More Liberal Racism – Obama’s pastor

The Geraldine Ferraro story is not going away, as overt internal racism threatens to rip the Democrat party to shreds. I only wonder why it’s taken so long. You would think that a party that has focused on identifying people by race and treating people in different ways based on race for the last 40 years would be well known as a racist party.  Thank God for Fox News, which actually reports the story when libs say stupid things.

Take Barack Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright. This guy is an absolute racist hatemonger, and he’s been Obama’s pastor for 20 years. This guy performed Obama’s marriage. It would be absurd to say Obama’s views have not been informed by the man.  In fact, he says so himself in this video.

Powerline has a good take on the ramifications in: The Audacity of Hate 

Obama has also said that Wright ”is like an old uncle who says things I don’t always agree with.” But who takes spiritual guidance from hate-spewing old uncles?

Meanwhile, Eric Deggans takes offense to Ferraro’s statements in “Ferraro’s Race Argument isn’t insulting to Obama; It’s Insulting to Democrats.” The best part of this whole story is how silly liberals are getting over it, and how they are at each others’ throats. Deggans actually calls Ferraro a “so-called progressive.” I couldn’t have said it better myself, but for another liberal to say it for me is the icing on the cake. Then this nugget…

There are more females than black males serving as governors, Congresspeople, and cabinet members. I wonder how any of them would feel about people who said they got their jobs because they were female? (And does Ferraro agree that she got her spot on Mondale’s ticket because she’s female?)

If you read my post yesterday, you know that Ferraro in fact does agree that she got her spot because “Fritz wanted a woman.” The whole thing just illustrates how thin-skinned these people are, and now we’ve got liberal women and liberal blacks killing each other in print and on tv. It’s awesome!

He finishes with the line: “Frankly, Ferraro’s assumption that people like me voted for Obama because he self-identifies as a black man is less insulting to Obama and more insulting to me.”

Too funny. Personally I’d be a lot more worried about people thinking I voted for Obama because I agreed with his socialist stances on the issues. Self-identification is somewhat understandable. Idiocy is not.

Newt Gingrich is correct, as he nearly always is: She said something that probably was true 

Gingrich ridiculed the controversy over Ferraro’s comments as part of “the politically correct left” and asked, “Are we now going to say that nobody is allowed to notice that Senator Clinton is female and nobody is allowed to notice that Senator Obama is African American…are we not allowed to be honest?”

Mickey Kaus gets is correct: Psst!–Ferraro Was Right 

If Obama were white, he wouldn’t embody hopes of a post-racial future. Duh!

That pretty much says it all.

Finally, the Wall Street Journal points out that Obama seems to enjoy playing the race card: Obama and the Race Card

Already, prominent Obama sympathizers, such as Harvard’s Orlando Patterson, are detecting racial overtones where none exist. In a New York Times op-ed, Mr. Patterson said a Clinton political ad designed to question Mr. Obama’s readiness as Commander in Chief contained a “racist sub-message” because none of the people depicted in the TV spot are black. Counting people of color in an ad about national security is hardly consistent with the Obama theme that “race doesn’t matter.”

We suppose some of the current back and forth is due to the diversity preoccupations of Democrats. But it bodes ill for an honest fall campaign if Mr. Obama and his allies are going to play the race card to blunt any criticism. A campaign in which John McCain couldn’t question Mr. Obama’s policies, experience and mettle without being called a racist is not what the country needs. Or wants.

Democrats have repeatedly touted the diversity of their party’s White House hopefuls. And it is true that a Clinton or Obama Presidency would make gender or racial history. Americans of all backgrounds can take satisfaction in watching the country field its first black Presidential candidate with a chance to win. But voters also want their would-be Presidents properly vetted, by the media and by each other. To that end Mr. Obama would do better to focus more on answering his political critics with specifics and less on questioning their motives by crying wolf on race.

And that is exactly what Obama wants. He hopes he can avoid talking about serious issues because there is no way he would ever become a nominee if his ideas were to undergo scrutiny.

Advertisement