Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ RC
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you are still here, I'll take a stab at providing examples of Obama's poor judgment
Thank you.
First, In Obama's eloquent speech on race he described the views of Rev. Wright using the following terms
profoundly distorted view of this country
not only wrong but divisive
To me that leaves only two possibilities to explain his 20 year association
either 1. He lied. That is, he doesn't believe the views are wrong but is merely saying that to pander to the electorate.... or
I'm inclined to believe this was basically a pander, which is to say, he's adopting a mainstream perspective here according to which the views in question were "wrong." In reality, I think he believes the views were complex and can be explained contextually, broadly, as a function of legitimate black anger. I don't think he thinks of them as right or wrong, but rather both, depending on one's point of view.
2. He really does believe it and yet chose to subject his two young daughters to wrong, divisive, and distorted views, which shows very poor parental judgment.
This I don't see at all. First of all, are we presuming that the sum total of their experience in this church was "wrong and divisive" sermons? This is very hard to believe.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that 20% of the sermons were "wrong and divisive" but the rest were uplifting, edifying, insightful, whatever.
Why is it poor judgment to expose your children to both? I have children and I don't shield them from things, but rather discuss all sorts of things with them.
Who in the hell do you think you are to presume to know what sort of relationship Obama has with his children?
Are you honestly trying to argue that hearing a sermon like the one in question necessarily constitutes some sort of negligence? Because I think that's preposterous.
Frankly, I think passive exposure of children to commercial television is far more negligent, but that's my opinion.
Secondly, William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn are unrepentent domestic terrorists who not only attempted to set bombs but actually did and people were killed. The only reason they are not currently imprisoned is because our ultra-liberal criminal justice system let them off on technicalities. Whether you agree or disagree that they should be in jail, the fact remains that they did play a role in bombing American targets resulting in deaths. As POTUS, Obama would have to swear to defend the US against all threats, foreign AND DOMESTIC, yet he has no problem associating with domestic terrorists.
They're former terrorists, if that makes a difference to you.
In order to launch his political career he actively sought their imprimatur without hesitation.
Do you know this to be the case? Did he, in fact do this? How do you know he didn't hesitate?
There is legitimate concern that he might harbor similar casual attitudes towards foreign terrorists. His chief foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has claimed "credit" for creating the mujahideen in order to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, another indication of Obama's attitude toward terrorism.
Wait, now your argument is falling apart. You're connecting Obama's association with former terrorists in one very specific context (the University of Chicago community, basically) with his attitude towards overseas terrorists?
The mujahideen? Brzezinski? I thought we were talking about Obama's judgment in choosing to associate with Ayers and Dorn? Now we're talking about his foreign policy inclinations?
There's no connection here, unless your argument is that Obama is attracted to terrorists and just as he's attracted to Ayers, so too is he likely to get cozy with Bin Laden because these are the kinds of people he digs. You're not arguing that, are you?
And, btw, dismissing someone's arguments as "superstitious nonsense" does not qualify as a legitimate rebuttal or rational discourse.
I wasn't dismissing anyone's arguments, I was pointing out that in fact no arguments had been made, only empty polemic in the guise of argument. They're not the same thing. I called it "superstitious nonsense" because it was polemic masquerading as reasoned discourse.
-
@ RC
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And btw, lest we lose sight of what I think is the real question at stake here, even if we grant your points that Obama has exercised poor judgment in the examples you put forth, we still have to demonstrate that those decisions are somehow predictive of the decisions he'll make as president, right?
I mean, isn't that the point? That if his judgment is proven to be faulty, it undermines his claim that he'll be a judicious president, right?
So the question still remains, is there a real comparison to be drawn between the kinds of judgments you adduce and the ones he'll be called upon to make as president?
For argument's sake, let's say he was a negligent parent in exposing his daughters to Wright's church. How would this sort of negligence be germane to the exercise of his duties as president?
This is what I mean about developing the argument. Play it out to the end to see if it's of consequence or not.