Obama Unambiguously Throws Wright Under Bus

The press conference is ongoing as I type this. Allah will have the video as soon as it’s available. Also Michelle Malkin is liveblogging.

Obama appears to be seriously displeased by Wright’s performance, last weekend. Calls them “rants not grounded in truth”. Says it doesn’t reflect anything he believes. He’s annoyed by the damage Wright has done to him personally, but more importantly… his campaign. (I was expecting him to say race relations in this country, or something of that nature, but nooooo). Does Obama have any idea how depressing Wright’s words are to average Americans?

Incredibly, he asks us to believe that Reverend Wright’s view of America, which was on display over the weekend, (which Obama strongly condemns) was never on display during the 20 years he was a member of TUCC. He goes to church to pray, not see a spectacle. I’m sorry, but I call b.s.

The Fox Commentators (Edie Hill and ?) find Obama’s response to the questions, not satisfying. The problem still not going to go away…could be the “death knell” of his campaign. (Gosh! I hope not!)

Also, he disavows the claim that Wright was ever his “spiritual mentor”, or “adviser”, merely his pastor. He says the media has erroneously portrayed Reverend Wright as such. The implication being…they’re really not that close. I could be wrong, but I thought Obama was on record as describing Wright as his spiritual adviser.

I’ll be busy googling for the next few minutes.

Ace’s coverage here.

UPDATE:

As for the ‘Hey! He was only my pastor…not my spiritual mentor or advisor’ claim; Obama said back in January 2007:

Obama says that rather than advising him on strategy, Wright helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.

“What I value most about Pastor Wright is not his day-to-day political advice,” Obama said. “He’s much more of a sounding board for me to make sure that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible and that I’m not losing myself in some of the hype and hoopla and stress that’s involved in national politics.”

Sounds like he’s calling him some sort of spiritual adviser, (not to mention a ‘day to day’ political adviser!) if you ask me.

Barack Obama And Voter IDs

Bad news for Democrats!: The Supreme Court has just rejected the argument that strict voter ID laws “disenfranchise” voters, thus making voter fraud more difficult.

John Fund in the WSJ today, writes:

In ruling on the constitutionality of Indiana’s voter ID law – the toughest in the nation – the Supreme Court had to deal with the claim that such laws demanded the strictest of scrutiny by courts, because they could disenfranchise voters. All nine Justices rejected that argument.

Even Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the three dissenters who would have overturned the Indiana law, wrote approvingly of the less severe ID laws of Georgia and Florida. The result is that state voter ID laws are now highly likely to pass constitutional muster.

But this case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, also revealed a fundamental philosophical conflict between two perspectives rooted in the machine politics of Chicago. Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the decision, grew up in Hyde Park, the city neighborhood where Sen. Barack Obama – the most vociferous Congressional critic of such laws – lives now. Both men have seen how the Daley machine has governed the city for so many years, with a mix of patronage, contract favoritism and, where necessary, voter fraud.

Justice Stevens has a history (as both a lawyer, and a judge) of trying to root out corruption in state government. Apparently, Obama is quite comfortable with it:

Barack Obama has approached Chicago politics differently. He came to the city as a community organizer in the 1980s and quickly developed a name for himself as a litigator in voting cases.

In 1995, then GOP Gov. Jim Edgar refused to implement the federal “Motor Voter” law. Allowing voters to register using only a postcard and blocking the state from culling voter rolls, he argued, could invite fraud. Mr. Obama sued on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and won. Acorn later invited Mr. Obama to help train its staff; Mr. Obama would also sit on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago, which frequently gave this group grants.

Acorn’s efforts to register voters have been scandal-prone. St. Louis, Mo., officials found that in 2006 over 1,000 addresses listed on its registrations didn’t exist. “We met twice with Acorn before their drive, but our requests completely fell by the wayside,” said Democrat Matt Potter, the city’s deputy elections director. Later, federal authorities indicted eight of the group’s local workers. One of the eight pleaded guilty last month.

Despite this record – and polls that show clear majorities of blacks and Hispanics back voter ID laws – Mr. Obama continues to back Acorn. They both joined briefs urging the Supreme Court to overturn Indiana’s law.

Last year, he put on hold the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the Federal Election Commission. Mr. von Spakovsky, as a Justice Department official, had supported a Georgia photo ID law.

In a letter to the Senate Rules Committee, Mr. Obama wrote that “Mr. von Spakovsky’s role in supporting the Department of Justice’s quixotic efforts to attack voter fraud raises significant questions about his ability to interpret and apply the law in a fair manner.” Of course, now an even stricter law than the one in Georgia has been upheld by the Supreme Court, removing Mr. Obama’s chief objection.

Ooooh, burrrrn.

The hold on the von Spakovsky nomination has left the Federal Election Commission with less than a quorum. As a result, the FEC can’t open new cases, hold public meetings, issue advisory opinions or approve John McCain’s receipt of public funding for the general election. Now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claims that, even without the von Spakovsky hold, filling the FEC’s vacancies will take “several months.”

Don’t anyone say Obama has been a do-nothing Senator. He’s had his little “victories”.

I can’t improve on John Fund’s conclusion:

So we have the irony of two liberal icons in sharp disagreement over yesterday’s Supreme Court decision. Justice Stevens, the real reformer, believes voter ID laws are justified to prevent fraud. Barack Obama, the faux reformer, hauls out discredited rhetoric that they disenfranchise voters.

Faux reformer indeed. Oh, and guess which player in all this, endorses Obama?

Hat tip: Lucianne

More on the Democrats and voter fraud, here.

Should Obama “Disown” Reverend Wright?

I have to do one more quick post before I go to bed.

Some pundits like Byron York, and Andrew Sullivan are offering Obama free advice, strongly suggesting that he “disown” Reverend Wright.

York:

“I think he’s going to have to walk farther away from Wright, if he wants to win the general election,” one Democratic strategist told me Monday night. “He could say, ‘This is different now. Just to eliminate any questions, I am going to leave this church, because I believe the country is more important.’ It would say that Wright’s rhetoric has no place in his campaign or the lives of his children.” (As the Wright controversy has festered, observers on both sides of the political divide have wondered, usually in whispers, about Obama’s decision to take his young children to Wright’s church.)

Sullivan:

Obama needs not just to distance himself from Wright’s views; he needs to disown him at this point. Wright himself, it seems to me, has become part of what Obama is fighting against: the boomer, Vietnam era’s obsession with its red-blue, white-black, pro and anti-America fixations. That is not what this election needs to be about; and Wright’s massive, racially divisive and, yes, bitter provocation requires a proportionate response.

We need a speech or statement from Obama in which he utterly repudiates this poison, however personally difficult that may be, however damaging the impact will be.

(Here’s Ace’s hilarious take on St. Andrew’s change of heart).

First of all, STOP trying to help the enemy, Byron.

(Here’s Karl Rove trying to give him some free advice, too). Stop that!

Second of all, what can he possibly say as a means to explain how he was able to sit in Reverend Wright’s pews for 20 years, and listen to that garbage? He can “disown” Wright all he wants, but he can’t disown his participation in that loathsome church for 20 years; a church that practices the profoundly racist Black Liberation Theology.

He, and Wright, and the media can spin spin spin all they want that Wright was taken out of context, but the American people, (the majority, anyway) are not such ignorant buffoons that they would believe such unmitigated bullcrap. The unedited versions of his sermons, taken completely in context, (which he sells in his own church giftshop!) are even worse.

So to say that Obama just needs to “disown” his Pastor of twenty years doesn’t cut it. But don’t tell the panicky nutroots that. They’re still holding on to hope, (and change).

What Obama really needs to do is drop out before he does any more damage to race relations in this country.

UPDATE:

GOP operatives, always slow on the uptake, are finally noticing Obama’s weaknesses, and are preparing a $500,000 hit on him. Something tells me it’s going to be lukewarm, and unsatisfying:

Whereas Obama once seemed an almost cultlike figure who transcended race and class, the narrative that has emerged from his campaign’s recent trials has given Republicans hope that the Illinois senator can be tagged as an elitist with the same effectiveness with which Michael Dukakis and John F. Kerry were so labeled.

The elitist story line has provided Republicans with press release fodder against freshman Democratic House members and statewide elected officials in roughly two dozen states.

Whoa, Nellie! Hardcore! Elitist, eh?

The guy’s got our nations enemies, tin-pot dictators, known commies, radical pinkos, (and Reverend Wright) supporting him; he’s buds with a former terrorist, for crying out loud, and the best they can do is try to paint him as an elitist?

They had better do better than that, by God.