Interview with Rev. Jeremiah Wright

[Pure]

by Bill Moyers, of PBS. Transcript

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/transcript1.html

 

[Guest]

How is this preacher's radical views any different from what's-his-face evangelist, Hagee? The man who said Katrina was God's judgment against New Orleans?

And McCain still supports that guy.

Pot, kettle.

 

[JagFarlane]

How is this preacher's radical views any different from what's-his-face evangelist, Hagee? The man who said Katrina was God's judgment against New Orleans?

And McCain still supports that guy.

Pot, kettle.

-shrugs- I don't know...I really did stop paying attention because like ya said Pot, kettle.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Was than an interview or a make-out session?

 

[DesertPirate]

Was than an interview or a make-out session?

You'd think an interview would ask some tough questions?
Cupcake city

 

[Pure]

you're right. the interviewer was sympathethic.

but it did give wright a platform to expound his views, unobstructed, at some length.

actually though, the man does NOT sound like farrakhan, malcom x, or ahmadinejad [iranian pres] or satan.

sounds like 60s radical plus afrocentric [in a non racist sense].

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

More like a media blow job than an interview. This is the low point in Bill Moyers career. He's much better than this.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

More like a media blow job than an interview. This is the low point in Bill Moyers career. He's much better than this.

Send kneepads?





(Piling on is bad, Roxanne - bad. :caning: )

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

you're right. the interviewer was sympathethic.

but it did give wright a platform to expound his views, unobstructed, at some length.

actually though, the man does NOT sound like farrakhan, malcom x, or ahmadinejad [iranian pres] or satan.

sounds like 60s radical plus afrocentric [in a non racist sense].

I don't really disagree with that (although he would have been on his best behavior, wouldn't he?)

Actually, when the first reports came out I thought that there would ordinarily be lots of voices on the Left loudly agreeing with Wright's indendiary statements, if not for the fact that they are wrapped up in a presidential race in which the prime directive (for both sides) is "win, baby, win," and committing candor in that context would interfere with the mission.

 

[JustLikeEwe]

More like a media blow job than an interview. This is the low point in Bill Moyers career. He's much better than this.

He used to be better than this. Now he is this. He's become Larry King with a stronger backstory, but this current Moyers is embarrassing.

 

[Pure]

an interviewer does not have to 'skewer' the subject, or cross examine him. i don't mind larry king; he doesn't argue much, lets the person have his or her say. a nutjob sounds like a nutjob.

there is much to be said for an interviewer that just gets the person to 'open up' without the intellectual trial or combat aspect.

i think this is what moyers did.

---
i can picture an amicus interview: Weren't you a communist? When you said, 'god damn america,' weren't you applauding Osama? Aren't your anti-white sentiments racist? Why do you hate civilization?

 

[JustLikeEwe]

an interviewer does not have to 'skewer' the subject, or cross examine him. i don't mind larry king; he doesn't argue much, lets the person have his or her say. a nutjob sounds like a nutjob.

there is much to be said for an interviewer that just gets the person to 'open up' without the intellectual trial or combat aspect.

i think this is what moyers did.

---
i can picture an amicus interview: Weren't you a communist? When you said, 'god damn america,' weren't you applauding Osama? Aren't your anti-white sentiments racist? Why do you hate civilization?

I agree that you don't sit across from somebody and berate them. The person deserves a chance to answer and be treated in a respectful manner. This struck me more as an infomercial than an interview and was designed as a way pawn off the Rev. as a poor misunderstood victim. There was no interview here at all.

I don't think that asking him about his racist statements would have been out of line. This notion that white people have a monopoly on racism is silly. People should be called on it no matter who they are.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I miss Joseph Campbell. I could watch Bill Moyers interview him every day and never get bored.

 

[S-Des]

How is this preacher's radical views any different from what's-his-face evangelist, Hagee? The man who said Katrina was God's judgment against New Orleans?

And McCain still supports that guy.

No he doesn't (and never has). He has publicly denounced the comments (as well as the anti-Catholic ones) and has said seeking Hagee's endorsement was a mistake. McCain also said his people (because at this point if you think that the candidates have time to do anything themselves, you're delusional) didn't properly investigate Hagee or his history. I heard an interview with Hagee and he is truly as warped as he sounds. The difference I see between the two is that Wright is in a church where the goal is uplifting the poor and helping them improve their lives (and in helping them with their faith). Therefore his comments about middle-class sellouts and "the government is against you" rhetoric does just the opposite of what his stated message is. Hagee is your old-school fire & brimstone, Revelations preacher, and his sermons pretty much reflect what you'd expect if you were going to that Church.

Hagee is a much better comparison to Farrakhan than to Wright, since McCain had never met the man, nor heard a single sermon. Personally, I didn't think Obama should have had to apologize for Farrakhan, and McCain shouldn't have to for Hagee. Politicians court scumbags all the time. The reason Obama needs to explain Wright is because he sat in the church for 20 years, called the man his "Spiritual Mentor", gave a great deal of money to the church, and has changed his story about him several times. Belonging to a church that requires a commitment to "African values" and support of "African-American" candidates (with no mention of anyone else) is something that people have every right to question. Me personally, I'm most offended by the ties to Middle-Eastern extremists and anti-Semitic speech in the church (including the guy who claimed the Jews were building a "Arab bomb" that would affect only Arabs).

 

[Guest]

No he doesn't (and never has). He has publicly denounced the comments (as well as the anti-Catholic ones) and has said seeking Hagee's endorsement was a mistake. McCain also said his people (because at this point if you think that the candidates have time to do anything themselves, you're delusional) didn't properly investigate Hagee or his history. I heard an interview with Hagee and he is truly as warped as he sounds. The difference I see between the two is that Wright is in a church where the goal is uplifting the poor and helping them improve their lives (and in helping them with their faith). Therefore his comments about middle-class sellouts and "the government is against you" rhetoric does just the opposite of what his stated message is. Hagee is your old-school fire & brimstone, Revelations preacher, and his sermons pretty much reflect what you'd expect if you were going to that Church.

Hagee is a much better comparison to Farrakhan than to Wright, since McCain had never met the man, nor heard a single sermon. Personally, I didn't think Obama should have had to apologize for Farrakhan, and McCain shouldn't have to for Hagee. Politicians court scumbags all the time. The reason Obama needs to explain Wright is because he sat in the church for 20 years, called the man his "Spiritual Mentor", gave a great deal of money to the church, and has changed his story about him several times. Belonging to a church that requires a commitment to "African values" and support of "African-American" candidates (with no mention of anyone else) is something that people have every right to question. Me personally, I'm most offended by the ties to Middle-Eastern extremists and anti-Semitic speech in the church (including the guy who claimed the Jews were building a "Arab bomb" that would affect only Arabs).

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/21/hagee-flip-flop/
McCain Flip-Flops In 30 Seconds: Hagee Endorsement A ‘Mistake,’ But ‘I’m Glad To Have’ It»

Last February, hard-line conservative evangelical Pastor John Hagee endorsed Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) candidacy for president. Despite Hagee’s history of controversial and bigoted comments –- such as calling Catholicism “The Great Whore” and blaming Hurricane Katrina on gays –- McCain said he was “very honored” to receive the endorsement, one which he also reportedly sought.

McCain has since both “repudiate[d]” and defended Hagee’s intolerant remarks. But McCain’s double-talk on Hagee went a step further yesterday on ABC’s This Week when he seemed a bit confused as to whether or not he still accepts Hagee’s endorsement –- first agreeing that it was a “mistake” to accept it, but less than 30 seconds later saying he is “glad” to have it:

STEPHANOPOULOS: So was it a mistake to solicit and accept his endorsement?

MCCAIN: Oh, probably, sure. […]

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you no longer want his endorsement?

MCCAIN: I’m glad to have his endorsement. I condemn remarks that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything. And thanks for asking.


Indeed, McCain has been confused quite a bit lately on a wide range of issues:

– McCain has said waterboarding “should never be condoned in the U.S.” but voted against a bill banning the CIA from using torture, specifically including waterboarding.

– McCain says he is “a consistent supporter of educational benefits” for the military but has indicated he will not support the bipartisan 21st Century GI Bill.

– On at least three occasions, McCain baselessly claimed Iran is training Al Qaeda in Iraq but argued the error was an isolated slip of the tongue.

– McCain falsely suggested that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a “sect of Shi’ites.”

– McCain falsely claimed Moktada al-Sadr “declared the cease-fire” after recent fighting in Basra and has said he is both a “major player” in Iraq and that his influence “has been on the wane for a long time.”

– Economists and nonpartisan analysts have said recently that the numbers in McCain’s economic plan simply “don’t add up.”

– McCain has made the elimination of earmarks a cornerstone of his presidential campaign but he can’t name any he would eliminate.

– In a matter of one day, McCain said Americans are both “better off” and “not better off” than they were before President Bush took office.

McCain’s latest 30-second flip-flop represents the political dance he must engage in to try to appeal to both the conservative evangelical wing of the Republican Party and independent-minded Americans. But despite all his back and forth, the media still seem happy to promote McCain’s self-proclaimed persona as a “straight-talking maverick.”

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Isn't it November, yet? I'm so tired of this election I could scream bloody murder.

AAARRGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!

 

[Guest]

Isn't it November, yet? I'm so tired of this election I could scream bloody murder.

AAARRGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!

Four years ago it was worse.

So much fighting in the AH. Some people never recovered from it all and have still stayed away.

The election needs to be over soon.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

The election needs to be over soon.

Really, then we could get back to sex with a comments about food and drink and their advantages in the pursuit of the former.

 

[S-Des]

Indeed, McCain has been confused quite a bit lately on a wide range of issues:

No, he really hasn't. There are some issues politicians equivocate on in order to score votes, and others that are used as wedge issues. There's no point in disputing each of the issues you have cited, but each of them does have a counter side (although they make great sound bites if you are desperately rooting against McCain). However, if you really believe he voted against the GI Bill because he doesn't care about vets, than you really haven't made any effort to get to know him.

Oh yeah, I have no idea where you got the quote about earmarks, but it's laughable. He pointed out several in almost every Republican debate that he opposed (from the Left and Right). He has also stated that he would veto any bill that had earmarks on it, then publicly call out the person adding the earmark so the public could see exactly how they're being scammed. I've seen this crap about the media not holding McCain accountable for remarks and it's a complete scam (although he does get a more fair shake than your run of the mill Republican). You're talking about "the media" where Chris Matthews said he gets a "Thrill up his leg" when Obama talks and where an NBC field reporter said, "It's hard to remain neutral" when attending an Obama rally (not to mention Keith Olberman's nightly hatchet job on Hillary in between bouts of oral homage to Obama). Democrats accusing the Republicans of getting a free ride from the media is like Republicans accusing them of hating the poor.