Rezko, Wright, and Ayers –Not A Law Firm
If you are looking for the audio and transcripts of Pastor Wright’s two sermons, they are here.
In an effort to provide “context” I will try and obtain and play the entire audio of his NAACP speech from yesterday on today’s program. (Michelle Malkin has a round-up on this astonishing speech.) If time permits, I’ll replay the sermons as well, even though I played all the audio out there from both on Friday’s program. They are the “primary documents” of the controversy, and deserve a wide audience.
I suspect the pastor will make more news at the National Press Club, and I’ll play that audio as well.
The decision of Pastor Wright to make his defense of his political views of America at this juncture in the campaign is puzzling, but my strong guess is that new media will oblige him with the “context” he has asked for. Moyers did not, of course, nor have most of the MSM in that they have refused to play the sermons in full.
I argued at a panel at yesterday’s Los Angeles Festival of Books and afterwards on BookTV that Obama is unelectable because the combination of Rezko, Wright and Ayers destroy Obama’s appeal as a non-ideological reformer from the center of the American mainstream, especially in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio. Hillary would be crazy to drop out as the damage done to the Obama campaign is immense, but his fan base is so passionate about him that they are making enough noise to obscure the facts about Reagan Democrats’ rejection of his candidacy.
If Rush plays all or most of the audio from Pastor Wright’s sermons of 9/16/01 and 4/13/03, he may give Hillary the nomination by forcing the pastor’s extremism into the cars of millions of Americans who will be stunned by what they hear.
Obama’s supporters have mounted the classic three part defense of trial lawyers everywhere: It’s not my dog. It didn’t bite you. And besides, you kicked it first.
First they have argued that Pastor Wright was quoted out of context. That defense is demolished via the playing of the entire sermons which are far more controversial heard whole than in snippets.
Second, they have argued that these are Pastor Wright’s words, not Obama’s. As a caller to Friday’s show wondered: “How could Obama have stayed in that church for 20 years?”
Finally, they assert that Pastor Hagee’s endorsement of John McCain nullifies the issue as both men have ties to controversial pastors. This is ludicrous as I noted on C-SPAN’s BookTV last night. Obama is a close friend of Pastor Wright’s, his mentee, and as Obama has written, Wright has been a huge influence on Obama. McCain appears to have met Hagee once.
The changing defenses and the desperate quality to them underscores the fragility of the Obama campaign. Yesterday’s Los Angeles Times story on Obama’s questionable backing of a grant for a former employer is another major problem that has yet to generate follow-up because fo the enormous attention being paid to Wright and Ayers, but it will. (Team Obama’s defense, essentially that $50,000 isn’t big enough to count as graft, is the worst defense ever mounted by the team, demonstrating perhaps that the very bad, horrible month Obama has endured has taken its toll on the brain-trust.)
With a week of wall-to-wall Wright ahead, it is hard to see how Obama wins Indiana, a near home-field loss which would be yet another hammer blow to the collective consciousness of the super-delegates. As I said to the audience of Obama supporters yesterday ( a huge number of whom indicated by a show of hands that they were very angry with Hillary and wouldn’t vote for her if she was the nominee), the Dems look more and more like Thelma and Louise headed for the cliff.