Crossposted from Flopping Aces

Why Rev. Wright did what he did!

REV-ENGE IS SWEET FOR ‘BETRAYED’ PASTOR
By FREDRIC U. DICKER
New York Post
April 30, 2008

ALBANY - The Rev. Jeremiah Wright would be happy to see Barack Obama’s presidential campaign derailed because the pastor is fuming that his former congregant has “betrayed” their 20-year relationship,

The Post has learned. “After 20 years of loving Barack like he was a member of his own family, for Jeremiah to see Barack saying over and over that he didn’t know about Jeremiah’s views during those years, that he wasn’t familiar with what Jeremiah had said, that he may have missed church on this day or that and didn’t hear what Jeremiah said, this is seen by Jeremiah as nonsense and betrayal,” said the source, who has deep roots in Wright’s Chicago community and is familiar with his thinking on the matter.

“Jeremiah is trying to defend his congregation and the work of his ministry by saying what he is saying now,” the source added.

“Jeremiah doesn’t care if he derails Obama’s candidacy or not . . . He knows what he’s doing. Obviously, he’s not a dumb man. He knows he’s not helping.”

The source spoke yesterday about Wright’s motivation for thrusting himself back into the news, the day after the pastor appeared at the National Press Club on Monday and embarrassed Obama by accusing the United States of terrorism.

Wright has said the reason he has begun granting interviews and making public appearances now is that he wants to defend black churches.

But the source said the preacher’s motivation is much more personal.

The source noted that the roots of Wright’s disillusionment with Obama began last year after the Illinois senator unexpectedly yanked him from participating in the public announcement of his presidential campaign.

“That’s why Jeremiah revealed . . . that he had actually been at the [announcement] hotel and prayed privately with the Obama family before the official declaration,” the source told The Post.

“Rev. Wright, as well as other senior members of his church, believe that Obama has betrayed over 20 years of their supposed friendship.”

Obama further angered Wright by trying to distance himself from the pastor ever since videos were made public earlier this year of the preacher alleging that America brought 9/11 upon itself and that people should say “God damn America,” not “God bless America.”

The source added, “After 20 years of loving Barack like he is one of their own, after he was embraced by this congregation as a brother in Christ, after his pastor was a father figure to him and gave him credibility in a city he had not grown up in and in a black community that was suspect of someone from Hawaii and Harvard, he thanks him by not allowing him to speak publicly at his announcement last year?

“A lot of people in the church believe they were there for this man when no one else was, and a lot of people don’t believe it any more when Obama claims he loves the man who did so much for him,” the source added.

Meanwhile, political pro Dick Morris penned a new column yesterday exclaiming that Obama’s latest denouncement of Wright was a good move politically. Morris said: “Obama moved decisively and well to seize the opportunity that the Rev. Wright’s wrongs pose.”

But in doing so, Obama reinforced the image which has taken hold in the flap over Rev. Wright that Obama is just another politician. And one that will disown anyone who stands in his way.

Again, I’m reminded of the words Obama spoke in that much lauded speech in Philadelphia when he first attempted to put the Wright controversy behind him: “I can no more disown him [Rev. Wright] than I can disown the black community.”

Has Obama now disowned the black community?

also:

The Democrat Anti-McCain Ads

FactCheck does a good job dissecting the two new DNC ads that target John McCain. The first one:

FactCheck notes that this whole ad clearly implies that if McCain is elected we will be at war in Iraq for decades to come. Of course they cut off the most relevant part of what McCain said:

Maybe a hundred. … We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world.

“As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” Peace time. And no mention in the ad of this context. Shocked?

FactCheck notes that Howard Dean said recently that they don’t mean anything by it. Just that they don’t think we should be in Iraq for a 100 years either way. He also stated that no one believes our troops could stay in Iraq for a 100 years without someone attacking them.

Tell that to Japan and Germany.

FactCheck:

Dean is correct in one sense. His ad doesn’t say in so many words that McCain is “going to be at war for a hundred years.” But by juxtaposing McCain’s words with dramatic, violent images of war, it clearly leaves that impression.

It’s one thing to argue, as Dean does, that McCain’s position is a recipe for continued violence and bloodshed, whatever his stated intent. But it is another thing to misrepresent that intent. The ad twists the sense of McCain’s words by showing images of war, when he was really talking about a peaceful troop presence. Imagine how different the ad would seem if it showed images of, say, American troops walking the streets of Tokyo or Seoul and had included what McCain said about “Americans … not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”

The second video below:
[flv:pres_dnc_betteroffwmv.flv 400 300]

While McCain says “a lot of jobs have been created,” the ad shows a graphic that states, “1.8 million jobs lost.” McCain is correct and the ad is wrong. Total nonfarm employment was nearly 5.4 million higher last month than it was when President Bush took office in January 2001, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That’s the standard measure of jobs, and it means 5.4 million have been created.

The DNC defends its claim of “jobs lost” by pointing to the total number of persons who were without jobs in March. That figure is 1.8 million higher than it was when Bush was sworn in. But it doesn’t mean that many jobs were lost, it means that the job gain didn’t keep pace with the number of persons who are seeking work. The ad would have been correct to say that there are “1.8 million more unemployed.” That stark statistic doesn’t contradict McCain’s statement that lots of jobs were created, however. It means not enough were created to satisfy the need.

They also note that gas prices are NOT up 200 percent, rather 139. The DNC accomplishes this math by using a start date of Dec 3, 2001….long after Bush took office. Since the day he took office its 139 percent. A bit of fudging going on there.

The ad also doesn’t put into context the unemployment rate. While it did rise from 4.2% to 5.1% since Bush took office, McCain is completely right that unemployment is low with an average rate of 5.6% since 1948.

Expect to see much more of this kind of fudging, skewing, and omitting in the months to come as the General heats up.