63 Comments - so-called "Austin Mayor" - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 9:34 am: Rich, And it fails the test of basic arithmetic: There are so few actual anti-American Americans that the odds of an anti-patriot gaining the nomination of one of the Big Two parties is statistically insignificant. Jackasses, by contrast, are a different story. The country is crawling with jackasses. – SCAM so-called “Austin Mayor” http://austinmayor.blogspot.com - OneMan - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 9:57 am: Because it is much easier to get folks in a lather about something like that then a real issue. Lowest common denominator, got to love it. - wordslinger - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:01 am: Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. Lack of overt patriotism is often the fatal mistake of liberals. National Democrats have to defend themselves now because for so long they wouldn’t. Starting in the 60s, it was popular among the Radical Chic of the national left to point out America’s challenges as evidence of rot. The enormous success of turn-of-the-century progressives and Roosevelt/Truman liberals was disdained. Patriotism was not cool. The first to cash in was Nixon, who won a squeaker in ‘68 and a landslide in ‘72. After the Watergate/Carter aberration, came the Reagan Democrats. Reagan picked up the club of patriotism and used it to beat the Democratic Party like a rented mule. Clinton could connect with the Reagan Democrats. Gore could to a lesser extent. Dukakis and Kerry could not. It still amazes me that Kerry, a Vietnam volunteer, allowed himself to be outflanked on patriotism and courage by a a couple of draft dodgers like Bush and Cheney. It remains to be seen for Obama. Work on that bowling game. - Levois - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:08 am: To be sure I’m tired of it myself. Beside there are many ways of loving America. For some not questioning America is loving America. That’s a problem. - Bizaar Local Discourse Too - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:08 am: Rich, Generally I agree with the patriotism aspect of your position, and some of what you suggest here, but I don’t agree completely. The utterrances of candidates, elected officials, and other public figures, whether elected, appointed or high or low profile celebrities become overly scrutinized due to the attention paid to them most often by the media. Isolated remarks may be just that, but a reasonably consistent number of them woven together can reveal underlying beliefs and sentiments that are otherwise masked by a more polished approach to public speaking. These would easily be diffused by a more heightened awareness that someone is almost always listening. What appear to be isolated remarks however can also represent a “Freudian slip” in terms of an underlying sub-concious belief bubbling over the surface in a less “guarded” moment. Some people; I think political figures especailly (although they are getting better) make the mistake of believing that there is a such a thing as a “safe” audience where they can occasionally “let their guard down”, and they will let something slip out in front of one group, that they would never dare utter in front of another. Sometimes this comes in the form of an off color joke, or an ill conceived attempt at humor without considering the potential consequences if someone in the audience (let alone well beyond) fails to see the humor. I think this stems from the misconception that candidates and elected officials are always in a “room full of supporters”. They sometimes fail to recognize or remember that some people are there only because they have to be, and others may be there specifically to try to pick up on something that would be presumed gospel to one group and perhaps blasphemy in front of another group that also makes up the electorate for a candidate or officeholder.Sometimes these are members of the paid media, and otherwise they are just political opponents looking to capitalize on a comment that would not be as readily accepted by a different audience, for whom it was not intended. As you know technology is also such now that much of what would often sometimes never have even been reported on however can now be put up on Youtube and travel across the country and around the world literally within minutes of the words being spoken. People are far less forgiving these days even in simple cases of someone using a poor choice of words to make an otherwise non-controversial point. Due to the advanced technology as well, a far broader audience is afforded an opportunity to determine for themselves whether the perpretrator was “mis-quoted”, or “mis-spoke”, or whether the comments were made light heartedly, or if a tone of sincerity might also exist. Politicians, public figures and celebrities would all be far better suited to be a person of fewer words, and words that are chosen far more carefully, no matter who the presumed audience is, - Plutocrat03 - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:24 am: It is the nature of our media to run with the most salacious headline we can find. Just look at how the headlines compare to the body of the stories in the printed media, or how the teasers compare to the story in the radio/TV slots. Where other than the media will the public get their information? Part of the issue with BO’s campaign is that fact that he has been running as a cypher, with a generally nebulous message on what his vision is for the future. That along with is relative lack of national experience makes some people want to fill in the blanks on their own. I believe that most voters nationally know what they are getting when they consider HRC or JM. They have both spent a lot of time on the public stage and have a record to stand on in general. A great part of BO’s appeal is is promise that he not a continuation of politics as usual. BO, has done little in the US Senate to distinguish himself in the year that was spent not running for president, so it is natural for people to want to know whether his is what he says he is. His record as a state legislator, relationship with the Democratic leadership in Cook County, and the State, who he has elected to spend time with all are fair game when the voters have to make a decision whether he is to be a leader in the country. So many questions related to who he will select to actually do the job of President remain unanswered. The reality of being president is that you have to rely on your appointees and their integrity to define the success of your administration. Who will BO pick? If he chooses people who are from the politics as usual camp, then nothing will change. If he selects untested or unknown characters, they can be either wildly successful, or spectacular failures. - Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:25 am: Plutocrat03, many good points. However, none of them address my concern. - Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:30 am: Bizaar has some good points. The camera is always on, and nothing is off the record anymore. The flip side of this is that every human being has real and perceived flaws that can be detected with a microscopic examination, and after awhile there are so many of these that are dug up and paraded that they all lose their shock value. Heck, Obama’s Bill Ayers connection (which would’ve been a stopper in the Nixon/McGovern era) has not caused much of a blip in 2008. Maybe because time fades memories, but maybe because it’s just one more clip of background noise. - Bud Man - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:38 am: I agree that this gets out of hand. However, the problem Obama has is its not one, two, or even three instances. He refused to wear the flag pin (not a big deal in itself), he didn’t put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem (a very big deal in my humble opinion), his wife says she is just now proud of America (even though she was a Princeton and a Harvard grad), and he had a pastor for 20 years that says vile and hateful things about whites and the nation as a whole. Add to this some troubling statements in his books and his view that American foreign policy is inherently bad, and you have a very troubling PATTERN that leads one to question whether or not he really does love the US as others who have run for this office obviously have. This is a very legitimate question and unfortunetly, Obama brought it upon himself. He just thinks that he is so smart, he doesn’t have to wear the lapel pin and he doesn’t have to put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. BTW, it is federal law that men witout hats must put their hand over their heart during the anthem. Watch a ballgame some time and observe how many thousands of people follow this obvious rule of etiquette. But Obama knows best and he doesn;t have to put his hand over his heart. That is why this is and will continue to be an issue. The Repubs used this against Kerry very efectively, and he didn’t even deserve it. Obama has brought this upon himself and he will pay for his arrogance down the road. He need to remember that he is running to represent all Americans, not just those few who identify with the leftward wingnuts. - Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:41 am: ===This is a very legitimate question=== No, it isn’t. Why would he spend so much time and effort and everything else it takes to run for president if he hates America? C’mon. - Dirt Guy - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:54 am: Perhaps the media gets goofy because of the length of the campaign season. Here we are, 14 months of campaigning behind us with 6 MORE months to go. By this time there is not much to discuss about any candidate. The carcasses has been picked clean to the bone, but deadlines have to be met. What’s left to talk about but the silly stuff? - Wumpus - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:58 am: Even if they hate America (I’m looking at you Obama!), perhaps he is wanting to change it for the better. With him, given his wife’s and pastors comments, it wil be more of a feeding frenzy. Your problem is trying to understand it. Pat Fitz for Senate! - chiatty - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 10:59 am: The country’s political elite is chock full of phony patriots, starting with Bush and Cheney. They are only too happy to send our men and women to their deaths in order to pursue their messianic or politically maniacal goals, but neither was willing to really serve their country. My other pet peeve here are the politicians who passed the Patriot Act. There is no patriotism in removing our civil liberties by pushing the fear button. That is shameless. Obama is a patriot, because he loves this country and he is willing to sacrifice to serve. Yes, it is a sacrifice to serve as an elected official. - Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:01 am: chiatty, you proved my point. If someone doesn’t agree with your version of patriotism or love of country, then they hate their country. Ridiculous. - Ghost - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:12 am: The logic of these arguments tends to be: I beleive in issue X. If you do not beleive in issue x then you hate America (or gays, or minorities or whatever). This idea has pervaded many debates it is one of the biggest debate red herrings we have unfortunetly embraced. Yes Obama does not agree with certain decisions of the Govt or would have made different decisions, but those differecnes are not unpatriotic, just the opposite, it is the cornerstone of free speech and the diversity of ideas we have built our nation upon. The truly unamerican act is to proclaim that somone who has expressed a different idea is somehow unamerican. Anyone who disagree with my post is just Unamerican. - Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:13 am: lol - the Other Anonymous - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:16 am: Rich wrote: I can’t understand why we have to debate every four years whether major party candidates for president are patriotic or not. It just seems plain silly that anyone even considers the possibillity that a frontrunner candidate is somehow a dangerous anti-American. Nothing to add — it just bears repeating. - anon - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:21 am: “No, it isn’t. Why would he spend so much time and effort and everything else it takes to run for president if he hates America? C’mon.” He is not defending himself from having said he “hates” America, something he has never said. He is saying that he loves America. He doing what a concerned parent does. Sometimes a child misunderstands a criticism as a personal attack. the parent then tries to emphasize that it is not the child, but some of the child’s behavior that is objectionable. People running for president or any other office, do not run for love, or to prove love, unless it is the love of power. Obama, like other candidates, is only emphasizing that he is part of a solution and not the problem, or part of a problem. I would suggest that politics, whether familial, local, or national, is no goofier at any level than the humans who employ it or report on it. Not to worry, Obama will prevail. - fan of Capitol Fax - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:22 am: This is not just some grandstanding political enemies clubbing someone over not wearing a flag pin and to suggest that it is so is just cocooning onesself. Obama is not just “affiliated” or “supported” by Pastor Wright. Obama is the one who has made it absolutley clear that Wright was an enormous influence on him (20 years attendance baptised children, inspired his book “audacity of hope” etc.) Like wise Wright’s speeches some of his defenders, including Barack, are saying were “cherry picked” were not cherry picked by Barack’s opportunistic opponents but selected by the church and marketed to parishioners and potential parishioners. He is being attacked as not being patriotic because the ideology being forcefully propagated by Wright and his church(not just implied or interpreted or misinterpreted)is plainly, articulately, completely unambiguously unpatriotic (if accusing the govt. of spreading aids, conspiring in the bombing of pearl harbor etc. could somehow be wrote off as moments of hyperbole just check out the basis of the ideology, or theology: it is unapologetically anti American in a very thoughtful and sophisticated way). Many on the left (and far right in some instances)believe in the Zionists/White power structure are ruing the world/enemy of progress/opressing persons of color etc. I am not, by the way voicing an opinion on the merits of this ideology/faction. That is a much longer discussion. But to pretend there is something ridiculous or superficial or even unfair going on by highlighting the STATED vigorously argued points of view of the church and its long time parishioners and supporters is in my opinion an enormous mistake. If Barack is going to win he needs to do more than just say “oh my opponenets are smearing me for being unpatriotic because I attended Trinity for twenty years and my pastor from a different generation makes off color remarks.” That won’t cut it IMO becuase it is fundamentally disingenuous and in a presidential campaign it won’t stand up to the scrutiny. This is the big time and if Barack really means to be President of the most powerful, wealthiest, insert your own adjective here, country of the world it will take alot more than “this is the same old opportunistic jingoistic you don’t love America as much as me” line. It isn’t. Trinity’s ideology/philosohpy, theology is fundamentally more “toxic” in its outright attack on the America’s institutions than Dukakis’ or Kerry’s soft left stances which were portrayed as unpatriotic. I would like to see Barack not lose the election (or nomination) because of his affiliation w/Trinity. I know alot of people who attend Black churches (though not Trinity specifically) and I think that one’s place of worship is not a good predictor of how one would support America or function as President. I think it is an outlier of sorts (that is my friends who attend charismatic churches or the like where alot of stuff goes down that would appear outrageous to much of america does not translate into how they perform their jobs, make friends etc. or at least not in a negative way per my experience.) But this self righteous harrumphing that the “unpatriotic” criticism of Trinity and its parishioners (including Barack) is jingoistic claptrap is delusional. It is substantive criticism and will have to be addressed in a clear (that is unambiguous)manner that it has not been yet. Personally I think he will have to make a break. - Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:25 am: This is not about a single candidate, nor about political tactics. It’s about the absolutely ridiculous notion that Obama, McCain, Bush, Kerry, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc, etc., etc.. hate their country, and how this bizarre “debate” has infected our national discourse. - Anon - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:51 am: Oh, PUL-EEEZE! This sort of thing has been going on in the good ol’ USA since the election of 1800. Half the newspapers in the country called Jefferson a “traitor” in print. The stuff you see today is actually tame when compared to the past. Get over it. - Ghost - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:53 am: Anon, I am not sure Stare decisis should apply to stupidity, its probably a good idea to examine the way we digest news and consider that certain often used idyions should be abandoned. Some might even consider that to be social growth. The other way leads only to lemmings and cliffs… - I Want My GOP - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:54 am: It’s news for people who don’t watch the news. These are the issues that matter to people in this country, bless their ignorant hearts. - Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:55 am: I’m with Ghost. Using the past to justify the present is not always desirable, including with this topic. - anon - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:58 am: I would say that any Illinois state legislator certainly loves power more that he or she loves Illinois (a hyberbole that means the citizens of Illinois), or even her/his district. Call me cynical, but if Obama (or any candidate) has to explicitly state that he loves America (a hyperbole that means the citizens of America), who could blame the citizenry for not wanting to hear it?If a candidate were being forthright, he or she would say that it power that is driving the quest for office. Is there anything wrong with that motivation? I don’t know, but it is the only motivation that wins. Saying you “love” the country is just meeting an expectation of the electorate who, even though it has very little power outside the voting booth, at least can feel loved. - Plutocrat03 - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:02 pm: Rich, I agree with your basic premise. Criticism of patriotism is an empty argument. As far as BO is concerned, this is damage control. BO has to beat the patriotism drum because of the damaging comments made by Rev. Wright and his wife Michelle, (….I was never proud to be an American before….) In the fight for the middle, he cannot afford to be associated with negative comments about America. It also goes to my first point. The easy comparison is to question someone’s patriotism, even though no one really can completely define patriotism. Simply part of a FUD attack (Fear, uncertainty and doubt) As other readers have pointed out, some define patriotism by not questioning the government, others define it by questioning the government. There simply is no consensus as to what patriotism is. Empty arguments are made on many issues. Ending poverty, proper health care, mortgage bailout….. everyone can easily agree that these are good things, but defining what they are and how to achieve them. However as in the patriotism issue, it is simply a method of attack on the opposing candidate. Ultimately, the media has an awful lot of power in controlling the debate by simply ignoring the empty charges and pursuing the meat of the matter. Charges that are not covered in the media will not be repeated since all candidate statements are crafted for a purpose. - chiatty - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:06 pm: Rich, I’m always happy to help! I just don’t think that it is patriotic to remove civil liberties in order to fulfill one’s political or religious vision. It may be a lot of things, but it isn’t patriotic. In terms of Bush and Cheney, I am not saying that they aren’t patriotic, I’m just saying that they are hypocrites because they were very assiduous in avoiding service for their country. I’m sure Bush and Cheney love this country and are patriots, but they are hypocritical patriots, IMHO. - fan of Capitol Fax - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:07 pm: Rich, I respectfully disagree. Barack’s church clearly states that it considers all traditional American institutions to be fundamentally evil(the military to the all of the branches of government, to its leaders past and present, from the beginning of the founding of the United States of America to the present). It also btw declares its parishioners should place their loyalty first and formost to the continent of Africa. It states this clearly and in a heartfelt manner. No other president of the USA has ever been a parishioner of a church (and an involved long term one at that)that feels and believes so vociferously in the inherent wrongness of America (again to the point where it is a civilization that purposefully spreads aids to oppress AAs, etc.) The fact is Barack belongs and has belonged to a church that does in fact hate America at least in some real substantive sense. It is hardly ridiculous to believe that a candidate, ANY candidate, who belonged to such an organization would like wise “hate” America. It is on Barack to demonstrate he does not. So far, as silly as it may seem to you, he has not done enough to disavow the organization that he belonged to for 20 years that does is loud strident terms “hate” in a substantive sense, America. To say that he wants to serve the country as president innoculates him from this or demonstratively shows he loves America(or would innoculate ANY candidate with a similar association)is missing the point that this is a unique situation not seen before. hence: not ridiculous but fairly mundane. - zatoichi - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:25 pm: How many hours do the major media outlets have to fill with some type of blathery analysis. Between CNN, MSNBC, CBN, FOX, CNBC, the political talk shows on the major networks, news columns, and hundreds of talking heads (lib and conserve) on radio, they have got to fill their time/paper with something. The most minor issue gets blown into huge 3-4 hour rants to get ratings or simply to be referenced by some other group to show the validity of a “talking point”. Add on the simple fact of how much of what a candidate says or does gets recorded somewhere and can be used later in some fashion. Letterman’s Great Moments in Presidential Speech spot’s are right on the money. Find some snippet and place it into some type of context even if you gotta make up the context. Do candidates some goofy stuff and add to their own problem? Sure. Can they be inconsistent? Apparently, since so many “professionals” are working to find patterns where the speaker is not 100% on point and there is a need to explain how a 15 second sound bite will mean the ruin of the country. I need to leave for lunch at the local bowling alley to work on my game, but the sniper fire will likely keep us pinned down until afternoon break. Wonder when someone will complain about a cologne that is not American enough or shoes made in Italy? - Kevin Fanning - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:25 pm: Fan, First, I’d like to see this oath to Africa that all the parishioners have to take. Second, he’s already come out and spoken on the issue. The major speech that he gave on race was lauded by both the right and the left. Paraphrasing what he said, he doesn’t agree with everything his pastor has said. Just like many Catholics don’t agree with everything the Pope says. Like his white grandmother who often made crude remarks about blacks, his pastor, who is also a part of his life, cannot be condemned. The guy is also a former marine. I guess he hated his country so much that he decided to serve in one of it’s highest military branches. Finally, Frederick Douglas said that “a true patriot is a lover of his country but someone who rebukes and does not excuse its sins.” It’s easy for someone to come out with a flag lapel and talk about how much they love their country, but it takes a lot more courage to talk about uncomfortable issues like race relations, and serious wrongs by this country. - ChampaignDweller - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:36 pm: I agree with most of what Bud Man said and to answer your question, I think that Obama isn’t a fan of present day America, and is running to mold it to his own rather Marxist/Socialist view, hence is reliance on change as a theme. - Anonymous - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:43 pm: I’m surprised nobody has commented on Schakowsky’s play for Obama’s senate seat. A question I have is: Why does it seem to be set in stone since Obama was elected that BOTH Illinois senators have to be noticably left of center in political action and philosophy? I still maintain that Illinois remains an essentially moderate state (there is really little substantial difference between “moderate” Republicans and “conservative”-”moderate” Democrats. Why must it always be one extreme or the other when it comes to our senators? Why can’t the MAJORITY of the voters in this state have some representation for once? You know, most people I know (from many parts of this state) don’t rank stands on abortion, school prayer, gay marriage and gun control as their number one priority in choosing a candidate for office. While most have opinions, it is really only the extreme left and extreme right who make these and other social issues their top priority. The righties and lefties also have no room for compromise on most issues; it’s “my way or the highway” to them. With Durbin being probably the most liberal senator in the senate today (with Obama not far behind), we need a counterbalance to that for our state. And I don’t mean a “moral majority” type of person, either. - fan of Capitol Fax - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 12:54 pm: Kevin, Maybe that works. (the Africa thing is part of the “black liberation” school of theology. to see an interesting take on this: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html) I guess the point of contention may be: Barack clearly does not “hate” America even if the church he goes to espouses a philosophy which in at least some ways (and arguably comprehensively) does in fact hate America. I don’t think Barack “hates” America. But his not casual affiliation but strong, long lasting participation in a church which espouses an ideology that hyperbolically attacks America, and demonizes many segments of our society is unique I think in American history and makes it not only unreasonable or “bizarre” to question whether or not the candidate “hates” America but makes it incumbent on the candidate to demonstrate does not. The example you cite (prejudices of white grandmother = prejudices of Rev. Wright)is disingenuous and therefor not exculpatory for Barack. Rev. Wrights is expressing a clearly thought out ideology, not making crank statements when he is stressed out. Scrutinizing that comparison shows there is only a very superficial point to be made comparing the two. I don’t think he can be elected without forcefully rejecting not just embarrasing quotes but the underlying ideology that Rev. Wright and Trinity is unquestionably and unapologetically a believer in. I am afraid it is Rev Wright, Cone and the Black Liberation school of theology that is bizarre not questioning the patriotism of someone who attended a church espousing such. - jaundiced eye - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 1:47 pm: Anon 12:43, thank you for bringing up Schakowsky and any senatorial role. She is my congressional representative and an increasingly annoying strident public figure. If chosen to fill a senatorial seat, she would never win election to the senate on a statewide basis. - Ghost - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 1:52 pm: fan of Capitol Fax are you kidding? Are you seriously arguing that anyone who criticises the way certain decisions in our contry have been made is unamerican? Thenk again JFK challenegd the course of America and used his unamerican idea’s of avoiding nuclear war to reach an unamerican solution to the cuban missle cirsis after his unamerican ways got him elected president. Of course we are not actually discussin Obamas ideas, but the ideas of a pastor at a church who was invoking the idea that our government had made bad decisions? Demonizing segemnets of our society? which segments? you mean those who disagree with whomever is speaking. We had this odd idea about america, freedom. We are supposed to be free to express goofy and controversial ideas, such as the KKK’s freedom to espouse their viewpoint. once kind of America do we live in where only ideas that conform wit populist senitment are american, everyone else is unamerican. Did you learn nothing from McCarthy? Freedom, true freedom, means all ideas expressed by members of our country are american ideas. We may disagree with the idea, but it is not unamerican. technically I suppose the only unamerican thing is to suggest changes to the Constitution of the United States. After all, it is technically what is America. So those seeking to change or ammend it to prohibit same sex marriage etc are by act unamerican. I have yet to see this monicker applied to such groups by the ones we label Obama as such. But then again, what kind of crazy world would this be if we could all express and interchaneg ideas freely. We need somthing to make sure only pre-approved amaerican ideas are discussed, then anything else thats not pre-approved could result in cencership or exectuion. To think all this time, China had the most american form of Govt…. - Anonymous - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 1:57 pm: If you think Rev. Wright’s “damn America” speech was harsh, pick up your Bible and read some of the Old Testament prophets like Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc. They denounced the kings and religious authorities of ancient Israel in very graphic terms — for example, calling Israel a “harlot” cheating on her spouse (God) with every pagan god she could get her hands on, so to speak. Many of them were branded “unpatriotic” for pointing that out, and some paid with their lives. Whatever one thinks of Rev. Wright’s teachings and opinions (and they are very seriously questionable in many ways), my point is that he is not the first, nor will he be the last, preacher in the Judeo-Christian tradition to denounce the social injustices of his country in extremely harsh terms. - Bud Man - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 2:28 pm: – “No, it isn’t. Why would he spend so much time and effort and everything else it takes to run for president if he hates America? C’mon.” – Rich, why would Rod Blagojevich run for Governor of the state of Illinois if he didn’t care about the people of Illinois? The answer is simply because he’s an arrogant and self-interested man who cares about nothing but his own ambition and ego. My experience with our dear Gov might have made me cynical, I’ll admit. But these experiences have also mad me vigourously question any politician who embraces a vaugue and unstated agenda of “change” and “reform”. Blago has been a disaster for the state, and we all must learn from this and never allow it to happen again, at the local, state, and national levels. And, if he really does “hate” the country, what better way to bring radical change to the nation than to run for President? Whether you like or not, this is an issue for many people in this country. It might not be for you. But you should not have the arrogance to proclaim that this is a non-issue just because you don’t like it. When people see the video of him standing with his hands folded while every other Dem nominee has their hand over their heart, or when they see the bigot that was Obama’s pastor spew hate from the pulpit, people will draw their own conclusions on what his views towards the nation are. Patriotism is a trait that is defined various ways by different people, and that is why BO’s actions have made this an issue. - Plutocrat03 - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 2:35 pm: Gee Kevin, While there were people who fawned over BO speech on race, there was no unanimous acclamation about what was said. I certainly took it as a ‘it not my fault’ speech. I thought that throwing grandma under the bus was very low. He said she was afraid of some black me. I did not see any other mention of crude remarks. Comparing the person who raised you and made sure you were fed and educated to the opportunistic Rev. Wright was an additional insult to this poor woman As far as Catholics who do not agree with the pope, I challenge you to find the Pope extolling the type of hate speech exemplified by Rev. Wright’s snippets. The fact that BO was more disparaging of his grandmothers fears that Rev. Wright’s blatant bigotry speaks volumes. This goes back to my previous post where I pointed out that all this patriotism talk is damage control. Obviously there are people on his payroll who think this is a problem for the center and are using this method to assure them that he is not an extremist. By the way the of the three branches of the military (Army, Navy, Air Force), how do you determine which is the highest? :’) - Kevin Fanning - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 2:36 pm: ===When people see the video of him standing with his hands folded while every other Dem nominee has their hand over their heart…Patriotism is a trait that is defined various ways by different people, and that is why BO’s actions have made this an issue.=== The video that you’re talking about was the singing of the national anthem. The anthem isn’t the pledge of allegiance, so some put their hand over their heart, and some don’t. It’s acceptable both ways. What other “actions” of his have “made this an issue.” Let’s face it, it’s race bating. When Mitt Romney “accidentally” refers to Obama as Osama three times in the same speech, or when Fox News runs “news segments” on how 1 in 10 people still think that Obama is a Muslim, it amounts to nothing more than fear mongering. - Kevin Fanning - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 2:47 pm: Plutocrat, Okay, lots to cover. First, I said “in one of it’s highest military branches.” lol, I wouldn’t dare be the judge of which is the highest, because that would be like walking through a mine field. Second, I don’t think he threw his grandmother under the bus. In his autobiography he explains many moments like these with his grandparents. He wasn’t castigating her, just examining the fact that she grew up in a different time period, and had different experiences. Finally, I agree that the pope hasn’t said anything nearly as inflammatory as what Rev. Wright has said. My point was simply that someone’s religious leader doesn’t automatically speak for them. However, using that same logic you could imply that any Catholic politician must believe that contraception is immoral, and that homosexuality is an abomination. This is America, and just because someone subscribes to a certain faith doesn’t mean that the lose the ability to think for themselves. - Bud Man - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 2:51 pm: Kevin, Federal laws states that when the National Anthem is played, men will stand at attention with their hand over their heart, unless they are wearing a hat, in which case they place their hat over the heart. It’s not acceptable both ways, and “some” people are not running for President. – “When Mitt Romney “accidentally” refers to Obama as Osama three times in the same speech” – What about the time Teddy Kennedy referred to Obama as Osama two or three times in a speech? Was that race-baiting? If you want to accuse a campaign of race-baiting, lok no further than Camp Obama. – “What other “actions” of his have “made this an issue.” – His wife has made serveral statements that lead one to question her views on the country, the lapel pin (in itself, a very minor issue), his asociation with Bill Ayers, several passages in his autobiographies, and the kicker, his pastor. Here is a quote from a WSJ article today. I will not provide a link b/c that seems to be frowned upon. Al Neyman, a 76-year-old from Indianapolis, said that he had been on the fence between the two Democrats until learning about Sen. Obama’s pastor. “To me, HE’S UN-AMERICAN sitting in that church hearing those kinds of things and not leaving,” he says. And another one: Carol Wunsch, 61 of New Albany, Ind., had hoped for a Clinton-Obama ticket until she learned of the Wright relationship, which she says, “scares me to death.” But if he’s the Democratic nominee, she sighs, “I would vote for him, I guess. But I still don’t like him.” - paddyrollingstone - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 3:08 pm: Rich - some of these comments really prove your point! I cannot stand when a person’s patritiotism is questioned like this during election time. I can make the point perfectly clear - I wouldn’t vote for President Bush if you put a gun to my head - but I have no doubts whatsoever that he loves his country. As much as I dislike HRC as a candidate, I know she loves America. To say otherwise is laziness of the highest order. - Kevin Fanning - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 3:35 pm: Bud Man, Specifically that was military code, not law, that meant that US military personnel, in uniform or in civillian clothing had to salute the flag if in uniform and stand with hand over heart and cap removed if in civilian clothing. When this went into effect during WWII the real civilians did not have to do the hand over heart part. Active duty and veterans usually did. Regardless, even if it were “the law” it would be unconstitutional. That’s a violation of your First Amendment rights as enumerated in the Constitution. I did some digging around on the issue, and here is what Obama himself had to say over “the controversy”: “My grandfather taught me how to say the Pledge of Allegiance when I was 2,” Obama said at campaign stop in Burlington, Iowa. “During the Pledge of Allegiance you put your hand over your heart. During the national anthem you sing.” - Bud Man - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 3:45 pm: This is off topic, but very important. Lets try an interesting counter-factual thought experiment. Pretend that tomorrow, a story breaks that McCain has attended David Duke’s church for twenty years. What would happen? He would be denounced as a racist in 10 seconds, everyone (right, left, and center) would call on him to resign, and his political career would be over. He could come out and give a grand speech about how Mr. Duke was “misunderstood” and everyone must look at it in the context of a white man who feels he is oppressed by minorities in this country. He could literally cut and paste segments of “The Speech” talking about white and black resentment, and the press would further demonize him and call him an “unappologetic bigot.” However, St. Barack has essentially the same thing happen to him, and he is still kicking today. When people say this all race baiting, they are implying that the questioners are racists. The double standard is amazing, and until we address it, racial divisions and resentment will only grow deeper. And BTW, how does the press let Obama get away with calling on Imus and Trent Lott to resign, and then appologizing and pleading for understanding for his transparently racist pastor? Obama says, “35 years of sermons”. He didn’t make that same distincition when Imus was on the air for 20+ years and made one misguided remark. Or when Trent Lott served for years and was trying to please a 100 year old man on his birthday. Trent Lott did not say “US of black America” or anything transparently racist. Yet the media firestorm, created in part by BO, led to him resigning from Majority Leader. The hypocricy of BO is so thick you have to cut it with a chainsaw. Not to say HRC or JM are not hypocrytes: but the media calls them on it. It is time for the media to stop chearleading and do their darn job lest we end up with a Blagojevich style politician in the White House. - Anon - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 3:49 pm: My historical precedent was to show that this is an American phenomenon, and goes on all the time. You might as well appeal against the thunderstorm, and all that. I can show you examples from 1800 right through to our “modern”, “advanced”, “enlightended” day, done by Democrats and Republicans, although the Republicans sure appear to be winners of the Nasty Award over the past decade. Plus, if you think that Obama’s supporters have been above this stuff (I do not), just wait. It’s only April. Second, you are all asking the wrong question. The better one is how overblown, off-kilter personalities like Eliot Spitzer and Rod Blagojevich are able to ascend to high office in our political culture. - Bud Man - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 3:55 pm: Kevin, Sorry, but your wrong. This is the U.S.C., not the Code of Military Justice. 36 U.S.C.A. § 301 (a) Designation.–The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem. (b) Conduct during playing.–During a rendition of the national anthem– (1) when the flag is displayed– (A) all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart; (B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and (C) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; and (2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed - Mr. Wizard - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 3:58 pm: While this may be an issue of interest to those of us who analyze (over-analyze?) election campaigns, it doesn’t mean much to the great middle-ground voter, imo. They pay little attention to these charges (of lack of patriotism) and take them for what they are - dirty tactics. Studies show most people vote for tall, attractive candidates that they would be comfortable having dinner with. - The Rookie - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 4:22 pm: Bud Man– That sounds like the military code that you are citing. And Kevin is right, that would be unconstituional for any other people BUT military personnel (who are obligated by the oath he/she swore). If you don’t like a candidate, just say you don’t like ‘em. People should feel comfortable to say they don’t like a candidate just because they DON’T and not need to justify. - Kevin Fanning - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 4:25 pm: Bud Man, And did you know that in Illinois you must contact the police before entering the city in an automobile? Or that another law states that it is illegal to give a dog whiskey. The point is that although it may be a part of “the official flag code” from the ’40s it would be an unconstitutional law either way. It’s socially acceptable to have your hand over your heart, or not, during the national anthem. You choose. - Anon - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 4:33 pm: Wiz, I disagree. The Wright matter in particular is the kind of issue that sways people, particularly undecideds. I suspect that we have not heard the last of the Tony & Barack Show, either, though no gamebreakers are known to be out there. Ask yourself why a Republican has any business at all being tied or ahead in national polls at this point, and (far more importantly) leading polls in several battleground states. It’s stunning, and more a statement on negative views of the Democratic candidates than postive ones about McCain, who has lots of warts of his own. Plus, McCain he is neither tall nor model material, though I can’t say about dinner. - jaundiced eye - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 4:42 pm: I’d be happy if fans just removed their baseball caps during the playing of the National Anthem … and if their girlfriends stayed off their cellphones and stopped chewing gum for those few minutes. Sorry, it’s a generational thing… - Kevin Fanning - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 4:55 pm: Haha, I think that makes sense. - Bud Man - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 5:05 pm: Rook, I don’t like Obama. But I’m not justifying my dislike: I’m debating the merits of using patriotism or lack thereof in a presidential election. That is not the Military Code, it is the US Code. 36 USC 301. Look it up. http://www.thomas.loc.gov Notice how it has seperate provisions for uniformed (not just military) and civilian personnel. That is what me and MANY other Americans were taught. BO was taught something different fine: but expect to pay the price for not observing the traditions of the nation. – “obligated by the oath he/she swore” – Would Obama not be obligated by the oath he took as US Senator? As Rich would say, c’mon. I would argue an oath by a US Senator is much more important than the oath of military personnel! If you like Obama, that’s fine. Just say so, but don’t stretch logic and reason to excuse his actions, which for some reason always need explaining. Kevin, Who cares when it was enacted? Does that mean I can ignore the oath of office becuase it was written decades ago? Maybe President’s should just ignore the provision about placing their hand on the Bible when they take the oath of office. Isn’t that a violation of free speech? Or should I ignore the provision keeping my flag out of the rain b/c it was written decades ago? BTW, it was recodified in 1998, so Congress intended to keep this in the U.S.C. It might be a violation of free speech if there was a crime attached, but there is not, so its not a violation, its just “protocol” for the playing of the anthem. As Obama likes to say, “Even my eight year old knows the difference,” between respecting your flag, the anthem, and everything it stands for, and blatantly disrespecting that flag and all of those who fought and died for it. Any bafoon knows the procedure during the playing of the anthem, and Obama is not an bafoon. He is an exceptionally smart man who is purposefully disrepecting the flag and the anthem to appease his left-wing, “blame America first” constituency. If he wins the primary, expect him to put his hand over his heart during the GE. Mark my words on that. - Kevin Fanning - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 5:14 pm: ===He is an exceptionally smart man who is purposefully disrepecting the flag and the anthem to appease his left-wing, “blame America first” constituency.=== At first I thought you were just giving him gripe over it because you didn’t like the candidate. But then I read that statement, and I see that you actually think there was an intention to “disrespect the flag” in order to appease left wingers. That’s ridiculous. I can talk until I’m blue in the face, but if you really think he intentionally did it to disrespect the county, than there ain’t no changin your mind. So I’ll agree to disagree on this one. Think about this though, maybe politicians are just people? People who don’t do every little action for some grandiose political ploy. Did you ever stop to think that maybe he was telling the truth and was just taught differently? - Bud Man - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 5:30 pm: Kevin, We can respectfully agree to disagree. But, from my experiences, politicians are not normal people. A vast, vast majority are highly ambitous and calculating people who make daily decisions on things like this. Yes, I do believe this was calculated. Obama’s history as a highly calculating poltician reinforces this. I may be wrong, but lets see if he puts his hand over his heart during the GE. If he doesn’t, I will humbily stand corrected. I don’t like the policies and actions of the candidate, not the person himself. I’m sure he’s a nice guy. But he’s a dirty poltician claiming to be a clean one. Look no further than his refusal to acuratly portray McCain’s 100 year comment. Even the Columbia Journalism review said this a blatant distortion of the truth and the media should call BO on it. When confronted, he refused to back down b/c it is such a good sound bite for the uneducated and uninformed to pounce on. Shameless and calculating. He reminds me way too much of Blago (who shamelessly used the deaths of children in the Ryan case to defeat Jim, or who used the “Ryan legacy” line when they weren’t related and hated each other politically), and that is why I am so much against his candidacy. Thanks for the debate. That was a good one!! - Kevin Fanning - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 5:38 pm: That was a good exchange. You learn something new everyday, and I learned that the protocol is actually in the U.S. code. But I’ll end by saying this. While you may think the action was calculated, and that evidence of this would be if he changed to putting his hand over his heart in the GE. I’ll offer this? What if he puts his hand over his heart now because he doesn’t like Sean Hannity talking about it for endless news cycles, and getting the accusation that he hates America? - Bud Man - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 6:02 pm: If he does it tommorrow, I’ll give you that. If he keeps this up through the primary, though, it goes back to being calculating. I could be wrong on this one, and I’ll be the first to admit it if I am wring. At this point, however, I don’t think I am. It just doesn’t make sense to me and I am highly suspicious of BO, more than anything because he is from and learned his craft in Illinois and Chicago politics. I said to Rich a couple of months ago that I don’t know why anyone in this state would want an IL pol in the WH and I got an immediate LOL. I was serious, however. I am suspicious because he learned from the master at calculating: Emil Jones. God help us if he is even half as dirty as a majority of the pols in this state. Thanks again for the great exchange! - Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 6:32 pm: I have been to countless sporting events where the National Anthem was played, and, apparently, those events were populated almost solely with dangerously unpatriotic anti-American lawbreakers. Just sayin’. - JonShibleyFan - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 8:27 pm: ===He is an exceptionally smart man who is purposefully disrepecting the flag and the anthem to appease his left-wing, “blame America first” constituency.=== Kevin has some duty to be diplomatic. I don’t. That statement is idiotic. Partisan tripe. In the age of youtube and the 24-hour news cycle, no candidate in their right mind would willfully disrespect the flag to appease this mythical segment of the population. Seriously, what do you make of this? http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html#violations For those who don’t care to click the link, it shows images of flag violations, including Laura and George Bush standing atop a rug depicting the flag at the Ground Zero site, and Bush taking a sharpie to a flag, among other things. Both clear violations of the federally adopted flag rules. Do these actions make Bush unpatriotic? Is he trying to please a nonexistent base of southerners who would prefer we salute the stars and bars? No. No more than people who continue to festoon their cars, car dealerships, mattress outlets, etc. with the flag are unpatriotic. Just human. Some caught unawares in front of a camera. Some displaying what they feel is patriotism. Get a grip. - The Pug is on the Prowl - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 9:10 pm: i broke the law today…perhaps i ought to face the firing squad… - Snidely Whiplash - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 11:27 pm: Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 7, 08 @ 6:32 pm: I have been to countless sporting events where the National Anthem was played, and, apparently, those events were populated almost solely with dangerously unpatriotic anti-American lawbreakers. Yes, but government officials should at least have the brains to put on a show if they’re disinclined to put their hands on their hearts. To catch a politician not doing it by-the-book for the pledge or the NA is unheard of, until Obama. - JonShibleyFan - Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 6:41 am: To suggest that there is some mythical America-hating wing of the Democratic Party, and Obama’s actions were a tacit wink to them is absurd. I honestly refuse to believe you even believe this. It is pure partisan nonsense. - JonShibleyFan - Tuesday, Apr 8, 08 @ 10:48 am: So, yeah, didn’t see my first post made it. Hence the Readers Digest version in the second. My brain works. Sometimes. Swear. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.