Humotropy

I may be a bit late on the hoopla regarding Wright and Obama (hey, the blog hasn’t existed for that long), but I’d like to ask the following question: Does anyone actually believe that Obama shares in the “god damn America” meme? Does anyone honestly believe that Obama hates America?

Because if not, then I don’t see why the Wright issue is still an issue. Isn’t the reason for disavowal to offer some assurance that Obama doesn’t share Wright’s views? And if we aren’t honestly mulling over the possibility that the man is ACTUALLY a super-secret-crypto-manchurian-devilworshiping-islamic-fundamentalist-jihadist-amerikkka-hater, then a curt “He’s wrong. Go USA!” should suffice, regardless of the number of times Obama sat in his pew.

Though I love his blog and his work on economic justice vis. eminent domain, I just don’t get why Timothy Sandefur is so insistent:

But Obama’s speech, well-written as it is, cannot distract us from the bottom line: he is refusing to “disown” a man who embraces an explicit and thorough ideology of collectivist anti-Americanism; whose considered opinion is that the United States deserved the September 11th attacks because of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; who truly believes that blacks ought to say “not God bless America, but God damn America.” That is simply inexcusable.

My emphasis. But why? To show that he doesn’t believe that the Sept. 11 attacks were deserved? He’s already said as much - do you not believe him?

There is none. And if there is none, then I think Jason Kuznicki, er…Dr. Kuznicki…um, I mean that one guy on that blog o’er there is right when he calls “A More Perfect Union” Obama’s Rorschach Test since denunciation and disownment are nothing more than empty gestures.  I suspect that it is actually Obama’s liberal leanings and statist policies which make Obama’s inaction “inexcusable.”

I believe (and could be wrong) that Sadefur’s insistence is based on the unseemlyness and ickyness of not leaping, with lapel pin at the fore, to rail against wrong-headed ideas spoken too close to the candidate.  But I see this a just haggling over the margins of propriety rather than  a substantive gesture.