Pope reframes core message of his papacy

"In a stunning move prior to his US visit next week, Pope Benedict XVI has decided to change the words of the Nicene Creed," deadpanned priest blogger Owl of the Remove recently in a ScrappleFace "Is the pope Catholic?" moment. Before and after images above illustrate the pontiff's "clear and constructive reframing of the core message" of his papacy. Thanks to our dear friend and fellow member of the B16 Fan Club, Jill  of The Business of Life, for the heads up.

"That was a very impressive, clear and constructive flipflopping reframing of the core message of his candidacy," writes a starry-eyed Andrew Sullivan [via Brendan Loy and PJM] regarding Barack Obama's politically astute tossing of  his "spiritual mentor" yesterday in response to the tediously all-about-me Reverend Jeremiah Wright's having come right out and called a spade pandering politician a spade pandering politician. It was one thing to rant and rave behind closed church doors about America as Great Satan, but you don't step out into the sunlight and start telling the world that your former acolyte, like the politician he is, will do whatever it takes to win. Our sense is that those like Sullivan, who want to believe, will enjoy a renewal of faith in the object of their worship, while those like Thomas Sowell -- and ourselves -- who've been there and done that will not be amused. "Everything seems new to those too young to remember the old and too ignorant of history to have heard about it," wrote Sowell the other day, as usual catching the conscience of the would-be kingmakers:

There is no reason why someone as arrogant, foolishly clever and ultimately dangerous as Barack Obama should become president -- especially not at a time when the threat of international terrorists with nuclear weapons looms over 300 million Americans . . .

One of the painful aspects of studying great catastrophes of the past is discovering how many times people were preoccupied with trivialities when they were teetering on the edge of doom. The demographics of the presidency are far less important than the momentous weight of responsibility that office carries . . .

Although Senator Obama has presented himself as the candidate of new things -- using the mantra of "change" endlessly -- the cold fact is that virtually everything he says about domestic policy is straight out of the 1960s, and virtually everything he says about foreign policy is straight out of the 1930s.

On the other hand, "Conservatives ought not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. (That's liberals' job!)," writes Brendan Loy of Irish Trojan in Tennessee, arguing for "a big-picture view of this, please?":

Obama is doing the right thing here, and if he's a little late to the party, slap him on the wrist and then defend him against the coming Wright/Sharpton/etc. onslaught. And then beat him in November on security issues or whatever. But he's on the right side of this issue, and if he loses because of it, it will be a shame for everyone -- principled conservatives included.

Unfortunately, as Sowell wrote recently-- blogged here -- "The fact that Obama talks differently than Jeremiah Wright does not mean that his track record is different." Is the junior Senator from Illinois prepared to forsake the mother's milk of grievance? Sowell again:

Barack Obama's voting record in the Senate is perfectly consistent with the far left ideology and the grievance culture, just as his wife's statement that she was never proud of her country before is consistent with that ideology.

Then there's that unfinished business about Bill Ayers, Obama's Hyde Park neighbor and supporter who -- in Sol Stern's words -- "through his indoctrination of future K-12 teachers has been able to influence what happens in hundreds, perhaps thousands, of classrooms," where -- in our words -- "zombies teachers inculcated with the Marxist talking points of influential anti-capitalist propagandists like [Ayers] are, as Sol Stern wrote, assiduously working below the radar to 'turn the little ones into young socialists and critical theorists.'" Where, exactly, does Obama stand on "critical theory"? We're with Becky C of Just a Girl in Short Shorts Talking About Whatever on this one:

Dr. Ayers and his fellow latte sipping Marxists browbeat young teaching students until they accept the thoroughly discredited economic and social theories of dialectic materialism, much as the victims of Mao's Cultural Revolution did.

Bill Ayers is just a nerdy misguided college freshman who never grew up and cannot stop playing revolution.

Unfortunately, there are way too many people, including perhaps Barack Obama, who take him seriously.

Hey, Hillary & Company, what say you take this one for an outing?

Update: "This is getting no traction, writes Tom Maguire of Just One Minute:

As to where this story is headed -- who knows? I don't think Hillary's staffers are regular readers here, but they may have picked it up from Global Labor, Larry Johnson or Jeralyn Merritt, and they sure could use this now. McCain's people and the RNC ought to like this story since McCain is comfortable bashing Ayers, but September or October may be fine for them.

The MSM has done nothing here, unsurprisingly. As to Rush, Hannity, and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy -- other than Hot Air, American Thinker, and Wizbang this is getting no traction. Michael Barone wrote about how the Ayers story had broken through to the MSM, but they have a long way to go. And we call ourselves a Noise Machine!

Now that the Professor has linked Maguire, we may be looking at some legs.

Update II: Noise Machine on high volume at Sanity's Carnival of the Insanities.

Comments

[goomp]

With the help of ignorant so-called intellectual liberals maybe the American people can elect a potential dictator.

[Jill]

For a man to look his best, he must wear his uniform or a tuxedo. The photos prove the point though I do wonder what he would look like in a tux.

[Teresa]

"Bill Ayers is just a nerdy misguided college freshman who never grew up and cannot stop playing revolution."

I don't agree at all... this is very dangerous thinking.

Never underestimate your enemy. The more everyone considers Ayers to be a "misguided" young man, the less accountability he will have. (after all you can't really blame a child for doing the wrong thing - how could he know it was wrong...)

Underestimating means you don't take them seriously this gives them wiggle room. Before you know it, they'll take you out and you won't know what hit you. Keep your eyes on him and counter his moves because as ridiculous as he is, he can and has done quite substantial damage, both physical and mental.

IMHO that is not childlike at all nor is it playing.