(Page 2 of 2)
“Senator Obama has been clear in his objections to Minister Farrakhan’s past pronouncements and has not solicited the minister’s support,” said his spokesman when asked about Farrakhan’s support. Ho hum.
At the debate the next day when asked about Farrakhan’s endorsement Obama seemed to harken back to his words of praise in 1995, saying, “He [Farrakhan] expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together.”
He then assured everyone that he had been an inert player in the endorsement, saying, “I obviously can’t censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.”
After reiterating his denouncement of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, Obama got needled by Hillary Clinton, who piped up with a reminder that she had rejected anti-Semites’ support in the past. Obama pleaded, “I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and rejecting.”
But he grudgingly offered: “If the word ‘reject’ Sen. Clinton feels is stronger than the word ‘denounce,’ then I’m happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.”
FARRAKHAN’S CLOSE association with his mentor Wright may have caused Obama to temper his reaction.
In the debate Tim Russert asked what Obama could do to reassure Jewish voters in light of the fact that Obama’s pastor had “said that Louis Farrakhan ‘epitomizes greatness.’ He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, ‘your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell.’”
Obama did not respond directly to Russert’s description of the Wright-Farrakhan relationship. Instead he reiterated his support for the Jewish community. Obama could not bring himself to criticize, let alone reject or denounce, the close relationship between his mentor Wright and Farrakhan.
In all this Obama was a follower, not a leader, a compliant figure observing the vile influences of Farrakhan seep into his church and intoxicate those closest to him.
Even in retrospect Obama has never said that the Million Man March was something he should have avoided, no matter how many African-American men Farrakhan was bringing together. Likewise his spiritual mentors’ infatuation with Farrakhan never provoked concern or signaled to Obama that he needed new mentors.
While acknowledging that Obama may share few if any of Farrakhan’s views, it is nevertheless reasonable to have expected something more than passivity from the man who wants to be president. It is a truism that “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” While Farrakhanism triumphed in Trinity United, what did Obama do?
Obama did not run from the orbit of Farrakhan, but participated and lingered in the “swamp of hatred” which Farrakhan spread. Rather that abate Farrakhan’s ever-growing influence, he followed the crowd — literally in the case of the Million Man March.
It is not clear why. We are left to wonder why he failed to disentangle himself from Farrakhan’s tentacles. Whether it was poor judgment, cowardice or a bizarrely high tolerance for hateful figures, Obama’s inactivity is puzzling in the extreme.
And the excuse for that Obama has employed with Rezko and Wright — that this is not the man he knew — is certainly not going to fly on this one.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?