Does anyone else think the Jeremiah Wright angle is a bad move?

A super PAC supporting the Republican Party (Romney) is going to make attack adds linking Obama to Wright. Does anyone else think this is a terrible direction to go in? I mean:

1.) Isn't this kind of old news that was dispelled in the last election?

2.) Aren't there PLENTY of other, more relevant angles to use?

3.) If Romney is going to dismiss a reporter asking about Obama being in favor of same-sex unions, asking if she had more important, issue-related things to talk about, doesn't it seem a bit hypocritical to address something even more irrelevant?

I know that it's a super PAC and Romney has no control over it (or any say at all if they're operating legally), but...really? Jeremiah Wright? Just when we all thought he'd faded into obscurity, here comes this super PAC that will really only succeed in landing the controversial reverend a book deal!

It just seems ridiculous to me...thoughts?


@justgetitright: Perhaps you do not understand...

1.) I never revealed my political affiliation. I do consider myself a Democrat, but ridiculous is ridiculous, so that didn't play into my motivation in asking this question. I also have serious concerns with Obama but can't even stomach Romney, so this election kinda sucks...

2.) I believe I used the words "I know that...Romney has no control over it"; if those words confuse you, shoot me an email and we'll work it out.

3.) I'd love to see your research on Rev. Wright, so I can see how you came to the ridiculous conclusion that "what Obama has done so far is pretty much straight out of the book of what Wright has been teaching". Remember kids, "wikipedia" and "Fox news" are not credible sources...

Update 2:

Oh...and, no, I wouldn't be ok with Obama attacking Romney on his religion. The fact that I never brought it up makes you look a bit silly, actually; regardless of what politicians do, deflection is not an effective counterargument technique. What makes you look even sillier is the fact that you swear that Romney has nothing to do with the super PAC, and yet you insist that Obama is pulling the strings of the media like the Bush administration did (yet there's no proof of it this time). I just love how you juxtaposed "plausible deniability" for Romney with your irrational paranoia of's priceless.

10 Answers

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    It’s stupid. It was stupid then, and it’s stupid now. Nothing more than right-wing hype, with lots of details left out - as usual.

    I think it’d be wise of Republicans to forego the following past baseless attacks and get on with things the people will actually believe:

    -Socialist (the Socialist Party USA says he’s, ‘barely a liberal.’ And no Socialist would do half the things Obama does. It’s crazy.



    -Born in Kenya


    -Secret Muslim



    -Socialized Medicine

    -Death Panels

    -Pulling the Plug on Grandma

    -Community Organizer (Jesus was one of those)

    If Romney can talk economy, WITH SOME FACTS, he has a chance of making it a race. If not, he’ll have to rely on right-wing voter suppression laws and Super PACS - and he’ll have to continue to lie every day, which, in the end, will be his end.

    Obama, 2012

  • 9 years ago

    Obama has the media (MSNBC) attacking *new* religions to discredit Romney's Mormon faith.

    So I assume that you think this is OK but not so when the attack goes against Obama. I don't think that the Rev. Wright attacks used in 2008 went into enough detail to show how Obama's books that he has wrote correspond to the teachings of the Black Liberation Theology in Rev. Wrights Church and I think that it is fair for the American people to see how these tie together.

    Perhaps you do not understand, Romney is not in favor of using this as part of his campaign, he would rather stick to the real issues. I think Romney is wrong because it will show that what Obama has done so far is pretty much straight out of the book of what Wright has been teaching.

    I would like the chance to see the ad, it may be completely irrelevant and if so it would be a mistake to rehash old news. I just don't think that it is.

  • 4 years ago

    Good transfer, however no less than 10 - 15 years too past due. Sorry, nevertheless it appears al entire lot like what I and so forth feel it's. i.e. Politically influenced and as a consequence FAKE. No Racists within the White House! No to Obama!

  • 9 years ago

    I think that ship sailed a few years back. They don't need to revisit that issue, unless there is a 'smoking gun' type thing there.

    We have PLENTY of other issues that are current and far more relevant to our current problems that the Super PAC can attack him on.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Desire
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Romney seems to think it is a bad move but I am not sure since this is what McCain did and look where he is now.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    I agree - it didn't work last time, and it won't this time either. Obama's economic record is easy to attack, and current. Focusing on this issue is just silly.

  • 9 years ago

    The fact is many ways Obama governs directly relates to Rev Wright, so yes, it is correct to do so

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Not a bad move. Just not a very effective one.

    We all already know Obama attended racist meetings every week. If you care, you already aren't going to vote for him.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    old news that didnt work the first time...obviously

  • Helios
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Hahahaha - right wingers got NOTHING.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.