As for Jesse Jackson: I think he is an opportunist of the worst sort and I have no respect for the guy. Shame on anyone who shares a stage with him. I think he is pretty harmless, though.

Here is the mission statement from the church:

http://www.tucc.org/about.htm

People have the right to worship however they choose — I don’t see anything so objectionable that Obama should renounce it. On a scale of one to ten, it makes John Edwards’s tonsorial bills look important.

I think it’s a much bigger deal if someone is a member of a church with questionable views than if someone appears with someone who has questionable views when he most certainly doesn’t share them. And Carlson is using direct quotes from the church’s own description so take your worthless ad hominem attacks somewhere that they might be applicable.

If Obama finds the church’s views objectionable, he shouldn’t be a member.

“Maybe he just likes the choir.” — I hope that you’re trying to be funny there because if you’re not, that’s the most pathetic example of grasping at straws I may have ever seen.

“So Barack Obama is a member of a church called Trinity United Church of Christ. It’s a predominantly black church in Chicago, that espouses something called the ‘Black Value System,’ which includes calls for congregants to be “soldiers for black freedom’ and a, quote, ‘disavowal of the pursuit of middleclassness.’” — Tucker Carlson

It doesn’t sound terribly different from beliefs that Louis Farrakhan might espouse.

BTW, Pat Robertson also opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Rudy appearing on the same stage as him doesn’t make a hawk like me nervous about Rudy’s foreign policy.

I would not conclude that President Hillary would push for reparations – but I would conclude that her policies overall would be congenial to the things which Sharpton advocates. That may be why you haven’t seen them together. I am not suggesting that President Rudy would call for Hugo Chavez to be assassinated – but I do expect that his overall policies would veer substantially to the right.

Re post 14: I don’t think Rudy can change his position on abortion without looking as bad as Romney — he’s boxed in — but if he gets elected thanks to the social conservatives, I would be shocked if he nominates a pro-choice judge to the Supreme Court –

I just don’t buy it. Rudy may need socons to win the Republican primary, but he doesn’t need them to win the Presidency itself (or, at least, he would need a bunch of other people too), and I doubt he would face a serious primary challenge in ’12 if he were to win in ’08.

Besides which, vetoing stem cell legislation is bad politics – if we’re assuming that Rudy is going to sell out, wouldn’t it make more sense for him to sell out in the intelligent direction? I don’t think he’s going to restrict stem cell funding on principle. And he’s already committed himself to a pro-choice position.

Peter, I have to be honest. I don’t see how any reasonable person can think that Rudy would govern in a socially conservative manner. I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous or deliberately credulous or what, but it just isn’t going to happen. At best he will appoint “conservative” judges . . . but he would probably do that anyway, since he’s going to want judges who won’t be too, ah, aggressive in defending individual rights in the face of anti-terrorism actions (there seems to be a correlation). I would bet substantial money that Rudy would gladly approve federal funds for stem cell research, or sign legislation changing the UCMJ so that gays could serve openly in the military.

Actually, I think there are better examples out there than Farrakhan or Churchill. Let’s put a different one out there – if Hillary appeared at an event with Al Sharpton, Peter, would you conclude that a President Hillary would push for reparations for slavery? ‘Cause I kinda wouldn’t.