Analysis: The Wright effect on presidential race

[Dos Equis]

Interesting analysis.  Looks like Wright may remain a thorn in Obama's side. 

Analysis: The Wright effect on presidential race

 Read  VIDEO
By John King
CNN Chief National Correspondent

     
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Politics is a business of numbers, and the numbers favor Sen. Barack Obama. But they are changing in ways that give Sen. Hillary Clinton some hope and have dramatically changed how Republicans look at the presidential election.

In a world of so many polls and findings within those polls, a few stand out:

• Six in 10 Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor, according to the latest CNN Opinion Research Corp. survey.

• Nearly four in 10 Americans (38 percent) have an unfavorable opinion of Obama in the latest CNN polling, up 10 percentage points from the beginning of the year.

• Half of Americans think a John McCain presidency would bring different policies than the Bush administration.

• And in a new Pew Research Center national survey, Clinton's lead among whites who didn't attend college has increased to 40 percentage points from 10 in March.

In his analysis of the Pew data, research director Andrew Kohut writes, "Fewer Democrats ascribe positive qualities to Obama than did so a month ago, with white working-class Democrats, in particular, expressing more skeptical views of the Illinois senator.  Watch the latest on the Democratic race »

"Since late February, his unfavorable rating has risen six points among all Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters. At the same time, Clinton's unfavorable rating among Democratic voters also has increased by seven points."

Translation: The Wright controversy is hurting Obama most but Clinton also, at the same moment McCain is burnishing his brand as a different kind of Republican.

The overall fundamentals still heavily favor Democrats, but the controversy over Wright is a source of significant Democratic angst.  Watch Michelle Obama discuss the Wright controversy »

In the words of Republican pollster Whit Ayres: "Blue-collar white voters are this year's soccer moms."

Ayres said that in recent days, "we've been doing a lot of focus groups with blue-collar whites in swing states. They're open to voting for Hillary Clinton because they think they did better economically in the Clinton administration than they have in the current administration.

"But there's no way on God's green Earth they're going to vote for Barack Obama. They will vote for John McCain instead. So reaching out to those people we used to call Reagan Democrats is a very smart strategy for John McCain."

Now, Ayres is a Republican with a bias, and Obama has time to repair the damage should he emerge as the Democratic nominee.

But the remarks of many Democrats privately are not that far off from what Ayres says publicly about his findings from recent focus groups.

"Jeremiah Wright is not going away," Ayres said. "There are an awful lot of people, when you just ask, 'What do you think of when you think of Barack Obama?' who bring up Jeremiah Wright's name. They bring up the anti-Americanism. They wonder why it took him so long to separate himself from him. Jeremiah Wright is an albatross around Barack Obama's neck that he's going to have to carry all the way to the election."

Asked about his research, Ayres describes the recent groups as "blue-collar white voters. Democrats and Republicans. More Republican than Democrat but they cross party lines."

If he is right about this next part, it would explain why many Republicans who began the year believing Clinton had high negatives, and that Obama's inspirational message of hope and change would be harder to beat, are suggesting that they would rather run against Obama because of the Electoral College map that dictates presidential campaign strategy.

Ayres said of white blue-collar voters, "They've picked up on a lot of this stuff. And they, they don't believe that Barack Obama has the same cultural outlook on the world and on America that they do. They know that, and they don't like it."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/03/wright.fallout/index.html

[Tre]

It has no effect on the race.

Everyone knows that White people lie (to pollsters). 

[Dos Equis]

I think he will be forced to talk about this till November. 

Obama: Wright Was Never My Political Counsel
by FOXNews.com
Sunday, May 4, 2008

Barack Obama said Sunday he never sought Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s counsel on political issues and would “absolutely not” seek his advice on policy if he gets to the White House.

The Democratic presidential candidate said his retiring pastor built a wonderful church that “lived out the social gospel,” but ultimately Wright’s comments about the United States “over the last several months and over the last several years … are contrary to what I stand for and who I am.”

Obama has faced weeks of scrutiny over his relationship to his pastor of 20 years, and last month delivered a speech on race relations in the U.S. that grew out of demands that he define that relationship. At the time, Obama said he could no more divorce himself from the chief pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago than he could his white grandmother.

But after Wright appeared last week at the National Press Club and reaffirmed many of the anti-American positions he espoused from the pulpit — including blasting the United States as a state sponsor of terrorism and blaming the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on U.S. foreign policy — Obama denounced his former pastor.

“I did what I thought was right, which was denounce the words, not denounce the man,” Obama said of his earlier speech. “I think what really changed was he was going to double down on the statements he made before.”

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Obama repeated that he had not heard many of those positions while a congregant at the church, but he thought that Wright’s using the national platform that was given to him showed that “he didn’t have much regard for the moment that we’re in right now in the United States.”

“He put gasoline on the fire,” Obama said, describing Wright as someone who felt attracted to the national spotlight, but who used that position to divide the country, not unite it. He added that he disagrees with Wright’s views about the country, and considers the U.S. “a force for good in the world” despite its troubled history of race relations.

Obama said as a presidential candidate he thinks it’s fair for people to use this episode as an opportunity to “lift the hood and check the tires.”

The weeks of focus on Wright is in part responsible for a drop in the polls by Obama to Hillary Clinton among white voters. The latest polls show the gap has closed between the two candidates nationally, and polling in the two states holding primary elections on Tuesday show Clinton narrowing Obama’s lead in North Carolina and building her own lead in Indiana.

. . . .

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/04/obama-wright-was-never-my-political-counsel/

[Decker]

I think he will be forced to talk about this till November. 

...

I hope not.  The people that view this as an important issue are the same people that are ruining this country.

I would recommend to these earnest folk to sit tight b/c American Gladiators is back on TV.

[240 is Back]

what can be forced of him now?

He condemns the reverend and everything he says.

the moderator can say "yeah, but..." all he wants.   Obama rejects and condemns the guy and says he has zero influence on him.  People can believe it, or not.

it's a change/war election, and the economy is hurting.  People care more about that, than they do about this rev story.  Media people prefer to talk about the rev story.

[Dos Equis]

I hope not.  The people that view this as an important issue are the same people that are ruining this country.

I would recommend to these earnest folk to sit tight b/c American Gladiators is back on TV.

I disagree.  It really is about judgment.  Even liberals are questioning his judgment.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=212728.0 

I watched an extended excerpt of Wright this weekend and I have to say the man has some extreme views.  Not exactly a newsflash.  But I also question whether he was purposefully injecting himself in the political process.  Maybe this is something for the religion board, but he sure didn't sound like a pastor to me. 

[Decker]

I disagree.  It really is about judgment.  Even liberals are questioning his judgment.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=212728.0 

I watched an extended excerpt of Wright this weekend and I have to say the man has some extreme views.  Not exactly a newsflash.  But I also question whether he was purposefully injecting himself in the political process.  Maybe this is something for the religion board, but he sure didn't sound like a pastor to me. 

This topic is for the weak minded and those having no judgment to speak of. 

That's why your point is supremely ironic.

Unfortunately these stories crowd out the important ones like healthcare, taxes, the Iraq war crime, environmentalism, labor, our dwindling infrastructure, education,......

I'm certainly glad that We the People have the judgment to question the judgment of those who might sit in judgment.....

As I said, a small issue for small people.

[Dos Equis]

This topic is for the weak minded and those having no judgment to speak of. 

That's why your point is supremely ironic.

Unfortunately these stories crowd out the important ones like healthcare, taxes, the Iraq war crime, environmentalism, labor, our dwindling infrastructure, education,......

I'm certainly glad that We the People have the judgment to question the judgment of those who might sit in judgment.....

As I said, a small issue for small people.

I'll side with Lanny Davis on this one.     But nice try.  The old if you make this argument you're stupid trick. 

This is something Obama will have to deal with for the rest of the campaign, because there are enough people who are troubled by his judgment.  After watching the extended clip of Wright this weekend, and Obama's response, I'm also starting to question his integrity.  I find it hard to believe he didn't know the man's views after having Wright in his ear for 20 years.  Just doesn't seem plausible. 

[Decker]

I'll side with Lanny Davis on this one.     But nice try.  The old if you make this argument you're stupid trick. 

This is something Obama will have to deal with for the rest of the campaign, because there are enough people who are troubled by his judgment.  After watching the extended clip of Wright this weekend, and Obama's response, I'm also starting to question his integrity.  I find it hard to believe he didn't know the man's views after having Wright in his ear for 20 years.  Just doesn't seem plausible. 

It's not a trick.  If, for example, you think that the rantings of Obama's minister is a pressing topic in need of resolution, then you are part of the problem.

Integrity, judgment, character, truthfulness, electibility, approachability...those are all bullshit topics.  You might as well spend your time theorizing how many Obamas can dance on the head of pin.

Either discuss the issues that affect us all or get out of the way because you and your "character crowd" are wasting valuable time.

Look at the time I've wasted pointing out what a waste of time it is for you and your crowd to discuss the candidates as if you are gossipy little teenaged girls.

No offense of course to you.

[Dos Equis]

It's not a trick.  If, for example, you think that the rantings of Obama's minister is a pressing topic in need of resolution, then you are part of the problem.

Integrity, judgment, character, truthfulness, electibility, approachability...those are all bullshit topics.  You might as well spend your time theorizing how many Obamas can dance on the head of pin.

Either discuss the issues that affect us all or get out of the way because you and your "character crowd" are wasting valuable time.

Look at the time I've wasted pointing out what a waste of time it is for you and your crowd to discuss the candidates as if you are gossipy little teenaged girls.

No offense of course to you.

The problem is Wright and his looney comments and the fact Obama had the man in his ear for 20 years.  Neither I nor the many people who have a problem with this created this scenario. 

I understand why take the position you do on integrity, judgment, character, etc., because you are a liberal and likely a moral skeptic.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but many liberals are moral skeptics.  I'm not.  Neither is a substantial portion of the electorate.  Thank goodness. 

The central issue here is judgment, which is something the president has to exercise prudently on an daily basis.  I heard one of those schoolgirls, Newt Gingrich, talking about this yesterday.  He mentioned thinks like Supreme Court appointments, meeting with world leaders, etc. when talking about how crucial good judgment is to the office of president.  You can try and ignore it if you choose, but it looks like this will continue to make front page news on a regular basis.   

[240 is Back]

the great thing is that only about 20% of the american public is as simple, petty, and uninformed as beach bum is.

[Decker]

The problem is Wright and his looney comments and the fact Obama had the man in his ear for 20 years.  Neither I nor the many people who have a problem with this created this scenario. 

I understand why take the position you do on integrity, judgment, character, etc., because you are a liberal and likely a moral skeptic.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but many liberals are moral skeptics.  I'm not.  Neither is a substantial portion of the electorate.  Thank goodness. 

The central issue here is judgment, which is something the president has to exercise prudently on an daily basis.  I heard one of those schoolgirls, Newt Gingrich, talking about this yesterday.  He mentioned thinks like Supreme Court appointments, meeting with world leaders, etc. when talking about how crucial good judgment is to the office of president.  You can try and ignore it if you choose, but it looks like this will continue to make front page news on a regular basis.   

I am skeptical about all things--especially morality--in the political arena.

The last man that you voted for president--GW Bush--was a uniter, a moral man who would restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse.


But for the Moral Bush, over 4000 american soldiers & btn 170,000 and 1 million Iraqis would be alive today.

He's been a war criminal capitalizing politically on the murders he has ordered as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces.

Boy did you back the wrong pony.  And then you mention Gingrich?


In short, the Bush presidency does not scream GOOD JUDGMENT, MORAL DECISION-MAKING.


Rather than pounce on the obvious, can you tell me again how your judgment angle on choosing a presidential candidate works?

[Tre]

Do most truly intelligent people really give a shit about religion?  Of course not.

Most intellectuals who do attend church do so for show or out of habit, not because they're seeking guidance of any sort.

The problem is that most people in America aren't smart enough to realize this. 

[Dos Equis]

I am skeptical about all things--especially morality--in the political arena.

The last man that you voted for president--GW Bush--was a uniter, a moral man who would restore honor and dignity to the Whitehouse.


But for the Moral Bush, over 4000 american soldiers & btn 170,000 and 1 million Iraqis would be alive today.

He's been a war criminal capitalizing politically on the murders he has ordered as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces.

Boy did you back the wrong pony.  And then you mention Gingrich?


In short, the Bush presidency does not scream GOOD JUDGMENT, MORAL DECISION-MAKING.


Rather than pounce on the obvious, can you tell me again how your judgment angle on choosing a presidential candidate works?

lol.  You're as bad as the 911 nuts with this war thing.  (Not calling you a nut.)  You gotta get over this "war was illegal" thing dude.

This issue has nothing to do with Bush.  Or religion.  It's about Obama and the poor judgment displayed by Obama.  "I am still uneasy with his judgment."  L. Davis.     http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/29/lkl.01.html

[240 is Back]

lol.  You're as bad as the 911 nuts

67% of Americans are 9/11 nuts as of last year.  And that number is only growing.

You're actually of a smlal minority that still buys the official story.

The 911 commissioners - half of them, including the two chairmen - have said the report is highly flawed and should be re-investigated.

You have seen enough info on the boards to know the story is bunk.  You're just afraid to question it, as you'd look like a major douche for all the times you mocked it.  You're a buggy whip maker.  You're obsolete.

[Decker]

lol.  You're as bad as the 911 nuts with this war thing.  (Not calling you a nut.)  You gotta get over this "war was illegal" thing dude.

I'm sorry Sir, but I can't get over a thing like murder.  And I can't pretend that the world's most heinous war criminal since Milosevic is a stand up guy just doing his job.

B/c as you and I both know sir, he is responsible for ordering the attack.  He was and is the commander and chief that brought death and destruction to Iraq.

You can't deny that sir.

This issue has nothing to do with Bush.  Or religion.  It's about Obama and the poor judgment displayed by Obama.  "I am still uneasy with his judgment."  L. Davis.     http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/29/lkl.01.html

Pointing out the obvious flaws of your character metric for choosing a president is not off of the beaten path of this topic.

Judgment, morality and the like are the stuff of intellectual bankruptcy in the realm of presidential elections.

Don't discuss issues that result in policy and laws.

Fawn over the possible meanings of relationships....just like teenage girls on the telephone talking about the friday dance.

[240 is Back]

decker,  you'll have to remember that to this day, Beach Bum believes Alberto Gonzalez was guilty of any wrongdoing.  even as emails and witness accounts piled up about big recent meetings and AG just said "I can't remember!", beach Bum believed the man didn't remember.

Congressional hearings, and the top lawyer in the country can't recall the biggest meeting of his career in which illegal tasks were ordered...

and beach Bum bought it hook, line and sinker.





You're dealing with a man who still believes in Santa Claus.

[Dos Equis]

I'm sorry Sir, but I can't get over a thing like murder.  And I can't pretend that the world's most heinous war criminal since Milosevic is a stand up guy just doing his job.

B/c as you and I both know sir, he is responsible for ordering the attack.  He was and is the commander and chief that brought death and destruction to Iraq.

You can't deny that sir.
Pointing out the obvious flaws of your character metric for choosing a president is not off of the beaten path of this topic.

Judgment, morality and the like are the stuff of intellectual bankruptcy in the realm of presidential elections.

Don't discuss issues that result in policy and laws.

Fawn over the possible meanings of relationships....just like teenage girls on the telephone talking about the friday dance.

No I can't deny that Bush was CIC and ordered the invasion.  I can't deny that Congress repeatedly called Saddam a threat who needed to be disarmed in the years leading up to the war, spanning two presidential administrations.  I can't deny that Congress authorized the use of force.  That Congress endorsed the war after it started.  That Congress has continued to fund that war.  That other nations around the world helped with the invasion and continue to help with the war effort.  But I digress . . . .

If you believe judgment, morality, character, and integrity are irrelevant qualities for a presidential candidate, then that is a very sad commentary.  

Geeze man.  Even the pimp Al Sharpton has questions:
 
SHARPTON: Can I just say this?

COLGAN: Sure.

SHARPTON: Let me say this quickly. I agree with your sense of uneasiness, because I will be at the convention and I will have to say...

DAVIS: Thank you, Al.

SHARPTON: ...that I will have to judge whether Senator Obama really knew some statements, which he said he didn't...

[Decker]

decker,  you'll have to remember that to this day, Beach Bum believes Alberto Gonzalez was guilty of any wrongdoing.  even as emails and witness accounts piled up about big recent meetings and AG just said "I can't remember!", beach Bum believed the man didn't remember.

Congressional hearings, and the top lawyer in the country can't recall the biggest meeting of his career in which illegal tasks were ordered...

and beach Bum bought it hook, line and sinker.





You're dealing with a man who still believes in Santa Claus.

I would bet that he knows when he denies the illegal, unethical and immoral practices of the Bush administration, he is being provocative.

For instance, what's wrong with pouring a little water on the faces of terrorsts...who have ballooned up in weight at Gitmo at US taxpayer expense.

Phrased in that manner, it sounds like critics of Bush are nothing more than handwringers.

No 240, Beach Bum is a very formidable person.  He will go down to the mat to make a point in defending the man he chose as president and to support any anti-democratic slogan, article or right-wing pitch.

I like to think that competition in this little chitchat room is for the better b/c of this.

[240 is Back]

I would bet that he knows when he denies the illegal, unethical and immoral practices of the Bush administration, he is being provocative.

Perhaps you're right.  He has also said some people don't deserve their 1st and 2nd amendment rights because of their politicla beliefs.  I thought he was being an unpatriotic scared moron, but perhaps he was just being provacative.

[Decker]

No I can't deny that Bush was CIC and ordered the invasion.  I can't deny that Congress repeatedly called Saddam a threat who needed to be disarmed in the years leading up to the war, spanning two presidential administrations.  I can't deny that Congress authorized the use of force.  That Congress endorsed the war after it started.  That Congress has continued to fund that war.  That other nations around the world helped with the invasion and continue to help with the war effort.  But I digress . . . .

If you believe judgment, morality, character, and integrity are irrelevant qualities for a presidential candidate, then that is a very sad commentary.  

Geeze man.  Even the pimp Al Sharpton has questions:
 
SHARPTON: Can I just say this?

COLGAN: Sure.

SHARPTON: Let me say this quickly. I agree with your sense of uneasiness, because I will be at the convention and I will have to say...

DAVIS: Thank you, Al.

SHARPTON: ...that I will have to judge whether Senator Obama really knew some statements, which he said he didn't...

You are not talking about judgment/morality in the context of Obama's policies.  You are engaging in guilt by association.  

That tried and true propagandistic ploy of all ethically challenged politicos.

And as for Bush and the Iraq invasion--he was the only american that could have ordered the attack of Iraq.

And he did.  

Where the hell was your CHARACTER & JUDGMENT then?  Why didn't Bush stand up for what was right?

Was that b/c he actively misled the Congress and the American people by withholding countervailing evidence of Iraq's dismarming?  Look up CurveBall and the mobile WMD labs and the tons of sarin/mustard gas located around Tikrit and the unmanned wmd drones.  Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Perle et al. all beat the drum for those fantasies--where allegations became certainties.

That's what you must mean by JUDGMENT & CHARACTER.

[Dos Equis]

You are not talking about judgment/morality in the context of Obama's policies.  You are engaging in guilt by association.  

That tried and true propagandistic ploy of all ethically challenged politicos.

And as for Bush and the Iraq invasion--he was the only american that could have ordered the attack of Iraq.

And he did.  

Where the hell was your CHARACTER & JUDGMENT then?  Why didn't Bush stand up for what was right?

Was that b/c he actively misled the Congress and the American people by withholding countervailing evidence of Iraq's dismarming?  Look up CurveBall and the mobile WMD labs and the tons of sarin/mustard gas located around Tikrit and the unmanned wmd drones.  Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, Perle et al. all beat the drum for those fantasies--where allegations became certainties.

That's what you must mean by JUDGMENT & CHARACTER.

Guilt by association?  That's a mischaracterization.  I don't believe that Obama necessarily shares Wright's ridiculous views.  Saying Obama believes what Wright believes would be guilt by association.  The issue is this:  why was the man in Obama's ear for 20 years?

Bush did what he thought was right.  He did what all those evil Democrats in Congress told him to do:  disarm Saddam.  But that's a red herring.  (Sorry to use that tired phrase again.  Where is cap86 when you need him? 

Here is another commentary that does a good job of summarizing this issue:

Last updated May 1, 2008 10:46 a.m. PT

New doubts about Obama's judgment
DAN K. THOMASSON

WASHINGTON -- The obviously disturbing thing about Barack Obama's relationship with his controversial pastor is that radical, inflammatory positions such as those held by Rev. Jeremiah Wright don't come along suddenly. They have been developed and refined over the years of preaching and activism.

That alone makes it difficult to believe that for more than 20 years the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination was unaware of the volatile nature of his spiritual adviser, the man who officiated at his marriage and later baptized his children. Furthermore, for Obama to now claim that he heard none of the anti-American, racist sermons that were Wright's trademark seems at best disingenuous. The fact that he rescinded an invitation for Wright to give the invocation for his presidential announcement is a clear indication he was worried about Wright almost from the beginning.

Two decades of listening to this man and seeking his counsel and now he is outraged? Please.

For weeks Obama has been trying to distance himself from Wright without fully disavowing him. The hesitation has been eroding his lead in the campaign. That hesitation ended when Wright repeated his most disturbing remarks in three highly publicized appearances, forcing Obama finally to express shock, disavow the minister's charges against "white" America and contend that he didn't know his pastor as well as he thought he did.

That, of course, could be said about Obama himself. Few voters really know him or where he really stands. His is a campaign built on charisma and the exploitation of those who think "change" is the answer to every issue and that its leading advocate will somehow solve the most complex problems being woefully short of the experience and the political street savvy to make it happen. It is in that context that traditional Democratic voters suddenly have begun to question Obama's fitness for the job just as Republicans should have quetioned George W. Bush in the campaign of eight years ago.

Wright's association with Obama further heightens their concern and Obama understands that better than anyone. Even if he had heard it before, the impact of the preacher's illogical, unreasoned and just plain crazy contentions that the U.S. government deliberately spread the AIDS virus to wipe out the world's black population shook up the candidate probably as few other experiences in his journey toward becoming the first African American to win a major party's presidential nomination.

Add to that Wright's claims about the importance in the 20th and 21st centuries of black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan, whose racist views including anti Semitism are well known, and the possibility of severe political fallout for Obama is obvious. That is especially true in Indiana where next week's close primary may be more crucial to his hopes than expected. The state has large rural and blue-collar union populations, two voting blocs that have been showing the most uncertainty about his campaign. Sen. Hillary Clinton has displayed a new resilience in both Indiana and North Carolina.

Some Obama supporters reportedly tried to pass off Wright's intemperance as a conspiracy engineered by the senator's opponents to deliberately derail his congregant's chances. Stories surfaced blaming the National Press Club appearance on a Clinton backer who allegedly arranged the invitation. What a mess. But it is one that Obama might have avoided had he used better judgment about Wright much earlier.

Americans can be generous in their refusal to blame someone for the remarks of another, but associations also can be revealing, particularly in the area of judgment. The fact that so very little is known about Obama has added to his problem. Voters seem to have difficulty giving him the benefit of the doubt in this case, their doubts exacerbated by his own lack of candor about how much he was aware of Wright's opinions expressed in sermon after sermon in a church Obama attended regularly.

The Illinois senator's failure to break with Wright sooner is now threatening his chances. He remains the favorite to win the right to take on Republican Sen. John McCain in the general election. But concerns appear to be mounting about whether he can win that race given his lack of viability among some major portions of the party's traditional base of voters. Those worries are growing among the super delegates to the Democratic National Convention who may ultimately decide the outcome.

Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/361397_thomassononline02.html

[Decker]

Guilt by association?  That's a mischaracterization.  I don't believe that Obama necessarily shares Wright's ridiculous views.  Saying Obama believes what Wright believes would be guilt by association.  The issue is this:  why was the man in Obama's ear for 20 years?

The issue is "why was the man ASSOCIATED with Obama for 20 years."

What is the unspoken assumption in that issue?  It's this: the two men must share commonalities of thought to be associated for 20 years--goddam the USA.

Bush did what he thought was right.  He did what all those evil Democrats in Congress told him to do:  disarm Saddam.  But that's a red herring.  (Sorry to use that tired phrase again.  Where is cap86 when you need him? 

Is Bush a man of his own moral conviction, or was he a puppet of the Republican led Congress? 

Sure many of the democrats jumped on board after being misled by the president about Iraq's WMDs, but they were opportunistic fools.

For all your talk about morality Beach Bum, you certainly don't recognize the immoral killings that continue to this day in Iraq, do you?

You musn't, b/c you asked me to get over it.  And I can't do that sir.  Murder is still murder.

[Dos Equis]

The issue is "why was the man ASSOCIATED with Obama for 20 years."

What is the unspoken assumption in that issue?  It's this: the two men must share commonalities of thought to be associated for 20 years--goddam the USA.

Is Bush a man of his own moral conviction, or was he a puppet of the Republican led Congress? 

Sure many of the democrats jumped on board after being misled by the president about Iraq's WMDs, but they were opportunistic fools.

For all your talk about morality Beach Bum, you certainly don't recognize the immoral killings that continue to this day in Iraq, do you?

You musn't, b/c you asked me to get over it.  And I can't do that sir.  Murder is still murder.

No, the issue is judgment.

On this war thing, I agree with all those Democrats who said we needed to disarm Saddam.  Like these two men who wanted to be president:

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

The war isn't immoral.  The war isn't illegal.  Yes you need to get over it. 

[240 is Back]

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

What happened in late 2002/early 2003?

We finally got the UN inspections that Gore/Kerry had been demanding.

And the UN teams found zilch.



BB, you continually post 1998-2002 quotes from dems.  They wanted a un investigation into WMD, and they got it.  Bush didn't like the answer so he invaded anyway.

God, you are a stupid man.