calls it “tasteless and offensive.” The McCain campaign agrees. David Remnick, The New Yorker’s editor, told The New York Daily News: “Our cover … combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are.” The cartoonist, Barry Blitt, defends his work at The Huffington Post: “I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.”
What do you think of the illustration on The New Yorker’s July 21 cover, which hits newsstands today? Should it be written off as pure satire, or does it wrongly reinforce certain negative stereotypes of the Obamas?
back to top130 Comments to “The New Yorker cover”
Is this is how it is going to be?
Any criticism of Obama and his wife is off limits and racist (thought not in this case)?
If Obama wants to run for national office he has to accept this.
Report comment to moderator
Personally, I see this as the product of escalating poor judgment by the liberal media. The cover is an offensive portrayal of a candidate for the American Presidency.
Report comment to moderator
Every so often the New Yorker manages to slip up. I sense this is one of those times.
Report comment to moderator
I think this was totally uncalled for.
Report comment to moderator
Nice ‘fro!
Funny thing is, not everyone agrees that they are “obvious distortions.” They DID do the fist “shake” after all.
Report comment to moderator
I’m with Musing, I think this is one of those what-were-they-thinking? moments for the New Yorker.
Satire works only with the thoughtful. Like Swift’s A Modest Proposal, there will be yahoos who think it is seriously intended.
Report comment to moderator
The New Yorker cropped the picture! The part you see on the magazine cover is only the scene contained in a thought bubble rising up from the head of WIGLAF as he blogs on his laptop.
In other words, the cartoon isn’t a picture of the Obamas in the Oval Office, it’s a picture of the conservative mind.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry: he or she blogs on his or her laptop.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, it’s okay. Not everyone understands literary devices. You can continue to live in your ignorance knowing that you’re not the only one.
Report comment to moderator
Overheard at an auction here in WV this weekend. 4 or 5 white guys standing around talking politics.
“Yeah that Jesse is a loudmouth a—–e, but at least he’s not a g-d Muslim”.
There was at least tacit agreement.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not particularly offended by it because I understand the New Yorker’s style.
But I have no doubt that the right-wing idiots like Hannity and Rush will use it for nefarious purposes.
Report comment to moderator
The real question is: how will muslims respond to this cartoon? Riots? Celebrations? Stampedes? More flag burning?
Muslims love cartoons.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, ask me what an intrauterine device is . . .
Report comment to moderator
To Anlir #11
Who are the left-wing idiots?
To Aracadia #10
Nice apocryphal story with the evil white guys. Impossible to disprove.
Report comment to moderator
Just because the Press can, does not mean they should.
I told my son basically the same thing in how he should deal with his relationships with people.
Report comment to moderator
Hey, ask me what an intrauterine device is . . .
No way, man. You’ll start telling me how YOU’RE an intrauterine device. I really don’t want to hear that story.
Report comment to moderator
Forget the negative stereotype. The bigger issue is whether this particular speech is protected by The Constitution. If Obama reaches the White House, a future litmus test will discover that “tasteless and offensive” speech is not protected by the first amendment (for certain classes of people).
Report comment to moderator
Off hand, it looks like an attack on conservatives. So yes, Mickey, you had better protest it.
At the very least, it is how certain parts of the liberal world view conservatives, i.e. that they believe the wildest, stupidest things, like Aracadia’s WV guys, post 10.
This actually raises a more significant question. The social conservatives and especially Evangelicals already carry the perception of being intellectually dull, or simply incapable of engaging in the conversation in the rest of society. Letting blatant misrepresentations fester in the community does not encourage outsiders to deal seriously with Evangelical concerns. Or for that matter, any other critiques you may have of Obama. Polemics, as it were, becomes your box.
So think of this magazine cover as a goad.
Go down the path satirized in the picture, and your voice, your capacity to influence shrinks.
And somehow, I think, this can’t be good for the Gospel.
Report comment to moderator
No doubt Faux News will have a crawl saying that “visual evidence has surfaced that Barack Obama is a Muslim terrorist”.
One of the things that just drives me nut is how campaigns or their surrogates (including the media) take a picture, a soundbite, or a quote and take it completely out of context, blow it all out of proportion, and distort it to say something that was never intended. Then they get in “high dungeon” about it and whip people into a frenzy. Both sides do it.
It makes me want to swear off ever voting again.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, I’m actually thrilled about the picture. Rush has three hours a day from now until the end of the election to spoon feed his nefarious interpretation — but he’ll need that much time, for a picture is worth a thousand words.
The Republicans are preparing to release this summer’s horror flick, “Nightmare on Pennyslvania Ave.,” and the New Yorker magazine cover is a huge spoiler.
Looking at the picture for more than 10 seconds produces an unwelcome effect. One by one, the mind dismisses all the over-determined elements of the picture — the portrait over the mantel, the burning flag, the AK-47, the turban, the fists. All the elements but one: the mind can not erase the image of two out-size Negroes in the White House. The blatancy of race — several posters already have singled out the afro — is an offense to white conservatives, like the repeating N-word of rap music.
Report comment to moderator
ccc post 17,
actually I suspect that conservative speech outside of explicit hate speech will do just fine under an Obama administration.
After all the “evil” ACLU will be protecting it.
And realistically look at the combined Obama/McCain response: pretty restrained I suggest.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop says “The blatancy of race is an offense to white conservatives…”
Scroop, you need to replace the “e” in “race” with “ism”. The fisting, too. Don’t forget about the fisting. That was blatant Obama racism against blacks.
Political campaign comittee transcript:
Staff member: “We haven’t solidified the African-American base in our favor. What do we do?”
Obama: “Well, I’ve noticed they like to bump fists. Michelle and I will bump fists on stage. That’ll bring us the blacks!”
Report comment to moderator
Is it just me or does the Osama portrait have overly large lips and an oversized nose for an Arab?
Report comment to moderator
This does it. I’m changing my vote to McCain.
Report comment to moderator
Musing–only problem is, explicit hate speech too easily grows to include religious speech that isn’t inclusive and loving: think of pastors speaking against a wrong theology, only to have those who hold that theology get offended and bring suit. Think of people who stand against a united one-religion of love type and then one of those people who believes in unity bringing suit. And soon religious speech won’t be protected either.
Is the photo–and some of the pastors’ speaking-against speeches–tasteless? Sure. Should it be protected? Sure.
Incidentally, I think Harris has captured a far more significant question: to the extent that the conservative group responds in a manner other than “the-Obamas-are-wonderful-and-not-Muslims!” will they be seen as too narrow-minded and critical to engage the rest of society? The answer is yes.
Report comment to moderator
I think a lot of rednecks are going to buying the New Yorker for the first time ever…
…and they’re going to be very disappointed!
Report comment to moderator
Is there anything off in the cartoon?
Seriously, given the usual (low) level of political discourse and hard nosed campaigning that has historically gone on in the US (back to the very beginning), this is no all that bad.
McCain is getting hit with just as bad (and worse). This is very mild compared to what GWB has had to put up with.
Is Obama too thin-skinned/sensitive to be a national candidate? Is he protesting because it hits too close to the mark? What is his problem?
Report comment to moderator
Nobody’s thin-skinned/sensitive next to McCain. Regarding Obama’s temermental defect, Maureen Dowd hit the nail on the head. He’s finicky and abstemious. You wouldn’t want to invite him to your barbecue because it would be a downer to watch him eat. Rather than irascible, he’s sullen and resentful of intrusion — gnarlly to the max! He tries hard to foresee mistakes, but finds himself constantly in knuckle-headed error, which tempts him to withdraw and sulk.
Can Obama control or balance out his weakness? We won’t know unless we elect him, but my guess is, he has better reins on himself than McCain.
Is he protesting because it hits too close to the mark? What is his problem?
Maybe the only damage would come from not protesting, as silence could be interpreted as an “admission” of a guilty mind. I suspect Obama realizes this cartoon to be a gift. The New Yorker is both liberal and smart, and wouldn’t have published this cartoon if they thought it would hurt him. They could be wrong, of course, but I think they judged this right. Most people will understand that this cartoon is a picture of the conservative mind.
Stay tuned for conservative cries of slander. Ann Coulter will make this cartoon a chapter in her next book.
Report comment to moderator
My first, off the top of my head reaction to the cover: shurg.
Report comment to moderator
The biggest problem with the cover is that it is too subtle. There are not enough people in this country who will “get it,” at least in the way the artist and magazine intended. I understand that it is a slam on how conservatives are supposedly trying to paint Obama in unflattering and deceptive strokes and that is fine. Shrug, just like #29. What is interesting is that Obama has so many other things about him that are troubling (and true!) that this cover will do a great job of deflecting the truth with the lies. Take the most outrageous complaints, ridicule them and hopefully no one will notice the real problems. Like #28 mentioned: liberal and smart.
Report comment to moderator
actually I suspect that conservative speech outside of explicit hate speech will do just fine under an Obama administration.
So, Musing, you agree that Obama’s administration would go after the free speech of those who disagree with (explicitly hate) his policies?
Report comment to moderator
My first, off the top of my head reaction to the cover: shurg.
Thanks, Jaysephus, I was wondering what “shurg” meant. I thought it was some Random slang.
Anyone wanna burn some flags and call for the head of the head editor of The New Yorker? Maybe we could sacrifice a black dog in traditional muslim style and put a price on the artist life for effect.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 31,
his policies no.
Hate speech as has been defined in law: the supreme court with a decididly conservative bent seems to be doing its thing here.
And you really had to stretch to try to get this point in!
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 31,
I believe it was approximately the present makeup of the court spurred on by Clarence Thomas (I suggest a very conservative justice) which concluded that burning crosses perhaps deserved special consideration under the law.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir & Scroop Moth: Rush only mentioned the cover in passing. ABC News on the hour said more about it than he did.
He had lots to say about Tony Snow. That was more important.
Report comment to moderator
but Musing, “burning crosses” (your post 34) is not an Obama policy which with his opponents disagree (my post 31).
Conservatives and liberals alike might agree that burning a cross is “showing hate,” but it’s my guess that an Obama administration would want to include far less controversial actions in their list of “hate crimes.”
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Random, except I will use a spell checker: SHRUG (with a long and loud yawn thrown in).
Report comment to moderator
ditto
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 36,
ah you continue to mix conversations.
But if you are going to make the charge:
“it’s my guess that an Obama administration would want to include far less controversial actions in their list of “hate crimes.””
then I suggest you should come up with specifics rather than making unsubstantiated accusations.
My guess is that you will be unable to come up with specifics.
But it will be fun to see you try.
Report comment to moderator
I said it was “my guess,” Musing, which requires no specifics. That’s part of the definition of a guess: it requires no proof, because it’s based on nothing other than what we know so far of Osama (which is very little).
Report comment to moderator
IF it’s satire, then it’s typical liberal bigotry against people on the right, whom they do not understand but think they do. Remember, liberals drew the cartoon. Don’t blame conservatives for how liberal mis-portray them.
Report comment to moderator
Obviously, the New Yorker leftists don’t have many ideas or arguments of their own, so they try to paint conservative arguments as ugly as they can and frame them for their own preconceptions for political purposes, without regard to fairness or accuracy.
If they sought to raise pity for poor Obama who needs magazines to protect him from mean conservative attacks, I don’t think it worked so well.
Report comment to moderator
Nick: …nice apocryphal story…. C’mon down to West Virginia, Nicky. I’ll introduce you to the the two of them that I know personally. I’m sure they have a hood (or is it a ‘hood) for you, too.
Report comment to moderator
A shurg is a shrug with little special something. Like the cover, it’s just a little subtle (not too mention precious) for its own good.
Look for shurg in next year’s dictionary.
Report comment to moderator
If Obama was so good a foreseeing mistakes, he wouldn’t be constantly explaining what he said one day on the next day.
No one has ever voiced an objection about a cartoonist’s exaggeration of Bush’s nose or anyone else’s caricature. I agree with the observation that the Obamas will have to get used to all sorts of things, and one can only hope the liberals, including the Obamas, won’t demand a separate and unequal standard for him — though that’s what he seems to want.
All the liberals accomplished with this cover was to make sure that even more people will start to wonder about the Obamas. I heard this morning the statistical difference between Obama and McCain is now only three points. I’m all for the liberals doing our work for us. Keep it coming.
Report comment to moderator
As I predicted, conservatives would recognize their own thoughts on the New Yorker cover and get very angry at being the object of satire.
JOEL MARK is the first here to characterize the picture as liberal bigotry against conservatives.
The cartoonist’s view of the wingnut mind is bigotry only if it’s a misperception, however. I contend, the picture is brilliantly accurate.
Substantial percentages of Americans think Obama took the oath of office on the Koran, was raised a Muslim, attended a Muslim school, or is a practicing Muslim today. Larger numbers of Americans are not sure about these questions of “fact” — which are all false.
In other words, many Americans on the right think the phony images on the cover are true or might be true, or wonder about them.
All the ridiculous fears and pre-occupations are there. The artist took each element of the picture from conservative talk.
Sure, Joel, not all conservatives think these thoughts, and they may have other, valid arguments against Obama. But the election campaign is being driven to some extent by misperceptions, and we can be thankful that the New Yorker illustrated these misperceptions and fears with such clarity.
Report comment to moderator
I love the satire in this magazine. I hope there is a good fold-in (Al Jaffee is great!) and lots of Spy vs. Spy features too. Fingers crossed that my all-time favorite character, FesterBesterTester, makes an appearance.
Report comment to moderator
Oh please people, even if you think Obama is over reacting, you can at least be media savvy enough to see that for Obama putting out a press release calling this thing tasteless is good practice!
Report comment to moderator
Good practice for what?
The purpose Obama is “over-reacting” is that he wants to stomp out any resistance, any criticism of himself. That won’t work. And liberals should ask themselves why they are so prickly about this.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 40,
of course not outkast.
Post unsubstantiated suppositons and then duck providing any substantiation when called on it.
Why am I not surprised.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 49,
I do believe that both McCain AND Obama issued statements against the cover.
Are you possibly insinuiating that McCain’
s statement is “over reacting”?
Surely not from the stalwart symbol and leader of modern conservatism.
Report comment to moderator
Last week we had a thread about free speech that ended up as a thread about abortion. This, too, is speech.
What would you have McCain say about this cover? If McCain had come out and said hey, it’s an election year, I have to put up with all the insulting comments about having Alzheimer’s, so why shouldn’t Obama have to put up with a little something? — you liberals would have been all over him. So, he did the polite thing and said the cover wasn’t nice. And it isn’t. But you don’t hear Obama saying it’s unfair to pick on McCain’s age. You don’t hear that at all. You don’t hear Obama saying Gramm was taken out of context either. You want “fairness” for one candidate, but not the other.
Free speech should be just that, whether you like the message or not. I am not in favor of squelching anyone. There are right wingers who will eat this thing up and use it unfairly, but I say let them speak — the tree is known by its fruit.
When you try to set up a separate set of rules for what can and cannot be said about one candidate and not the other, you are trying to control something you shouldn’t be trying to control — free speech. And that’s not a good thing.
Report comment to moderator
The one good thing about this story is that is keeps Obama in the news, and relegates McSame to the sidelines. And that drives the Republicans nuts.
Yeah, it’s fluff and it’ll pass in 24 hours or so.
Report comment to moderator
Excellent points in #52, NJL. Leftists like Anlir and Musing and Scroop and Arcadia can apparently only see out of one eye.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 52,
certainly this is speech and my immediuate reaction is that the New Yorker team was not thinking through what they were trying to communicate.
Obama’s condemnation is itself free speech or course.
As was McCain’s comments on the cover.
It would seem in general that there is agreement that perhaps this cover was not well thought out.
That is a far cry from arguing that the New Yorker has no right ot publish it.
Report comment to moderator
Whjat will occur, of course is:
1) this will become a topic of discussion
2) this discusison will of necessity include observations of the factual errors in the cover
3) McCain already has issued negative comments on the cover: this is obviously not a Deocratic position
4) this will create enough furor that I suggest that few will want to tread here again
Report comment to moderator
#46, SM wrote, “As I predicted, conservatives would recognize their own thoughts on the New Yorker cover and get very angry at being the object of satire.”
And you were wrong again, SM. I, for one, only recognized the thoughts and notions of liberals who were pretending to know the thoughts of concervatives. Liberals wrote the piece and libs drew the cartoon. Face it Scroop. There were no conservative thoughts involved to recognize, Scroop.
I really don’t know any leading conservatives who are actually making such claims or portraying the Obama’s like the New Yourker portrayed them. Perhpas some fringe people are, but that comes with presidential election races and it has from the beginning.
I recently went to the Lincoln library in Springfield, MO, and the cartoons they did on Lincoln were so far beyond the pale it was ridiculous (as an ape, as a reptile, as a prostitue, etc).
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote; “JOEL MARK is the first here to characterize the picture as liberal bigotry against conservatives.”
And that it is. It’s just a predictable and typical observation of what liberals falsely think and say about conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote, “The cartoonist’s view of the wingnut mind is bigotry only if it’s a misperception, however.”
Correct. That’s why it is indeed bigotry. They were trying to make the readers misperceive what conservatives are saying and thinking by COMPLETELY ignoring what leading responsible conservatives and the vast ajority of all conservatives say and write, and focusing on what wingnut whackos apparently are saying.
This is a false portrayal by the New Yorker in a stereotypical and disparaging light just to ridicule their opponents on false pretenses.
False stories go out on all candidates, left and right, because truth-telling is a by-gone virtue and because the internet has made fringey nuts louder.
So deal with it honestly and fairly without just returning false stereotypes back at your opponents!
Report comment to moderator
The New Yorker is peddling misconceptions about conservatives by pretending that some fringe nuts with keyboards actually represent conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, we know Joel. All conservatives are as pure as the driven snow. Nary a one of them has said even anything remotely underhanded or critical of Obama’s religion, race, or patriotism. God herself couldn’t run a more honest, clean, upstanding, positive, morally pure campaign as what the conservatives have run so far. Gosh – the love flowing from conservative hearts toward Obama is simply amazing! How do you all stay so perfect all the time?
Report comment to moderator
This story is a distraction. It does keep BO in the news as Anlir said. And it let’s him play the victim, which is a role he relishes. And it provides a focus point for news stories, so more time isn’t spent dwelling on issues that could hurt BO. And there have been several of those. The story from ABC of how a majority of voters, including Dems, think McCain would make a better CinC. The story from MSN about how Wall Street fears an Obama presidency. The story of what Phil Gramm really meant with his whiners comment. The last 48 hrs. have seen alot of stuff that could hurt BO, and first thing Monday, along comes this, by liberals, to draw attention from the real issues. Funny how that works huh? Instead of Obama answering to the issues, he’s playing victim to supposed biases of Repubs, from the mind of some liberal. It’s gotta be cool to have the media as your personal mouthpiece. Sure came in handy for Obama here.
Report comment to moderator
The funny thing, AJ, is that the latest news stories (about the ABC poll, about the Phil Gramm comment, about the Wall Street fears) have not come from the McCain campaign, nor from GOP operatives.
If BHO is having trouble deflecting all these accusations/news stories from the (BHO-friendly) MSM, it will be interesting to see how he can handle what will be thrown at him in the next few months.
I’m reminded of the (poll-driven) lead Mondale held over Reagan at this point in the campaign of 1980, and how Reagan ended up winning in a record, landslide election that fall.
Remember, history does indeed have a habit of repeating itself!
Report comment to moderator
Man, I am so gonna mock y’all if Obama wins. It will take a miracle and it’s likely not to happen, but if it does…oh man, oh man am I gonna have fun on here!
No doubt the Republicans and their conservative Christian acolytes will attempt to “swift boat” Obama many, many times between now and November.
I just don’t think it’s gonna work this time around. I think they might meet their match in Obama. Of course, I could be wrong. Stay tuned.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: I really don’t know any leading conservatives who are actually making such claims or portraying the Obama’s like the New Yourker portrayed them.
Leading conservatives don’t matter on election day. Significant percentages of citizens tell pollsters they believe right-wing stories about Obama or wonder if they’re true.
Regular posters on this blog have asserted without correction by conservatives that Obama was raised a Muslim and attended a Muslim school.
WIGLAF #5 thinks the cartoon doesn’t show “obvious distortions.” ADIOS worries that people will think the cartoon is serious. CCC asserts that Pres. Obama will take away freedom of speech. HARRIS #18 charges that evangelicals have let “blatant misrepresentations” fester and warns evangelicals not to “go down the path”. JAYSEPHUS #30 agrees conservatives paint Obama in “deceptive strokes.” NJLAWYER #45 thinks the cartoon will cause “even more people to wonder about Obama.”
Exhibit No. 1 is the counter-attack from Joel Mark. People don’t respond to satire unless it reflects reality. The New Yorker Cartoon brilliantly illustrates a significant political eco-system, one that’s not just a liberal nightmare, but one that can be measured and tracked scientifically.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll still predict the New Yorker cover will come back to bite BHO, and Anlir, and Scroop. I’ll be sitting back on Election night with popcorn to enjoy the proceedings.
McCain might not be a be able to pull if off — and since he was not (by far) my preferred candidate, and since I disagree with him on many issues (including immigration, drilling in ANWAR and taxes), I’ll figure it’s the leftists’ turn to try to ruin our nation — but I thought the same thing when Bush ran for reelection four years ago.
And Bush pulled it off with even a greater percentage than he did four year previous.
Even so, come Lord Jesus . . . His will be done.
Report comment to moderator
I really hope Obama doesn’t win. I don’t know what I would do when Anlir starts making fun of me. #64
Report comment to moderator
Anlir wrote; “Yeah, we know Joel. All conservatives are as pure as the driven snow.”
Who’s we, Anlir? What you claim to “know,” sir, is not what I wrote either. But if you want ot naively think that all conservatives are pure, that’s your own delusioal business.
Anlir continued, “Nary a one of them has said even anything remotely underhanded or critical of Obama’s religion, race, or patriotism.”
Critical points have indeed been made (imagine that), many of which are accurate, some not. But I don’t know of many leading or elected Republicans who have questioned his patriotism. Do you? Name them.
But most of the themes in that cartoon do not well represent the message that leading and/or elected conservatives are propogating about Obama. It’s liberal hysteria, pure and simple.
John McCain, for instance (who is the Republican nominee, by the way), has condemned this cartoon and has never trafficed in it’s implied criticisms of Obama.
Report comment to moderator
65, “Leading conservatives don’t matter on election day.”
Actually, they do.
But, Scrrop, how do you propose controling what the fringe can say and write? Are you advocating that free speech should be taken away from the ignorant and gullible? Are you saying that free speech should be withdrawn from the fringe?
My point is that it is irresponsible to blame mainstream decent conservatives for what the fringe says and does. Obama still has to deal with fringe characterizations and so does cCain. But you don’t use the fringe to mis-label and stigmatize your decent opponents.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth wrote; “Regular posters on this blog have asserted without correction by conservatives that Obama was raised a Muslim and attended a Muslim school.”
Get a grip Scroop. Obama himself has stated that he was raised in a Muslim school Have you read his book?
But I have not seen the claim that he is himself today a Muslim stand on this blog, nor does anyone continue to make that claim, to my knowledge.
Obama is a mixed bag and the cartoonists are not totally making up themes out of whole cloth, but the whole picture is an unfair and distorted portrayal of that couple. And liberals drew it and wrote the article. You cannot understand real conservatives by watching or listening to liberals trying to frame them.
Meanwhile, Obama does deserve serious criticism and every attempt to do so should not be stigmatized with wild exaggerations like the cartoon does.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP MOTH wrote; “Exhibit No. 1 is the counter-attack from Joel Mark.”
How? When” Where” What are you talking about, Scroop Moth? I’m the one who is condemning the nonsense implied in that sick cartoon AND I’m criticizing the distorting partisan presumptions and themes in the article that went with it.
SCROOP MOTH wrote; “People don’t respond to satire unless it reflects reality.”
And this New Yorker satire does not reflect the reality of the OBamas or the reality of real life conservatives. It misses reality ON BOTH SIDES.
Report comment to moderator
The cartoon exists. Let people look at it, let people talk about it. Even Obama’s spokesman said this would “help.” The very idea that the liberals here want to control what can and cannot be printed speaks volumes of what kind of world they want to live in.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 71,
I suggest that this is the most apropos statement on this point you have made so far:
“And this New Yorker satire does not reflect the reality of the OBamas or the reality of real life conservatives. It misses reality ON BOTH SIDES.”
There is of course the 10% of America who believe that Obama is a muslim (I had this debate about one month ago with a person in our family). There are the few percent who apparenlty believe he is Jewish.
One of my observations is that people seem to have a tendency to project on to Obama what they think he is rather than listen to him and read his material to discover what he is.
Most of the drivel written about him is, observationally when one explores depply, incorrect.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 72,
absolutely.
And when the discusion is done we will have yet more information widely dispersed which makes arguing that Obama is a muslim clealry ridiculous.
And I suggest all the fuss will cause people to think twice about such silly exercises again.
Report comment to moderator
I personally don’t think Obama is a Muslim, though I suspect he has no problem with Islam. The fact that his “church” preaches a black liberation theology will link him less to Christianity, but moreso to Islam in an odd way. When people look into Trinity Church, they do find references to Farakkhan — you can’t get around that. Obama linked himself to that by attending that church. He’s got to live with it, and you can’t expect people not to mention it.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: My point is that it is irresponsible to blame mainstream decent conservatives for what the fringe says and does.
That’s a fair point. But it doesn’t go anywhere.
You need to fill it in. How does the cartoon do this? Some people may blame you for the fringe of your movement, but not the New Yorker. It’s just a cartoon! All the rest is imagination, and cartoons typically deny responsibility for the imagination or lack of imagination of their viewers. Right?
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: Obama himself has stated that he was raised in a Muslim school
Could you provide a link for that, Joel?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 75,
since the U.S. has freedom of religion I would hope that NO candidate has a problem with Islam itself. If you are aware of a candidate who has a problem with Islam, please let me know: this position is unconstitutional and I will probably vote against them.
Since Obama has left the church and disavowed Rev. Wright, I suggest you are a bit late for the train.
If you are going to try to link Obama to Islam in an odd way (your words), I suggest you also may have drunk the kool aide. But do tell how you reach this far out conclusion?
In any event both Hagee and Wright appear to be of interest primarily to the religious right and far conservatives. And of course among this group the only electoral change we are likely to see is a lessening of support for McCain based on association with Hagee.
So keep it up!!!
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 70,
no actually Obama said he went to an Indonesian public school for the first years of his education. He then went to a Catholic school. His high school years were at Punahou which is a school established by Hawaiian missionaries to educate the children of missionaries.
You statement that Obama went to a muslim school woudl seem not supported by the facts.
Your reference here?
Report comment to moderator
#73, Musing,
Like you, I also have had to correct a person in my family who had heard that Obama was a Muslim. I succeeded. I told her not to trust anonymous sources who have not earned the right to be believed. Vote how you will, but hold a higher standard for what you believe about a person. Don’t let his opponents define him for you.
And that is my word to honest liberals who are being shown false portrayals of conservatives by fellow liberals who are less fair-minded. Don’t let the opponents of conservatives define them. Be fair.
I read about a recent poll the revealed how few Americans know the difference between McCain (pro-life) and Obama (NOT pro-life) on their voting records on abortion.
I’m afraid that “informed voter” is fast becoming an oxymoron.
Report comment to moderator
#77, Link schmink. Do your own research. As I have heard and read often, Obama was raised, at least for several years in his childhood, in Indonesia, the larged Muslim country in the world. Why wouldn’t he go to a Muslim school. That point has not been contested and it is just part of Obama’s life story. I don’t blame him for it and I am clear on that fact that he has been a professing Christian and has been a member of a church that claims to be Christian for over 20 years (I don’t dispute or affirm the claim here). I make no claims that he was or is a Muslim.
Report comment to moderator
The school Obama went to in Indonesia was not a Madrassa, but in Indonesia, a “pulic school” would certainly be Muslim. A “public school” here would be secular, but not necessarily in Indonesia. I have heard countless reliable reports that Muslim studies were included. So what?
It’s not young Obama’s fault. Move on people, there’s nothing here to see.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark has put his credibility on the line by claiming, on a thread about reckless portrayals of Obama, that “Obama himself has stated that he was raised in a Muslim school.” Joel also suggests Obama says so in his autobiography.
When asked for a reference, this former university professor says, “Link schmink. Do your own research.”
Joel, do unto others . . . You have asked me in the past for links, and I obliged.
As I have heard and read often, Obama was raised, at least for several years in his childhood, in Indonesia, the larged Muslim country in the world. Why wouldn’t he go to a Muslim school. That point has not been contested and it is just part of Obama’s life story.
In truth, that point has been contested. Obama calls Joel Mark’s assertion “scurrilous.” Let’s pray the New Yorker cartoon leads Joel Mark to be convicted of his error.
For his first three school years, Obama attended Fransiskus Assisi Catholic school in Jakarta.
When his family moved to a new neighborhood, he attended the secular, government-run SDN Menteng 1 school for his fourth year. The AP reports this public school was a secular institution open to all faiths from before Obama enrolled. Administrators insist the school is secular, attended by both Muslims and Christians. Obama attended it one year.
From the fifth grade until he graduated HS, Obama attended a private, secular school in Honolulu (originally started by Congregational missionaries).
Joel, you need to come clean and say, “Obama was not raised in a Muslim school. I was wrong.” He went to Christian or Christian-heritage schools for all but one of his years in school. For one year, his fourth, he attended a state secular school that was open to Muslims and Christians. “Muslim schools” don’t educate Christians. Obama wasn’t “raised in a Muslim school.”
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 80,
well I am trying very hard to stick to either written or documented position papers when I review the candidates positions. I have been going to both the Obama and McCain isseus pages on their web sites reasonably frequently.
So I will keep trying here!
Report comment to moderator
JOel Mark post 81,
but your statement here:
“#77, Link schmink. Do your own research. As I have heard and read often, Obama was raised, at least for several years in his childhood, in Indonesia, the larged Muslim country in the world. Why wouldn’t he go to a Muslim school.”
suggests you are not doing your homework as you suggested in post 80.
If you look at the schools curriculum it offered both Islamic AND Christian education during the religious training provided in the schools. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14cohen.html
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Elementary_School_Menteng_01
and
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2007/02/07/indonesian_school_still_smarts_from_obama_link/
The material documenting the nature of this school is readily available, and I always advocate people looking up the material for themselves rather than believing second hand reports as the preferred model if possible.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: Why wouldn’t he go to a Muslim school. That point has not been contested and it is just part of Obama’s life story.
Pathetic, Joel. So which are you, one of “the fringe . . . the ignorant and gullible” or one of the “mainstream decent conservatives”? (#69)
Report comment to moderator
Musing, if I were an alcoholic (which I am not), but I decide today never to drink again, I will still be an alcoholic tomorrow. The other day we had a thread asking about our various “spiritual histories,” and if you read through my post, you would have read that for some time I went to a church that I now know is Christian — for sure — but they have some unbiblical doctrines. Nevertheless, every once in awhile I use one of their phrases, and I have to catch myself. There is no doubt that they have had an effect on me and that it remains even unconsciously. I look at Obama the same way. There is no way that he could have sat in a church for 20 years that taught black liberation theology and nothing of that minset stuck. I just don’t believe that, and there is nothing you can say to me that will change that belief. If, as a child, he was exposed to Muslim teachings — even by virtue of associating with Muslim children — something stuck. I remember events from my kindergarten class, so please don’t tell me these things don’t stick. When I add that the his church experiences in the past 20 years — something he only recently “rejected” because it was politically expedient — I’m not left with someone I trust. I also take the foregoing and link it to all of his socialistic theories, and then I trust him even less.
It was suggested in a post by the Real AJ — he posted something from the WSJ, I think — that if we get Obama as president and continue with a Democratic Congress, the one-party rule will choke this country. Maybe that is what is in the offing — and maybe being choked will be the final straw that cracks the stupidity of following socialism. Maybe the other half of the country needs to be taxed to the max before they finally kill the Democrat mindset once and for all and we get back to keeping what you work for rather than the redistribution of wealth to those who won’t work.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK #41-42 . . . it’s typical liberal bigotry against people on the right . . . New Yorker leftists . . . paint conservative arguments as ugly as they can and frame them for their own preconceptions for political purposes, without regard to fairness or accuracy.
Joel, it’s time for you to demonstrate your own regard for fairness and accuracy. You’ve made accusations and assertions of fact that require support (see #83). Don’t be a false witness. Come clean.
Report comment to moderator
How can Obama claim to be a “Christian” and yet “have no problem with Islam”? A true believer in Jesus Christ believes the Bible when it says Jesus is the ONLY WAY. Jesus’ own words were: “I am THE way, THE truth, THE life. No man comes to the Father BUT BY ME.”
That would create a problem for Islamists, whether or not they are of the radical variety.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 89,
and you are suggesting that all presidential candidates should then be in favor of violating the constitution?
Why and I thought you were a strict constructionalist!
And here you are now in favor of activism in violation of the constitution!! Mark down the day!
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 87,
but while your post may support an argument for the impact of Christian Black liberation theology on Obama, you have not made a connection to his being influenced “by Islam in an odd way”.
You have made no logical connection to Islam whatsoever here.
Now as to his early schooling, as I noted he was apparenlty taught Christinaity during the religious portion of the curriculum. but what I seem to be sensing here is an isolationsit streak which is probably neither sustainable nor appropriatein modern society.
You can indeed point out that nothign I can say wuill change your mind.
But that does not mean your opinion is logically based.
Nor does it free you from the bigotry of your opinon suggested by how you are forming this opinion.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast, are you saying Obama is an “Islamist”?
Obama calls himself a Christian because he follows Jesus, prays, and reads the Bible. What would you call him?
Report comment to moderator
scoop moth post 92,
I suggest that outkast thinks he is playing a clever game: confounding Obama as a president and Obama as a Christian.
From the perspective of a presidential candidate, outkast is forced to either agree that presidential candidates must be accepting of Islam and other religions or he must be knowingly in violation of the first amendment.
outkast, I suggest, however, is attempting to slide his own version of Christianity into the discussion without proper foundation.
It is posible that outkast does indeed hold to a version of Christanity which can not be accepting of Islam. I have no way to confidently tell based on his posted material so far.
We have already established, however in earlier discussions with outkast, that his form of Christianity is a minority form of Christianity in the U.S. (c.f. his posts suggesting using such terms as evangelical Christian).
And I suggest that, while perhaps not agreeing with Islam’s belief models, the majority of Christian’s in the U.S. can be accepting of muslims or many other religious followers.
We were a country with diversity of religion when we were founded and we remain a country with diversity of religion. To reject that is to simply not be willing to observe the country around you. It also means you are not willing to follow the constitution.
Report comment to moderator
SCROP MOTH,
I have heard Obama speak in his own words affirming that his childhood education in Indonesia included Muslim topics and studies. He was simply helping to clarify misunderstandings and I took him at his word as I heard it. I do not go around distorting that to imply he was or is a Muslim.
So take a breath and think. Sounds like you would love to discredit my credibility and are willing to do summer-saults to try. But that’s just hysteria on your part. Everyone can come to their own conclusions, but my point all along is that Obama is not a Muslim and I have never ever said so.
Maybe it was the Hillary Clinton campaign that spread that rumor first since it raged during the primaries, but I don’t know that either.
So to all, I reiterate, do your own research.
Be careful, because it sounds like the story is changing and spinning in circles as time goes on.
Report comment to moderator
#85, Musing wrote; “suggests you are not doing your homework as you suggested in post 80.”
I am simply stating what I have heard from Obama’s own mouth. When I do homework, I know how important it is to realize that websites are spinning like tops to keep people dizzy and confused. I trust very little of what people link me to. But I do trust my own experience and what the candidate himself says. I trust it enough to refuse to believe the nonsense going around that Obama is or was a Muslim.
But the heavy revisions now apparently going around about the school Obama went to is aimed to make people dizzy. All I can say is that people need to listen and read with a grain of salt and make their own conclusions. But the school he attended is NOT grounds to claim he was ever a Muslim.
And the New Yorker was irresponsible to try to define conservatives unfairly by linking their message with unproven rumors that raged when Obama was competing against Hillary.
Report comment to moderator
Musing —
Thanks. Newsweek has an article about Obama’s beliefs. He fasted, meditated, sat with tears in his eyes in the back of Harlem churches, studied St. Augustine, Nietsche, and Graham Greene.
You said above: There is of course the 10% of America who believe that Obama is a muslim
Would the misconceptions were that minor, Musing!
A new Newsweek poll says 12% of voters surveyed said that Obama was sworn in as a United States senator on a Qur’an, while 26% believe he was raised as a Muslim and 39% believe he attended an Islamic school as a child growing up in Indonesia. More voters say they are unsure about this things.
An AP-Yahoo poll in January asked people to volunteer the first few words that came to mind about each of the candidates, and 4 percent of the respondents, unprompted, mentioned the word Muslim when describing Obama.
Islamic identity is a negative consideration for 45% of voters in some polling.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 95,
as I demonstrated, getting good data on this point is not difficult.
I suggest that your failure to do so is suggestive of your apparent disregard for the facts.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark —
Thanks for your reply, but it doesn’t answer for your previous remarks:
Get a grip Scroop. Obama himself has stated that he was raised in a Muslim school Have you read his book?
You refused to substantiate this claim, and still haven’t.
Link schmink. Do your own research. As I have heard and read often, Obama was raised, at least for several years in his childhood, in Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. Why wouldn’t he go to a Muslim school. That point has not been contested and it is just part of Obama’s life story. I don’t blame him for it . . . It’s not young Obama’s fault.
I’m glad your pastoral heart doesn’t hold it against the boy that “he was raised in a Muslim school” as you put it. But that’s not the issue. You said Obama said he was. He did not say so, and he was not. That’s the awful truth, which you resist.
I’ve read what Obama said in his autobiography about Muslim culture and the contact he had with it. More about that below. The important thing is, you refuse to account for your falsehood that “Obama himself has stated that he was raised in a Muslim school.”
Obama was raised in three schools. He was in the school you call a “Muslim school” for one year. His first three years were in a Catholic school (where he learned the catechism) and the last eight were in a secularized, Christian-heritage school in America. Most of his classmates in the fourth grade were Muslims, but by all accounts (except Insight Magazine and Fox News) the school was proudly multi-ethnic and secular. Obama’s home was non-religious.
What if Obama had attended madrassas and “Muslim schools” for 11 grades and a secular school with a majority of Christian pupils during one grade — the fourth — would anyone then claim “Obama was raised in a Christian school”?
Report comment to moderator
#97, Musing,
What you have “demonstrated” is simply a stubborn bias, in my view. And you can presume my “failure” all you want, but it’s all in your mind.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know what Obama has been saying lately on this but I just heard Michael Medved claim on the radio that Obama is changing his story. Medved also heard Obama affirm that his studies in Indonesia included Kroanic studies in a Muslim school. But now Obama is apparently re-stating and respinning that. Medved said he was “lying.”
I am not ready to agree with Medved on that but I’ll let Medved have his opinion and I will just keep listening. I will also let Musing and Scroop flail away too and suggest to fellow bloggers to take it all with a grain of salt as time goes forward.
Funny though, that I have been a strong advocate here for taking Obama at his own word that he is not a Muslim and I have defended him against false claims to the contrary, and yet some liberals here seem so upset they just can’t see straight.
Perhaps Obama himself is the current source of the confusion now over what the facts are over his past schooling. Time will tell.
This is the most spin-crazy campaign I’ve ever followed. Certainly, Obama is being given far too much re-posturing power by the media. But it may not serve him well in the long run. This is my opinion based on my observations. You are welcome to your own impressions.
But the New Yorker was irresponsible with that cover and article. That sore of thing is what makes political campaigns so nasty these days.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Where on this thread (or on any thread on this blog) have I called for a religious test of political candidates? The answer is nowhere. But yet here you go again, accusing me of something I didn’t even come close to saying.
I was merely making the point that if Obama is claiming to be a Christian and yet being supportive of Islam, he is being hypocritical (according to the words of Jesus Himself).
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 99,
I do sense that I am sensing a pattern developing of where you appear to make unsubstantiated statements and then refuse to provide substantiation.
When substantiation is located, it appear to be straight sets so far: your assertions appear to be incorrect.
Do you care about the validity and truth of your assertions?
Report comment to moderator
Joel mark post 100,
yes you have said that he is not a muslim, and base it on reasonable data.
That is why it is so puzzling that you apparenlty are sticking to his being trained in Islam despite the available evidence. You generallly seem evidenced centered.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 101,
why in post 89 you suggest he should not be accepting of Islam.
Did I misunderstand you? If so I apologize. If you now insist that one should accept all religions under our constitution then we are both in full agreement, and we can move forward.
I commend you on your open mindedness!
Of course my intial statment was:
“since the U.S. has freedom of religion I would hope that NO candidate has a problem with Islam itself. ”
so it was very clear that my statement was based on the constituion separation of church and state. And of course all condidates should have no problem with Islam itself: we are free to have any religion we choose in this country.
Report comment to moderator
Liberals have not invented fairy tales in order to pretend that conservatives believe something silly.
Look around: Joel Mark now says Obama is sewing confusion about his Muslim background and reports that Michael Medved says Obama is lying. Outkast says Obama is an “Islamist.”
Congratulations to HARRIS #18 for hitting the mark when he charges that evangelicals have let “blatant misrepresentations” fester. Harris warns evangelicals not to “go down the path”. Listening, Joel Mark?
JAYSEPHUS #30 agrees conservatives paint Obama in “deceptive strokes.” NJLAWYER #45 thinks the New Yorker cartoon will cause “even more people to wonder about Obama.”
Report comment to moderator
Scroopy, for people who constantly call McCain McSame and rag on his age, you liberals are awfully touchy about a caricature.
It is not bigotry to conclude that something stuck in Obama’s head from his childhood experiences as something stuck in mine from my childhood experiences. Nor is it bigotry to point out the weakness of his character because he took drugs. We only have one Ginsburg on the Supremes because the other one did drugs so his nomination was pulled, remember? And please don’t tell me everyone was doing it. I’ve never done it. But I do know plenty of people who took recreational drugs because they didn’t have the brains not to — and yes, it is indicative of a certain nature. Does it mean they are “bad” people? No, we all have our weaknesses. Let’s just say the notches on the bedpost are adding up, and he has a lot more than GWB ever did.
But let’s turn the tables a bit: inasmuch as people are not perfect, one can only conclude that it is possible for our Obamessiahists to tell us what they think his faults are.
Do tell. Go.
Report comment to moderator
What “constitutional separation of church and state,” Musing? You do realize that expression never occurs in the U.S. Constitution, don’t you? The Constitution merely states that there should be no religious test for a candidate for political office, and that the state cannot infringe on the religious freedom of any American.
For me to point out that a believer in biblical Christianity cannot simultaneously be “okay” with a religion that claims that Jesus is NOT the only way to God is NOT me saying Obama cannot run for President (or even be elected President.
For you to claim that I’ve ever said so is simply untrue.
I’m simply asking how a person can believe what Jesus Christ teached and what Islam teaches, because they can’t.
Report comment to moderator
Where did I say Obama is an Islamist, Scroop? You libs are never going to convince us that YOU are right and WE are wrong if you persist in saying we said things we never said!
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 106,
with all due respect I do not call McCain McSame, so I suspect you are over generalizing regarding liberals.
Actualy it is bigotry if you say what stuck in his head was because he was around muslim children. You appear to be specifically denigrating both the muslim children and Obama.
One of the biggest challenges we face in this world is the lack of understading of others. And our world is ever more interconnected. If the mere associating with others is grounds for misturst, then this world is in a sorry state indeed.
Islam is argued to be the worlds second largest religion. It wont go away. And we will have to learn to deal with it.
And those who hope we could hide behind our oceans and ignore the world around us are just going to have to get over it.
If you are going to bring up drugs, that is a different kettle of fish. I will of course assume for consistency that you did not vote for Bush.
And of course, on this issue literally no one but the conservative edge of our politics care. But have fun.
I do think Obama has one fault which captures my interest: he sems to be able to motivate and mobilze people in a way which is very unique to our political system at this time. Is our system ready for it?
And now I am sure you McCain supporters will be happy to identify McCain’s faults. Oh excuse me, you did this during the primary didn’t you.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 107,
oh certainly you know the first amendment. Where “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Our government is designed to be religion independent. Therefore our president should be willing to accept all religions or he will not be able to faithfully carry out the will of congress on this point.
But of course we can continue and the Supreme Court has been and continues to be very insistent on this point. But I believe we have had discussions regarding the supreme court on this issue, have we not.
But are you suggesting then that our president should specifically favor some religions and not favor others?
Report comment to moderator
No, it isn’t bigotry. Every kid picks up and internalizes things throughout childhood. You don’t really read posts from me that rant against the RCC, even though I disagree with them. I had relatives who were Catholic, I’ve been to Mass. I even wanted to be a nun for awhile (remember the movie?) If Obama was around little muslims kids, then he was around little muslim boys in all likelihood, with little contact with muslim girls.
I will tell you a little story about trust. There is no way I’m going to say gee, I have to trust that guy coming towards me on the street even though my gut tells me he’s up to no good because I shouldn’t mistrust. No, I’m going to cross the street where I feel safer. And that’s how I feel about Obama. I don’t trust him. And I won’t apologize for that.
Islam won’t go away for sure, but so far the jihadists haven’t either. And my gut tells me to give them no quarter. When Islam turns away from violence, we’ll get along. Until the masses of muslims stop supporting violence, I won’t trust them.
“I do think Obama has one fault which captures my interest: he sems to be able to motivate and mobilze people in a way which is very unique to our political system at this time. Is our system ready for it?”
This is NOT a fault. You are ducking the question. Be honest and look at your candidate and speak forthrightly. You didn’t do it your post — because you can’t be honest about him.
Just as you characters can’t tell us why you are saving the oil, you can’t look at your candidate honestly either.
Report comment to moderator
Musing wrote; “Therefore our president should be willing to accept all religions or he will not be able to faithfully carry out the will of congress on this point.”
I disagree. The president does NOT have to accept any and/or all religions. After all, he is free, like the rest of us, to aim his respect of a religion or religions where he so chooses. But he does need to respect and devend the rights of the people to respect which ever religion they so choose too.
The distinction is crucial.
Any president, like any citizen, can specifically favor some religions and not favor others as he sees fit. The Constitution does not obligate him to point his favor one way or the other, or not. But he should respect and defend the freedom of others to point their favor one way or the other too.
Report comment to moderator
Well stated, Joel Mark.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 87/111,
I suggest that no matter how you spin, the following:
“even by virtue of associating with Muslim children”
is bigotry.
You bare basing your assertion on the mere act of association with someone who is differnet AND you are explicitly generalizing ont his comunity whithout examining this community.
And I believe that that more than satisfies the argument that your proposed model is bigotted.
To be sure, I probably wouldn’t have made an issue of it EXCEPT THAT YOU INVOKED THE MUSLIM CHILDREN and I consider the concept that the mere association with children being considered an issue as reprehensible. I watched this too much in verious environments growing up and I suggest that mere association arguments have been one of the key issues resulting in the deep divisions in our society today.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark post 112,
so I was discussing this in the context of his presidential duties so when you say:
“The president does NOT have to accept any and/or all religions.”
and
“But he does need to respect and defend the rights of the people to respect which ever religion they so choose too. ”
I do believe I am sensing a disconnect here.
If he doesn’t accept, from the position of his offical authority, a specific religon, then then how can he possibly defend the righ t of people to respect it?
Defending this right will mean, certainly in the class of context that outkast raised, a certain degree of acceptance! 
And when you resolve the semantics here, and I am sure you will, then you will see that outkast is simply being mischievious.
Report comment to moderator
Joel mark post 112,
but lets look at the other side of this coin. If the president doesn’t have to be willing, in the context of his official duties, to accept any and all religions, it suggests that you consider it appropriate for him to accept some but not others, again within the context of his official duties (we are not discussing his own personal professions of belief but governmental affairs).
If you agree with this, and it sounds like you do, then the challenge and concern that I appear to hear in concservative circles that Obama will support Black liberation theology in the whitehouse seems misplaced: after all you indiciated that it was appropriate for him to accept any religion he chose.
Oh wait a minute, are you saying that he must choose the religion you want him to choose? Well of course given the diversity of religion in the U.S, we can continue this arugment of which religion he should choose ad infinitem.
Which of course is why the separation of chruch and state is so useful: it removes these silly arguments from the political arena, at least for those who are willing accepting it reasonbly honestly and consistently.
P.s. of course the argument that Obama would support Black liberation theology at all is itself a red herring spread, as we are seeing perhaps in some of the posts by NJLawyer for example, by individuals basing their assertions on unsupported hearsay and surmise. But the use of unsupported hearsay and surmise in this election is a differnet discussion altogther than this one.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer at #87: It was suggested in a post by the Real AJ — he posted something from the WSJ, I think — that if we get Obama as president and continue with a Democratic Congress, the one-party rule will choke this country.
One-party rule was fine with conservatives from 2001-2006.
Report comment to moderator
And how often have you liberals mentioned that one-party rule didn’t work? I’ve even said it myself.
P.S. We’re not in court, so the hearsay rule doesn’t apply. I’m entitled to use ANYTHING to make up my mind about Obama, including my gut. What does one our colleagues here always say: don’t go by what they say, watch what they do. Talk is cheap, especially for Obama. He’s glib. But when you take a look at what he does (i.e., attend a racist church until it is no longer politically expedient), if you can look at that honestly, you would ask what was going on in his head all those years. Liberals, however, will never ask those questions. The ring in the nose gets in the way for some odd reason.
Report comment to moderator
NJLAWYER: Do tell. Go.
At least half a dozen Scroop Moth posts criticize the endemic flaws of Obama’s personality. See #28 above and #17 over at “What’s So Funny About Obama?”.
As a leftist, many categories of criticism don’t interest this blog, in fact clash with your wish to view him as a Marxist, etc.
This blog doesn’t seem to care about the FISA bill and telecom immunity, for example, as you got pretty much what you wanted. Paul Krugman has written bitterly about Obama’s soft-on-Reaganomics political stance, but how resonant is that here?
Ditto, faith-based government spending.
You’re right, though, that liberals don’t tend to criticize Obama for being an anti-American, crypto-Islamic, false Christian, Marxist, half-black racist.
Just don’t conclude that our failure to attack Obama in these terms means that leftists are afraid to criticize the Messiah.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: I don’t know what Obama has been saying lately
Thanks so much. The blogesphere awaits to hear what you don’t know, Joel.
We’ll add that to your inventory of ignorance about what Obama said formerly, too, such as in his autobiography, which you invoked.
Seriously, you refused to back up an assertion about what Obama said because you really didn’t know. Did you? You cited Obama’s autobiography and then refused to discuss it, because it proves you ignorant about what you claimed it says.
Obama told the AP that reports about him are “scurrilous.” Numerous news organizations have sent reporters to Jakarta to investigate Obama’s schools, and they confirm what Obama said. You, however, claim that Obama said the contrary — that he was “raised in a Muslim school.” He didn’t say that, because he was not raised in a Muslim school.
Say it, Joel: Obama was not raised in a Muslim school.
Report comment to moderator
It’s hard for ANYONE to know what Obama has been saying lately, Scroop, because his conversations have been so convoluted.
One day he’s for getting out of Iraq as soon as he’s President; the next day he’s for waiting until the enemy’s defeated (does he mean Bush or the terrorists?).
One day he’s for gun control; the next he’s against it. One day he says fathers need to take responsibility for their children; the next day he says it’s the government’s fault we have social problems.
What is he saying?
Report comment to moderator
You’re confused because you want to be, and are too lazy to quote Obama’s actual words.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t enjoy being confused, Scroop, and that’s immature for you to accuse me of that. And are you calling me lazy? Because I believe that’s against the rules of this blog.
It’s honestly tough to figure out where this candidate stands on a variety of issue, as Joel Mark stated above, because he’s often all over the map within a given week
Report comment to moderator
It’s easy to repeat hearsay, but painstaking to reproduce direct quotations. Because direct quotes are available online, hearsay is now mercifully unnecessary. Therefore, using hearsay is inconsiderate — and lazy
I wouldn’t call you lazy, Outkast. You are an alert claquer on your side, a passive-agressive speed cop on the other. You are just too lazy to cut and paste the actual equivocation in real Obama quotations. That might be a smart conservation of energy, but it doesn’t add much value to your posts.
Report comment to moderator
It’s easy to repeat hearsay, but painstaking to reproduce direct quotations
Oh no it’s not, Godlumps cuts and pastes things all the time. I, on the other hand, like to make up my own mind by reasoning for myself. However, that doesn’t help me to understand where the heck BHO stands on issues because he changes his mind every few days.
(By the way, in post 124 you say “I wouldn’t call you lazy,” yet in post 122 you say (to me) “you are too lazy.” Which is it?)
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: You’re right, though, that liberals don’t tend to criticize Obama for being an anti-American, crypto-Islamic, false Christian, Marxist, half-black racist.
Because of course none of those things are true (except “half-black,” which is true but irrelevant to anything) … but isn’t it interesting that those false claims resonate more with the typical conservative here than the real issues you mentioned?
Report comment to moderator
anti-American: I’d say refusal to wear an American flag pin would qualify.
crypto-Islamic: Since he thinks Islam is on a par with the rest of the world’s religions (without actually admitting he has Muslim sympathies), I’d say that would qualify.
false Christian: Obama claims to be Christian simply because he attended an (anti-American) church for 20 years? Please . . .
Marxist: Since he thinks government is the answer to all the problems of society, I’d say that would qualify.
Report comment to moderator
Well, it’s time for the American muslims to riot and burn flags over a cartoon:
…e-mails and The New Yorker cartoon are “actually an insult against Muslim Americans,” he said. There are “wonderful Muslim Americans” across the country, Obama said, and “for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate.”
Report comment to moderator
What you are depends, Outkast, everything’s relative. You are industrious enough to be a conservative, too lazy to be a liberal.
Also, the wearing of jewelry signifies the feminization of the American man.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast:
anti-American: I’d say refusal to wear an American flag pin would qualify.
Of course you would. And you don’t care that Obama’s reason for it was that he believes patriotism is more genuinely expressed in actions than by wearing a trinket. Nor will you care that McCain also often doesn’t wear one.
You would call that “anti-American” because, like many conservatives, you are more concerned about form and appearance than anything of substance.
crypto-Islamic: Since he thinks Islam is on a par with the rest of the world’s religions (without actually admitting he has Muslim sympathies), I’d say that would qualify.
Of course you would. Because you are unable to distinguish between respecting the rights of people to follow a faith other than Christianity on the one hand, and having secret sympathies with that other religion on the other.
And perhaps because you think perpetuating the “Obama is a secret Muslim” meme, making full use of your bearing-false-witness waiver, will help defeat him and the ends justify the means.
false Christian: Obama claims to be Christian simply because he attended an (anti-American) church for 20 years? Please . . .
Who are you to judge the sincerity of his religious faith?
Marxist: Since he thinks government is the answer to all the problems of society, I’d say that would qualify.
I’d say your understanding of what Marxism is is as shallow as a kiddie pool.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!