15 thoughts on “What Has Wright Wrought?”

  1. There is nothing Obama can say or do at this point that would make me believe he does not share at least some of Wrights views. There is no way he has attended a church pastored by this man for 20 years and had no inkling of his racist, anti-American, anti-Semitic and outright lunatic fringe views until now. And knowing those views he should have found another church if Wrights views offended him as they should have. Actions speak louder than words (especially louder than the words of a politician running for office) and Obama’s actions of 20 years of attending services conducted by this man tell me that he agrees with him on more than he disagrees.

    If this sort of thing were coming out on John McCain it would be the death of his candidacy, but since it is on “Mr. Change” the media will do it’s best to sweep this under the rug.

  4. Thank you very much for the link to the Chicago Tribune commentary by University of Chicago prof Cass Sunstein. It would be very interesting to hear what those who call Obama “an empty suit” think of the article!

  6. …who are the rubes this time?

    You know what P. T. Barnum said, Jay. One born every minute. Probably a higher rate these days, what with the higher population, and the large number of votes that the Dems continue to get.

    Yes, by all means, now that Cass Sunstein, a good friend of Obama, says he’s a great guy, I’m certainly going to vote for him.

  7. Rand: I guess what I’m really wondering is whether, when you or others call Obama an “empty suit”, you are dismissing his abilities as a constitutional law scholar? If not, what set of abilities are you dismissing? (And, alternatively, is that the right question? Does calling someone an “empty suit” mean that you are dismissing their abilities?) This is off-topic with regard to Wright, but the Tribune article made me think about your empty suit claim.

  8. I guess what I’m really wondering is whether, when you or others call Obama an “empty suit”, you are dismissing his abilities as a constitutional law scholar?

    I haven’t given his abilities as a constitutional law scholar much thought, because I don’t think that a particularly important capability for a president. Supreme Court justice, maybe, but not a president.

  9. … what set of abilities are you dismissing?

    Certainly not his abilities to play Democrats for suckers; they’re exceptional. Obama is against NAFTA, except when he doesn’t really mean it. He’s going to heal the racial divide, except when he’s immersing himself in black nationalism. He’s a constitutional scholar who respects the free market, except for a more complex tax code and an immediate 25% increase in the size of the Federal government. Something for every Democrat from Russ Feingold to Claire McCaskill.

    I repeat, who are the rubes this time?

  10. Jay, I don’t know what you are hoping for. I prefer Obama (among the three choices we now have) but he is hardly the perfect choice, and I certainly would agree that his positions on NAFTA, to the extent that I can even state them, seem inconsistent. If you would like to rant about Obama and NAFTA here, I will attentively read it. If you feel like educating, I’ll also admit that I don’t know what you are referring to when you say that Obama wants to increase the size of the federal government by 25%.

    When I read the Tribune article, I was struck by the question: “I wonder what Rand and some of his readers mean when he calls Obama an empty suit?” so I thought I would ask. I don’t think Rand really answered my question, but that’s his choice, and I’m not going to hector him about it. If anyone wants to explain why they think Obama is an empty suit, I’d be interested in reading it.

  11. I wonder what Rand and some of his readers mean when he calls Obama an empty suit?

    Maybe he means that Obama isn’t an empty suit.

  12. Maybe he means that Obama isn’t an empty suit.

    The suit does seem to be filling out over the past few weeks, but I don’t find the contents very edifying.

  13. It is my understanding that Oprah went to the same church. After 9/11 and specifically the 9/16 sermon by Pastor Wright she changed churches. If Oprah could see that he was a bit extreeme how hard is it for the man that is running on his judgement to see the same thing?

  14. If he’s serious — obviously a big “if” — this item alone would attempt to collect upwards of $600B/yr in additional taxes.

    Then there’s this little gem.

    Actually, my 25% figure was a wild guess and is almost certainly on the low side.

    You can do your own Googling from now on. I’ve got better things to do than explain to people who are being duped, time after time after time, that they’re being duped. It’s transparently obvious. The very best we can hope for, assuming he’s elected (problematic), is that he’s been lying through his teeth to get reactionaries’ votes in the primaries and is somehow, someway, really, truly the closet free-marketeer Cass Sunstein says he is.

    More likely, though, we’ll be stuck with McCain and have to survive his idiocy instead.

  15. Jay, I’m having a really hard time making any sense of your numbers. I think the big numbers (from Obama and from his opponents in the links you cited) come from adding a bunch of years together rather than just looking year-by-year at the budget, the taxes, and the tax loopholes.

Comments are closed.