Martin Bashir: Reverend Wright, Hate Porn and Intolerance

This poll thing is new, let me know if you cannot select an answer ;-)

It's amazing that a news network like MSNBC, who wouldn't go near ANYTHING that would negatively impact Obama, would allow Bashir to say these things?

Unless of course, they're doing damage control from all the vetting Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have been doing of Obama as of late.

I was able to vote in the poll just fine. This is neat.

Fun! It worked!

This Bashir "person" is a despicable sort. As are Leftists, in their platform. I'm aware that You lament statements such as this; I never deny The Truth.

There is Evil in our midst; an Evil that will stop at nothing, ridicule and denigrate the decent, and abhor what is good. It cannot be mistaken, nor can it be overlooked.

They believe in everything that they say, and I encourage everyone; take them at their Word.

No Quarter should be asked; nor any, given.

Mark-John, there are despicable people of all political and religious affiliations. No one has a monopoly on moral or ethical behavior. We're all human and subject to inherent conditions of being human. We can mask that with one thing or another, but our biology and psychology will come through at some point.

Thank you! I have a new toy. No lamenting, Mark-John. I appreciate your opinion. I can tell you that I am obviously not fond of Bashir!!

Mark-John, I hope I don't offend you, please clarify if I don't get it.

James, I could be wrong, and Mark-John is entirely capable of speaking for himself, but here is my theory. I liken it to this, James, if I was really cool, but if I was a racist, you most likely would not get past the racist part, no matter how awesome I am in other aspects. Am I making any sense?

"Mark-John, there are despicable people of all political and religious affiliations. No one has a monopoly on moral or ethical behavior." - Thicke One

By GOD, Man, wake up. You do as the Leftist does: straw arguments and obfuscation do not become you. Nor does the twist of Words, and Truth. Take it elsewhere. Renee, make note of the tactic.

Alright, then, I'll have to RE-Spell-it-out:

"This Bashir "person" is a despicable sort. As are Leftists, in their platform."

Next?

You should know despicable, Mark-John. You meet it every morning in your mirror... and yet you pass it on to others, demonstrating thereby that you know nothing at all.

And you open your maw at the most opportune times for me...demonstrating that I do.

Chuck, Mark-John is just pissed that Martin uses the right-wing tone of conversation against them instead of for them. He also uses facts along with opinion. Mark-John and his ilk just can't stand that, so they play victim. Of course, you know all of this...but they can't seem to grasp it.

Which facts, William?

William,

Is this a conscious effort by Bashir to show the right how silly they look when they do exactly what he is doing in this piece? Because he does look quite silly and his "lies" are really not lies. The only "lie" that has any merit at all is his third one, and I would not call that a lie, I would call that carelessness.

Or perhaps you don't want to discuss the content, you would prefer to say "the right does the same thing".

So this really is an unfounded, ridiculous hit piece about Romney and a careful distraction away from serious allegations that Obama tried to bribe Reverend Wright, as it appears to be?

Lib/progs have no problem saying things that are not true or have not been proved. And once they're proved wrong, do they apologize? Of course not.

Thank you, Marilyn. I was trying to think of an example with your statement and I thought about this...If George Zimmerman is found innocent, will Al Sharpton apologize? Will the NBPP apologize, how about the people with Zimmerman targets, etc?

Oh they do. Never I was wrong/lying//exhibiting bigotry/libeling,etc. apologizing, mind.

"If anyone PERCEIVED my comments to be false/racist/slanderous,etc.,I DO apologize..."

You know, you're wrong for IMAGINING any thing that comes out of my mouth should be accepted at face value for the vile spew it is...frankly, you owe ME an apology...

They've gone too far, and the pushback will erase any gains that might have been virtuous. Not long now.

This is a weird one for me Renee. Both sides are invoking religion to discredit the other though with nuanced differences. One invokes doctrine to slander, the other uses the allegations of a preacher to slander, so I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Objectively speaking, the first part....

Bashir directly quotes Romney lying about a commitment Obama is supposed to have made prior to the election and juxtaposes that with passages from his (Romney's) chosen book of faith showing an apparent moral contradiction.

IMO this is direct proof.

The second part....

Refers to an allegation that Rev Wright, told Edward Klein, that Obama said to Wright, ""'I really wish you wouldn't do any more public speaking until after the November election...I wish you wouldn't speak. It's gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.'". If true, this also shows an apparent moral contradiction.

IMO this is indirect proof.

I think there is a double standard for you to suppose that ,"if true", only one of these speaks to a persons character when you say at the end....

"To demonize a person based on their faith or their family is clearly not the answer, an individual's character is the only thing that matters. However, if an action has been proven and could speak to one's character, that is fair game, as it tells us about the individual."

Both have the action of lying attached to them and both are trying to morally judge character.

I clicked YES on your poll as I believe that all concepts anyone is curious about should be able to be objectively explored. Intellectual censorship of any kind is a form of bondage no one should accept. Our Fathers fought for these freedoms that some of us take for granted.

Interesting stuff Renee.

"One invokes doctrine to slander, the other uses the allegations of a preacher to slander", Maks, take Reverend Wright out of the equation, he is not relevant. Bribery charges are, however. What if he asked, for example, a Harvard professor, to keep quiet about his school records and offered 150k in return for his or her silence? The Reverend Wright allegations have nothing to do with the fact that he is a preacher. Am I understanding your point correctly here?

As far as the lying charge made by Bashir toward Romney, you said, "Bashir directly quotes Romney lying about a commitment Obama is supposed to have made prior to the election and juxtaposes that with passages from his (Romney's) chosen book of faith showing an apparent moral contradiction." Well, the first two "lies" are silly, one is based on hearsay and the other is disputing Mitt's claim of a "left-wing conspiracy" (remember Hillary and her "right-wing conspiracy"?) - I would not call either of them "lies". The third one is a bit more problematic, as it was not specifically stated by Obama (the unemployment would cap at 8% with the stimulus package. So, technically, I guess, this is a lie. However, it was not pulled from thin air, the projection was made in a report by Jared Bernstein, the former chief economist and Christina Romer, the chairwoman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, in January 2009. "On page four of the 2009 Romer/Bernstein report a chart states that the unemployment rate nationwide with the $821-billion economic stimulus package would peak at 8 percent." Apparently, Obama used this report to encourage the support for the bail out. Newsbusters said, "When your top economic advisers issue a projection about what a piece of legislation you're proposing will accomplish, it is coming directly from you and your office. You can't claim after the fact that you had nothing to do with it and neither should members of the media regardless of how in the tank they are for you." Mediaite really tears into Bashir, "the 8 percent unemployment figure was part of the sales pitch by the Obama administration to persuade a friendly Congress to borrow billions from lenders at home and abroad in order to throw Keynesian pump-priming funds into the economy. When it failed, there is now a concerted effort to pretend that figure was something a kooky surrogate made up – the president himself had nothing to do with it."

So, I guess technically it was a lie, based in fact? I certainly would not call it a lie and I think Bashir is stretching to call it a lie. I REALLY think it is stretching to then bring Romney's Mormonism into it....

Sorry for the delay in response, I wanted to give you a thoughtful answer.

And now the real question.... are you the guy on the right or the left?

Was the Bernstein report accurate? No. Did Obama say it? No. Pinning it on him is like how the left likes to blame Bush for Lawrence Lindseys and Mitch Daniels inaccurate forecasts regarding the cost and length of the Iraq war. If you read through the comments in this thread you'll notice that I am careful to place the blame where it lies.

I don't think it is fair to leave the fact that Wright is Obamas preacher out of it. It has everything to do with Obamas religiosity and Wright's sermons have, and will be used to cast aspersions on his character, as evidenced with the recently leaked Ricketts plan for the coming election. Not to mention the 08 campaign. The alleged "bribe" isn't related to him keeping quite about a crime, or to give false testimony. It's to keep him quite about his fiery brand of religion. Do you consider Glenn Becks offer to purchase of Wrights "secret box" a bribe? I'm sceptical as to whether Wright would do this to someone he is meant to have been so close too and also the source of the information. Until I see real proof, I'm reluctant to even take it seriously.

With me not being religious, I don't morally judge things in the same way you do. To me, both incidences relate to religion and both relate to lying. I think you're being selective about your outrage due to personal bias just as I can't satisfactorily properly see your points due to my own. Both of our views represent the antithesis of the other (moral outrage/moral apathy)and it's only our discipline in suppressing those biases enough, that allows us to keep communicating civilly.

I came and voted and gave my commentary based on your invitation and most definitely don't want to offend your closely held beliefs as you've been nothing but courteous to me me considering my own.

I confess I don't understand you last question, am I the guy on the right or the left?

your*

lol! Maks, your photo! I will get back asap.

I am a non-believer, fyi ;-)

That's me and Benny the bum in Montreal nearly two years ago, a very funny story led to that photo.

Benny the bum! lol! I hope you tell!

To your comments:

You said, “Was the Bernstein report accurate? No. Did Obama say it? No. Pinning it on him is like how the left likes to blame Bush for Lawrence Lindseys and Mitch Daniels inaccurate forecasts regarding the cost and length of the Iraq war. If you read through the comments in this thread you'll notice that I am careful to place the blame where it lies.” The report was not accurate, but Obama did promote it, that is why I said it was technically a lie….but as Obama used the report in the effort for the United States to commit billions of dollars for the bail out means that he endorsed the report. So, if he endorsed the report, regardless of the fact that he did not directly quote the 8 percent unemployment chart (that turned out to be waaaay off), his endorsement of it counts for something, doesn’t it? So again technically it was a lie, I guess. Romney should clarify that although Obama did not directly make the statement, he did, in fact, endorse the report.

You said, “I don't think it is fair to leave the fact that Wright is Obamas preacher out of it. It has everything to do with Obamas religiosity and Wright's sermons have, and will be used to cast aspersions on his character, as evidenced with the recently leaked Ricketts plan for the coming election. Not to mention the 08 campaign. The alleged "bribe" isn't related to him keeping quite about a crime, or to give false testimony. It's to keep him quite about his fiery brand of religion.” Ok, my initial thought was, “a bribe is a bribe”, but you are saying that the bribe in this case is warranted?

You said, “Do you consider Glenn Becks offer to purchase of Wrights "secret box" a bribe?” A presidential candidate offering a bribe for someone to keep his mouth shut is way different than a talk show guy publically offering money to the accuser for proof. In my mind, there is absolutely no comparison. Not even close.

You said, “I'm skeptical as to whether Wright would do this to someone he is meant to have been so close too and also the source of the information. Until I see real proof, I'm reluctant to even take it seriously.” Reverend Wright did say it, here is audio of him saying it (go to 6:20 on the first video). I am still not convinced until there is proof (and until that time, I don't believe it should be used against Obama).

You said, “With me not being religious, I don't morally judge things in the same way you do. To me, both incidences relate to religion and both relate to lying. I think you're being selective about your outrage due to personal bias just as I can't satisfactorily properly see your points due to my own. Both of our views represent the antithesis of the other (moral outrage/moral apathy) and it's only our discipline in suppressing those biases enough, that allows us to keep communicating civilly.” I am not religious. ;-) And I am biased toward the truth. Yes, I obviously have conservative views, but I like to think that it does not cloud my judgment to the point where I blindly follow someone else who is conservative. Geez, I am at Uni! Most of my friends are liberals, and I still love them ;-)

You said, “I came and voted and gave my commentary based on your invitation and most definitely don't want to offend your closely held beliefs as you've been nothing but courteous to me considering my own.” I delight in intelligent conversation. ;-) No offence at all.

Sorry for the delay I had fush and chups for dinner ;)

True he did endorse it. That leaders do hold ultimate responsibility is something that no one can deny. To use it in this way though and to not consider the dysfunctional Congress is, IMO, intellectually dishonest of Romney.

No I don't think the alleged bribe was warranted at all, I don't think it was needed. You're right, my comparing it with GB's offer was completely wrong.

I watched both parts of that Hannity show and agree that it appears on the face of it to have some credence. Sadly, Ed Klein makes a number of extraordinary claims throughout the interview. Like knowing the details and frequency between communications between Oprah and Obama before the election as well as the emotions involved. He gives a fly on the wall account of Bill Clinton holding an informal vote between top Democrats urging her to run against Obama in the primary and gives her supposed verbatim response?. As I said, extraordinary claims, I hope he cites some sources in his book. The fact that this coincides with a book launch has PR written all over it rather than a top exclusive report. I hope at some stage he releases the full 3 hour interview for an impartial analysis without all the rest of it. If he did this before November it could dispel the innuendo and let people decide for themselves.

Replace "religious" with "conservative" and I'll stand by the sentiment of the next paragraph. We both believe in our minds that we're biased to the truth.

The last bit, same same :)

Thanks, Maks,

I do believe I agree with your comment. ;-) I love common ground.

Ed Klein is not exactly Mr. Credibility, but hey, if he can back up his statements, that is what matters. Oh he is a shameless self promoter, but in his defense, this kind of thing is quite common with book releases.

He has a history of outlandish claims and after doing a bit of research, oftentimes it seems that his statements may be overblown, however, his critics tend to ignore context.

But even if he is a dodgy character, in this case he has the reverend on tape, also (and this is hearsay) there are statements in his book (that I have heard of, but have not read) that say that Reverend Wright has been consistent with this story with his close friends, adding to his credibility. Still, without proof, (ie, his "box" that Glenn Beck wants) none of it happened.

"To demonize a person based on their faith or their family is clearly not the answer, an individual's character is the only thing that matters. However, if an action has been proven and could speak to one's character, that is fair game, as it tells us about the individual."

"Demonize" is a strong word. I do think a person's religious belief is fair game. It reveals some of the person's character. A person's religius belief can reveal his or her view of the world.

Obama's association with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years reveals a lot about him. The fact that Obama now is trying to disassociate himself from Jeremiah Wright and others who have been influential in his life also reveals a lot about Obama's character.

MItt Romney's mormon beliefs can also reveal much about his world view. What I don't know is if Mitt is a practicing Mormon or a Mormon in name only. Just as many call themselves "Christian" yet don't attend a church and know little of the Christian faith.

Thank you, Lee. I think we part ways a bit as I agree with Thomas Jefferson, “I never told my own religion nor scrutinized that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another's creed. I am satisfied that yours must be an excellent religion to have produced a life of such exemplary virtue and correctness. For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be judged."

Now, if Mitt Romney regularly inserted his Mormon beliefs into the conversation, I would agree wholeheartedly.

As far as President Obama, his association with Reverend Wright is one thing and yes, gives us insight, but to me, the bribery charge is quite relevant, if proven to be true. All we have now are allegations, not proof.

Romney is active in the Church. He attends every Sunday (a 3-hour-long commitment) and I've heard that he is still doing his Home Teaching at least once a month. I'm not sure about his temple visits, but given his life right now, I don't know how he would have time. I know he visits the temples in most cities he goes to.
Great article, Renee. I was very excited about Klein's book, but I'm a bit put off by his methods. Telling Wright that Hannity and Beck were 'right-wing crazies', etc. Then again, I think I would have done the same thing. A means to an end.

Thank you Margie, I am not a fan of dishonest tactics myself (a bit too Alinski for my taste). However, this story, if true, would be a big deal. Until that time, without proof, it is a non-story. I think the Reverend is most likely regretting his betrayal by now, as I am sure he is being hounded, and I mean hounded for the "box" he mysteriously speaks of with his "proof".

Let me ask this, is it illegal? Could that box be subpoenaed in a court case? I guess not. It is reminiscent of other countries, where bribing is common and even tax-deductible! I don't want the USA to be a country that bribes. It is low-down.

Dumb... I've heard those two things several times now from pundits, and think he should do his homework. First of all, what the heck does Romney's great-grandfather's polygamy have to do with anything, and those that throw that out there in a negative way must not realize Obama's father was a polygamist himself. I also have to disagree from my study that the Mormon's were the most racially segregated in the history of the country. In fact there were ordained Blacks in the priesthood, and that didn't stop until Joseph Smith died, and Brigham Young took over; even then the case could be debated the practice wasn't for being racist in the common usage today, but discriminatory no doubt and wrong until corrected. It was a matter for question/contention within the church well before the 70's, with different leaders having alternate views on it. I have to wonder how many other churches in the country were open to Black membership back the early 1800's, be they free or slave? I might add that if Joseph Smith had been elected President when he ran, slavery in America could well have ended some 20 years before Lincoln, it was part of his platform.
Anyway, no expert here, but people should probably do some research to sort through the rhetoric...

"but people should probably do some research to sort through the rhetoric..." Ah, John, if only. You are quite wise ;-) And check this out...

Great link! We have members in our ward who are related to Mormon pioneers. But, that doesn't fit the profile, does it?

Thanks, I think it is fair to question people's pasts and their actions and their flip-flops. But to question a man's great grandfather and the history of his religion...? It is a stretch. And I mean a sttttrrreeetch!

Just another witch hunt no matter which side you go with.

Bashir going after Romney? Or Wright going after Obama? ;-)

as I said..no matter which side you go with,..its just another silly witch hunt that will do nothing for the election except bring out the nutjobs.

Ohh oops I missed that. Yes, you have a point, Bryan. I am not willing to listen to the bribe case (or ANY accusation) unless there is proof.

I agree with Bryan Bales!

I think the left is petty. This man is trying the lefts tactics alright... trying to dance around the issue of Wright and Obama... Bringing Mitts religion into it doesnt have diddly squat to do with what Obama did or did say to Wright...Things must be pretty slow for the left to create a smear campaign such as this onto Mitt... He must have them all shook up.. I do like to see them squirm though...lol

Vickey, I think that bribery allegations are serious and should be explored, regardless if they were made by a preacher. Wright makes icky allegations about Hillary Clinton, too. gross. The whole thing makes me feel dirty.

Thanks, Micky, hopefully it will not come to that. I think there is so much misinformation swirling about that it is hard to trust anyone. If Romney does win, imagine how quickly the media will turn on him. Scary.

All the concerns that Republicans had about Romney and his religion as they twisted this way and that during the earlier primaries are suddenly deemed to be bigotry when the left reminds voters about them.

Ah true, and there is hypocrisy all around.