Largely lost in the shuffle of the release of John McCain's medical records, his wife's most recent tax returns, and all the usual Memorial Day coverage was McCain's rejection of Pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley.
Based on the circumstances at hand, McCain made the right move, though the contretemps are the just reward of a still-too-small campaign staff that never recovered from the near fatal implosion of last summer. Vetting major endorsers for publicly available comments that the general public will find deeply troublesome is what campaign staffs are supposed to do. That didn't happen, at least properly, and now the piper has been paid.
Yet, we'll no doubt hear about both pastors again. Inevitably, some Republican entity or group with similar sympathies will bring up Reverend Wright in the coming months (especially after his wildly unsuccessful, recent media tour). At such time, Democrats and their allies will bring up Hagee and Parsely, proclaiming that even though McCain since spurned their endorsements, they were "McCain's pastor" and/or "McCain's spiritual adviser." Such language has already filtered out in recent weeks as the controversies surrounding both pastors began to emerge.
This won't hold water. The political hay to be made here is with church-going voters who so famously went for George W. Bush over John Kerry in 2004 by large numbers. Those voters - heck any American with some common sense - can see the difference between accepting someone's endorsement and saying some nice words about them while doing so versus choosing to have your family attend their church for twenty years.
John Hagee and Rod Parsley are ultimately not as controversial as Jeremiah Wright - though elements of their respective worldviews are all objectionable to a significant number of Americans. More importantly, while John McCain's campaign staff may have erred (rather significantly), he never made a choice to attend and expose his children to a church where statements made by the pastor from the pulpit are grossly offensive on a less than infrequent basis.
Real people get that; regardless of what the Obama defenders and McCain antagonists will say about the matter at a later date.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 27, 2008 10:42 PM | Email ThisThere will come a day when we view skin color like eye color. After the victim traditions and negative aspects of black culture have long since been forgotten in much the same way as other fateful minority traditions have been forgotten.
Until then, Americans are going to have to use common sense to navigate the melanin obsessed Democrats.
Posted by: Jeff B. on May 27, 2008 10:47 PMRight. It's not that he's a neo-Marxist with neo-marxist ideas that run contrary to our political philosophy. Mr. Obama's rhetoric is of racial unity and positive change while privately practicing a Black liberation Philosophy and adhering to a "Black values system". That's called a hypocrite.
"3 months of Rev. Wrights(wrongs) rantings and Obamalama is a racist. McCains pastors say the same things and we get this..."
Straight up lie. Neither hagee nor parsley are/is/ever were McCain's pastor. Meanwhile, Obama sat in Wright's pews for 20 years listening to Wright spewing hatred. I think you need a new Moniker, as that one isn't exactly squaring with the "truth" on any level.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 28, 2008 06:40 AMThe specific comment about Hitler closely correlates with Mainline Protestant Christian AND Jewish teaching. The Bible book Ezekiel (in the old Testament, the Jewish part) is very clear on saying that Jews would return to Israel, that it would be through a combination of suffering and enticement. When Israel, the nation, was born in 1948, Protestant Christians the world over viewed this as a key confirmation of that prophecy.
Google "thedrybonesproject" a Jewish comic strip fighting anti-semitism, refers to the Holocaust as a motivation for the return of the Jews and a confirmation of the prophecy.
Hagee CAN'T apologize for his views on this, because that would be the equivalent of apologizing for the Bible.
Once again, McCain is more concerned about responding to negative liberal press rather - and the easier route is to be anti-semitic and bash Christians - calling one the greatest Jewish prophecies and people who believe in it "crazy and unacceptable".
Hagee's former view on Catholics is also straight Protestant theology. Remember Protestants were chased all over Europe and killed by Catholics, and some finally came to America (i.e. Pilgrims). The early Protestant writings about the Catholics is extremely inflammatory. However, Catholics haven't done much wrong since the mid-1800's. Today, Protestants and Catholics are working together wonderfully in the pro-life movement, in poverty out-reach, setting up medical facilities, and disaster relief. The old sermons, while understandable, need to be updated. Note: Hagee sincerely apologized for his anti-Catholic comments in a long letter.
George Bush won because of a massive conservative christian vote in 2004. John McCain continues to annoy massive section of the American voting public.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 28, 2008 07:21 AM
it appears to me that you are the only one with color on the mind.
AS I said before what was stated by John Hagee and Rod Parsley were wrong and McCain is right in not accepting any endorsements from these two. Just as Rev Wright is wrong and Obama should not accept any endorsement from him. As for 3 months of Wright's rantings and Obama, you may want to do some research and see that Wright has been doing this for years not months. Does that make Obama a racist, no it does not it shows that Wright is the racist. What it shows for Obama is his lack of judgement in the company he keeps. Add it onto all the others that Obama hangs out with (Ayers, Tony Rezko, Rashid Khalidi and others) and it starts to paint a picture of his belief structure.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 28, 2008 07:31 AMI was glad to see that McCain distanced himself. What I would wish, however, is if both sides can drop the pastor-gate issues. Neither McCain, nor Obama, fully believe what their pastors or pastoral-mentors. For Obama, his life's views are more shaped by his mom and grandparents, than by his Pastor. Where Rev. Wright came into play, is leading him to Christ, and instilling in him a desire to reach out with the social gospel (i.e., feeding the poor, taking care of the undesirables of the world). What could be faulted with this social gospel emphasis is a down-play of the rest of the gospel into the mentality of all religions have something to offer and as long as someone believes that is fine (e.g., more Unitarian viewpoint, than Christian)? Obama isn't necessarily there, but given some of his liberal stands, he is very close to that line. For example, his wishy-washy response on gay marriage. Ellen DeGeneras would slam him harder than McCain on this issue. He doesn't have a good answer to why he doesn't believe in gay marriage, but does in civil unions. To me the issue is the "slippery-slope" argument and the intrusion of government into religious doctrine. To me a better stance would be to state that the government shouldn't be involved with religious ceremonies, period (i.e., government shouldn't issue marriage licenses, for marriage is a religious ceremony that the government has co-opted).
Posted by: tc on May 28, 2008 07:39 AMFirst of all 20 years of seeing the same Pastor and he just now discovers what the message is? I find that hard to believe. Even if it that was the case how do you explain all the other unsavory people that the Obama's have associated with?
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 28, 2008 07:45 AMWhat exactly is wrong with what Hagee said about Ezekiel or Parsley about Islam? It appears you are being intellectually lazy like Earling, McCain and others who just don't like bad liberal press and so they agree with the liberal smear to take it off the headlines and move on to issues they want to talk about.
I think they (McCain, Earling, etc.) do this because they believe this is good politics, I don't think so.
Does anyone truly believe that Islam in the Koran does not preach the beating of women, violence against Jews and Christians, etc.? That Mohammed is the example of what a Muslim should be, that his own writings and the hadiths talk about slaughtering Jews, etc. I've read it, the wife beating, killing non-Muslims, etc. is there, I feel like I'm in George Orwell's 1984.
Go look at Memri TV on the web.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 28, 2008 08:11 AMI do not agree that we should judge someone else's religion. You can hold your beliefs that it is not the right religion, but I just do not feel it is right to judge another's religion. As it was once said judge not lest ye be judged yourself.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 28, 2008 08:20 AMDo you actually understand the difference between being theologically correct versus the political ramifications of statements most Americans find offensive?
I didn't for one minute in the post above spend any time on the theology or intellectual merits of what Hagee and Parsley said. I simply recognized that regardless of the validity of their statements, many Americans - including many who might otherwise vote Republican - will find them troublesome and not worthy of Presidential politics.
This is a fundamental issue in our debates. You're so busy trying to be right, you seem to forget that in a representative democracy a majority of people actually have to share your opinion in order to get elected and thus implement any of the agenda you seek to advance. And in this case, controversial comments from Hagee and Parsley are not a winning argument...let alone a core issue in this campaign.
Posted by: Eric Earling on May 28, 2008 08:34 AMHowever, tc, how do you know the DalaiBama doesn't believe the Wright nonsense? Because Bama said so?
At first, we were praising the Dalai Bama for being black and now you are praising his values based upon his white side? I don't think you can have it both ways.
If elected, he won't be the first black President but the first mixed race President and the most Communist president.
Posted by: swatter on May 28, 2008 08:41 AMJudge not that ye be not judge is a very good verse and I'm glad you have that ideal. Generally I agree. However, self-defense is also an ideal that trumps not judging people.
For a pastor to point out that Islam calls for Jihad as one of it's fundamental pillars (Zakah, funding Jihad), and that millions of Islamic people take that as a serious call to go to war against non-believers seems pretty okay with me. If you choose to be stupid, I guess that is your right, but at least admit it is a choice and don't judge a pastor for trying to teach you the truth. OH I thought you were against judging, but I guess that only applies to Muslim Imams and not Christian Pastors.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 28, 2008 09:04 AMYes I understand political expediancy over truth, I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
Hagee's comments about Catholics was Hagee getting mired in the past for which he apologized in detail. We should be thankful for this and ask for the same of Rev. Wright.
Hagee's comments about the Jewish return to Israel were fine, pro-Israel, etc. McCain's comments were the "crazy and unacceptable" ones bred out of ignorance of Protestant Christian teaching, who last I check are the majority in this country. So be careful what you claim in a majority. Just cuz, Eric says it doesn't make it a majority.
Rev. Rod's comments were basically spot on, except for the part were he said that America was founded to fight Islam. That was a bastardization of the early American fight "from the shores of Tripoli" and the storming of Fortress Derne by the MARINES ... Hoo Ahh.
Posted by: John McDonald on May 28, 2008 09:16 AMYou serve as an excellent case in point.
Posted by: Hinton on May 28, 2008 09:25 AMPerhaps you could educate this idiot why 19 young men killed 3000 Americans, and the acts in London, Madrid, Manila, India, Nigeria, Sudan, etc.? I'm waiting to be educated, please don't use the words Islam, Muslim, Mohammad, Jihad, Wahabbi etc. in the answer because that would need to repudiated as hateful.
Educate this Idiot Pleezzzzeeee, oh smart one.
You state how can Obama sit in the Congregation for 20 years? I think the answer is because the congregation is not the Pastor. The congregation is a community (especially in the Black church, but even so in the White traditional churches). My childhood church (UCC), is a prime example. It is a very graying church that has become more a social club than an evangelical outreach. Its only growth period in the last 30-40 years was when I was in High School and they hired a young seminary graduate who had a passion for youth ministry. After he left, they have went through a series of pastors, some interns from Dubuque Seminary, that the older, graying population was comfortable with. I would ask how do these people stay in a church that is so dead. The answer is the same as TUCC. The UCC and many mainline, traditional churches have often become more social clubs than evangelical outposts.
With regards to the comment about other unsavory people, please explain and contrast that say with all the unsavory people that other politicians associate themselves with. Yes, Obama had a few dealings with Tony Recko (sp?), so did many in the Chicago political establishment (probably Republican and Democrat alike). So Obama had a community fundraiser put on by Bill Ayers, I am sure he put on fundraisers for many politician in Chicago. He was/is alot closer to the Mayor then he ever was/is to Obama. The board Obama served on with Ayers was a community board made up of more than just two people. There were several other prominent community people involved on the board (I am sure the bankers weren't Democrats). If you are going to throw open the guilt by association, then McCain's Keating History is definately open for review and scrutiny, plus many more. This "guilt-by-association" is a red herring. Why aren't the Hannity's and other media crowd wanting to attack Obama on the issues? I am sure there is plenty of disagreement there. Is it maybe because they know the majority of America doesn't agree with Sean Hannity on the issues and see him as who he really is, which is a Bush/Rove cheerleeder/wannabee? Let Hannity articulate why he feels his stands on the issues are correct. At least someone like George Will has the brains to articulate his positions and attacks Obama on the issues, not the drive-by associations. Even O'Reilly has more intelligence to attack the issues, even in spite of the fact that at times it appears he likes to be antagonistic just to boost ratings (e.g., political Jerry Springer).
Unfortunately, there is no way for you or I to fully assess whether he believes it or not. So, I have to go with he does since his mate is surely in line with Wright.
Posted by: swatter on May 28, 2008 10:42 AMYes, but the pastor is the message. It's the reason Oprah had enough sense to leave a few years back. What did she see and react to that conflicted with the rest of the bobbleheads in the pews?
Posted by: Rick D. on May 28, 2008 11:04 AMCould it be that Oprah would be uncomfortable in the congregation when confronted with the Gospel?
Posted by: tc on May 28, 2008 12:14 PM@ 20~ It's what Oprah doesn't say that speaks volumes. She knew as a savvy business woman not to link herself with an incendiary figure like Jeremiah Wright if she wanted to retain her title as America's favorite daytime talk-show host.
Either Obama agrees with the message of pastor Wright, or lacked the moral courage to leave the congregation because he knew it constituted a large contingent of his voting base. It's as simple as that.
Some of you dolts don't get it. Black = bad, White = good. NO ONE IN HERE HAS SAID ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY!! Also, Rick D has many a time said that Blacks are victims, play the victim card and/or welfare recipients. Not some, not a few, just plain BLACKS. So what is it? Black = Bad or are you going to spin your way out of that?
Posted by: Truth In Words on May 28, 2008 06:20 PMEvery post is in the archives listed by month. Feel free to back up your asinine post @ 22 with some proof or go back to HA with the rest of the trolls.
Posted by: Rick D. on May 28, 2008 06:38 PMYou do make a good point, but I would say look at the individual teaching the religion. Man is after all only human and can take any religion and twist it to their own interpretations. This has happened with the majority of religions in the world. to include my own. I am Mormon and althought the church no longer believes in polygamy (and hasn't for over a decade)you still have these poligamist sects that claim they are part of the LDS church. This does not mean that they are truly following the Mormon beliefs, they have only taken what they want to believe and made it their religion.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 28, 2008 10:48 PMIIRC, Barry donated over $50,000 (yes, FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS) to Rev. Wright. That shows a *lot* of support FROM BARRY.
McCain gave lip service to these two guys. Dumb, perhaps, but that's all he gave them.
Posted by: steve miller on May 29, 2008 05:37 AMNow, ignoring that fact that B-HO has a 20 year relationship with an equally controversial pastor with a big mouth, WHY THE HELL AREN'T THE DAMNED LIBERALS SCREAMING OVER B-HO's HAMAS ENDORSEMENT, B-HO's CASTRO ENDORSEMENT AND B-HO's CHAVEZ ENDORSEMENT?
Are our liberal 'friends" so slow and or/blinded by the hope of change that they cannot see the difference between AMERICAN pastors with skewed views that probably still want what's best for American and vile, vicious dictators who openly hate and scorn us?
To quote Monica Crowley
When your enemies tell you who they are, believe them. When they tell you what they intend to do, believe them. And when they tell you which of your presidential candidates they'd prefer, believe them. They're not pulling your leg. (They only do that when it comes to reporting their nuclear activities.)
When America's enemies prefer the Clueless Hope Guy to the Bona fide War Hero, it shouldn't take a neurosurgeon to figure out for whom responsible Americans should vote.
Never Yet Melted:
Fidel Castro joins Hamas in endorsing Obama. (Hugo Chavez only said he was against McCain.)Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on May 29, 2008 10:40 AM
