After repeatedly asking Obama about Farrakhan during debate, Russert ignored guest's reference to Hagee's endorsement of McCain on Meet the Press
SUMMARY: On Meet the Press, host Tim Russert ignored Republican strategist Mike Murphy's reference to Sen. John McCain's acceptance of an endorsement by evangelist John Hagee. Russert did not identify Hagee by name or mention Hagee's statements denouncing or disparaging homosexuality, Islam, Catholics, and women. By contrast, during the last Democratic debate, Russert persisted with questions to Sen. Barack Obama about Louis Farrakhan's support of Obama, despite Obama's repeated denunciations of Farrakhan's statements.
During the March 2 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert ignored a reference by guest commentator and Republican strategist Mike Murphy to Sen. John McCain's acceptance of an endorsement by evangelist John Hagee, founder and senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. Murphy asserted that "[t]he McCain campaign's got to -- in my view, anyway, from the outside -- understand that the primary is over, they don't need to be campaigning with televangelists in San Antonio." But Russert did not address Murphy's comment: He did not identify Hagee by name. Nor did he mention Hagee's endorsement of McCain, the Catholic League's Bill Donohue's criticism of McCain over the endorsement, or Hagee's controversial statements about, among other topics, homosexuality, Islam, Catholicism, and women. Rather, Russert moved on to a different subject after Murphy finished speaking. By contrast, during the February 26 Democratic primary debate in which he was a moderator, Russert repeatedly asked Sen. Barack Obama about comments made by Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan despite Obama's saying in answer to Russert's first question on the topic: "I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible" and despite repeating his "denunciation" in response to follow-up questions. Obama had also previously denounced Farrakhan's statements.
On February 27, Hagee endorsed McCain at a press conference in which the two appeared together. Following Hagee's endorsement, McCain said, "All I can tell you is I'm very proud to have pastor Hagee's support." Subsequently, Donohue criticized McCain for his failure to repudiate Hagee's support, issuing a statement in which he called Hagee "anti-Catholic" and a "bigot" and stated: "Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee." McCain subsequently stated of Hagee: "When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes in." During the Meet the Press segment, Murphy said: "[W]ith all due respect to the good reverend, and I will say as a Catholic boy who has spent a lot of time with John McCain, there is not an anti-Catholic atom in John McCain; he loves my people."
From the March 2 edition of NBC's Meet the Press:
MURPHY: The McCain campaign's got to -- in my view, anyway, from the outside -- understand that the primary is over, they don't need to be campaigning with televangelists in San Antonio. They need to pivot to the general election in a way --
[laughter]
-- in a way -- with all due respect to the good reverend, and I will say as a Catholic boy who's spent a lot of time with John McCain, there is not an anti-Catholic atom in John McCain; he loves my people -- but pivot to the general election and take the fact that McCain is a different kind of Republican and run with it in a very bad environment where we need that kind of guy to win, or Democrat city. It'll set the conservative movement back 50 years.
RUSSERT: Let me show you another issue where there will be a difference between John McCain and either Obama or Clinton, and that's NAFTA, [panelist and Republican strategist] Mary Matalin. North America Free Trade Agreement.
Hagee must wear lead-lined clothes that defeat Russert's X-ray vision. Now all we need is some Kryptonite to neutralize Russertman. Kneel before Zod.
These endorsements aren't that big a deal, in and of themselves.Politicians want all kinds of support, and they can't control who supports them, as long as they can keep the connection looking one-way.
It's the double standard that's an issue, and everybody in the media seems to be very carefully avoiding it. McCain being ignored as he snuggles up with one nut, while Obama is still being asked to explain how he has denounced another nut.
Well said Colonel......
As it pertains to the corporate owned media...... sometimes facts can be such a bitch
ps. I plead guilty to having missed the Feb. 28th MMFA thread about Hagee.
Reading MMFA's links about Hagee, he certainly seems like a evangelical nutcase in the mold of Pat Robertson, to me. I would hope that McCain will denounce Hagee's views and reject his endorsement with more fervor than Obama's rather tepid denunciation of Farrakhan during the debate.
But I won't hold my breath.
McCain's already put himself in a pretty awkward position with regard to Hagee's endorsement. He's stated that he's "very honored" by the endoresement and said "all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee’s support." If he now rejects that endorsement he'll likely anger and alienate more potential voters than the rejection would gain.
It's a shame he didn't show Obama's character. Obama has denounced the positions of Farrakhan for years. It was only reinforced in the debate last week when he forcefully and unequivocally restated that denunciation and rejection. There was NOTHING tepid in his rejection.
Interesting post, Bill.You make some very good points.
And to AA: if McCain WERE to denounce Hagee and reject his endorsement after first gratefully ACCEPTING it, wouldn't such a public reversal be a case of him... oh, I don't know... FLIP FLOPPING on this question?
And, as long as we're wagering here, if McCain were to now reject Hagee's endorsement, I'd put my money on the likelihood that this would be portrayed in the MSM as an another example of McCain's Straight Talk rather than as a flip flop.
I doubt whether we'll ever see your prediction put to the test. I don't think we'll see any rejection of the endorsement by McCain, but I also don't think we'll see him embrace it. He'll just try to downplay it from now on. I'm sure his staff is working right now on just the right way for him to respond in the future when he's asked about Hagee.
Who knows, though, maybe at some point we'll actually see an interviewer press him a bit on it.
Cain is not asked to denounce Hagee simply because they are whites. Obama is forced to denounce both his pastor and Farrakhan, not because Farrakhan is any more "hateful" than your average Fox pundit, but in order to symbolically distance himself from Blackness. White supremacist "logic" is that if Obama can't be white he must be made as non-Black as possible. This is reminscent of how Tiger Woods was pressured to deny his Blackness when it became apparent that he would take over the game of golf.
White supremacy thought is a virulent mental disease.
Obama has a responsibility to denounce Farrahkan. Farrahkan is a racist and should be denounced. To insinuate that Obama is being forced to denounce Farrahkan to distance himself from being black is interesting but ludicrous at the same time. Do you believe that Obama should support the rhetoric of Farrahkan?
Never ever get confused, and think that what it is the televised "media" chatters and blathers on about, is what actual people are talking about, and discussing with regard to the Presidential election, and the candidates.
These stuttering prattling empty "media" heads are stuck in a groove, like a record player's needle that keeps hitting a scratch in the vinyly, and bouncling back into the previous groove again and again (because it has no sense and no brain to know better, so it just keeps repeating the same mistake over and over).
Farrakhan. Hussein. Muslim (no, actually, I think the man attends a Christian church, "as far as I know").
Guess what?
When regular folks talk about Sen. Obama, those things are not what they're talking about.
Try and try as they may, the empty talking heads of the televised "media" are gaining no ground or inroads into American Political Discourse, as discoursed by the American People, as they echo repeatedly these most stupid little things on which no sensible and serious American voter is going to cast their ballot this fall...
No more than the millions and millions of Americans have so far, who have registered their support for Sen. Obama, in the Democratic Primaries.
It's like a broken record, that keeps warbling "Farrakhan Hussein Muslim... Farrakhan Hussein Muslim... Farrakhan..."
"Hey babe, could you take that record off the record player please, it's driving me insane! And just throw the danged thing in the trash why don't you... it's got a scratch in it, and can't help but repeat itself stupidly, over and over, for being stuck in a groove"
"And oh yeah babe, I've just decided on who I'm voting for this fall, and guess what criteria never ever even entered into my mind in the least, in guiding my decision?"
"The candidate's middle name, that's what!"
I read this site a lot and occasionally have to criticize it. Today is one of those days (a little tough luv if you will).
This is at least the second item where MMFA has whined about Russert's repeated questions to Obama during last week's debate regarding Farrakhan. All Obama's trouble could have been avoided if he simply answered the first question: "Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?" All he had to do was say he REJECTED his support, and that would've been the end of those Farrakhan questions (though Russert still might have thrown in one question relating to Jeremiah Wright).
Instead, Barack repeated his denunciations of Farrakhan's anti-semitic comments from previous press reports, which as Hillary later pointed out, is NOT the same as rejecting someone. All Russert was doing was doing what any good journalist would do: get the politician to answer the original question! And if Obama had "rejected" Farrakhan's support in print in the first place, Russert would likely not have asked about him during the debate.
The only problem I really had with Russert during this exchange is that he didn't realize (and should have) that Farrakhan's Judaism is a "gutter religion" statement was taken out of context. (See Farrakhan's wikipedia entry to see what I'm talking about).
I guess you missed my point: It shouldn't have taken Obama several tries to answer the darn question and denounce such a controversial supporter. It didn't matter what "specific" word he used, as long as he said he didn't accept his endorsement.
Also, I totally agree with others that the media needs to put the pressure on McCain to accept or reject the support of John Hagee. Hagee isn't on par with Farrakhan as far as name recognition is concerned, but the MSM shouldn't let that fact stand in the way of questioning him about this nutcase on the campaign trail.
I watched that debate and saw that exchange. When he received the question he stated very strongly how he felt about Farrakhan and reiterated the denunciations he had given in the past. I came away from that first statement with absolutely no doubt in my mind that Obama rejected the endorsement.
I don't think it occurred to Obama, any more than it occurred to me, that the fact he simply didn't happen to use the word "reject" had any significance when all the rest of his words were 100% equivalent. Once he realized that Russert and Clinton were attempting to make hay over that word, he went ahead and used it with an air of bemusement.
It's a nonsense fuss about a distinction without a difference.
I disagree with the editorial. I don't disagree that the two words have different definitions, but in the context of how Obama was using them they effectively meant the same thing.
Let's be realistic. If Russert and Clinton had not pursued the word "reject" and we had just been left with Obama's initial response, would anyone have walked away with the idea that Farrakhan's endorsement was welcome and accepted? He strongly and unequivocally gave his opinion of Farrakhan. Anyone who listened to that response and came away thinking that the endorsement was NOT rejected could only have been inserting their own meanings into his words.
Being an atheist, I have a difficult time tolerating any of this. Religion is the scourge of mankind – is that so hard to see? About the only way I might accept any religion would be if some genius could come up with a “one size fits all” religion with a common message of love thy neighbor. If we could only stop arguing whose invisible spirit in the sky is the right one to worship, 90% of the world’s problems would be solved. Atheist’s would still be frustrated as hell with the ignorance of it all, but at least the religious of the world would all be on the same page and not ready to kill each other over their differences in beliefs.
I truly believe that man is inherently moral and good and that life’s experiences are enough to instill the importance of love, trust, and respect for each other. Unlike what most people think about religion – that it is a necessary element of the human psyche and acts as a “moral compass” for distinguishing right from wrong - all indications show that in reality quite the opposite is true. It robs man of their inherent morality by promoting psychotic fantasies, irrational fears, and hatred to those who are different in their beliefs. It takes away from the importance of individual responsibility to the planet and the environment by promoting the idea that man is not in control of his own destiny. These are just a few of the most obvious evils of religion.
So, despite all the obvious faults, why has religion continued to flourish throughout history? One word – ego. It’s not easy to accept the brevity of life, or the smallness of your life - and nothing will take away from living with that reality like a promise of eternal life. It’s not a difficult sell for any religion - and so the fairy tales live on.
If religious factions think they are angry with each other, you can't even begin to imagine how angry atheists are with all of them for putting their selfish celestial expectations ahead of the future of their children, and all of mankind, while they continue to promote and play their Armageddon games!
I truly believe that man is inherently moral and good and that life’s experiences are enough to instill the importance of love, trust, and respect for each other.
While I admire the optimisim, have you been paying attention. To paraphrase Mr. Hyde from the movie Jekyl and Hyde Together Again, "Man has not evolved a bit from the slime that spawned him. And the proof is that he is willing to kill in the name of a "loving and benevolent God". I have little doubt that God is real -- although he may not be your big invisible friend in the sky -- but I somethime doubt whether we are as our grasp on reality is so strained. No, I am not referring to Clevenative (before a slap fight begins) but to humans as a whole. I truly hope there is something "bigger" than us out there it would reflect well on God, the creative force, the univerese -- take your pick.
If man is inherently evil and requires religion as a moral compass, how did man survive during the era prior to established religion? I admit calling man "inherently moral" was sugar coating it a bit. But it’s hard to argue with the religious in any terms other than “good” and “evil”. Both words are subjective – as is the word “moral”. My point was meant to simply say that man is NOT inherently evil or “filled with the devil”. Your Jekyl and Hyde quote mentioning killing in the name of God ads to my argument, thank you.
I didn’t post what I did do argue anyone’s beliefs, just to vent my frustrations with the consequences of them.
Clev,
While I respect your opinion, I disagree with your assumptions. Let's just start with your assertion that 90% of the world's problems would be solved if it were not for religion. Where do you get 90%? I assume you are just picking that number out of your hat to make a point.
Are you not aware the greatest mass murderers in history, have been atheists? Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot to name a few. Was WWII a religious war? WWI?
I'll concede that radical Islamist wahhabism is a corruption of the Muslim religion. But most people agree that it is a corruption of the religion and not the accepted belief of Islam. I do not believe you can equate that with all of Islam or with Christianity or Judiaism. So I'd be interested in hearing your rationale for lumping all religions as the scourge of mankind.
Many have argued that man is designed to have a belief in God, not out of ego, but because of our link to God as part of His Creation. How can you explain consciousness? How can you explain the jump from non-life to life? How can you explain the origin of the universe? These are a few questions that perplex me. I do admit that part of my faith rests in hope for life after death. To believe that one simply ceases to exist when one dies is utterly depressing.
I'll stop here. Thanks for sharing your views.
These people were killed in the pursuit of political power, not to promote some twisted "atheistic" religious agenda. Religious murderers, however, have often killed to promote their religious agendas.
How many "witches" were hanged or burned alive? How many people died in the Crusades for the sake of Religion? Just think how much more impressive these numbers could have been if the Holy Fathers could have used 20th Century technology...
The “atheists are evil” link you’re trying to sell is usually one of the first arguments I hear against atheists. Watch this short You Tube video Religious Murder and ask yourself what those "body count" figures would have been had the perpetrators had access to modern war tools? As a percentage of population – some of these body counts were even more than the genocide of modern religious wars. Consider that this was an age when a city of a few hundred to a few thousand people might be considered a “major city” by today’s standard.
As Nerzog points out (thank you), Hitler was a Roman Catholic, baptized into that religio-political institution as an infant in Austria. He became a communicant and an altar boy in his youth and was confirmed as a "soldier of Christ" in that church. Its worst doctrines never left him. He was steeped in its liturgy, which contained the words "perfidious jew." This hateful statement was not removed from the Catholic liturgy until 1961. "Perfidy" means treachery. I’m not blaming all of Hitler’s madness on Catholicism, but as a person baptized Catholic and taught the faith in a parochial school in the 50’s and 60’s I can tell you that I was taught that Jews are unable to enter the kingdom unless they convert to Catholicism. The notion of a “nod-and-a-wink” from the Catholic Church to Hitler does not see as unthinkable as some would like to pretend it to be. Didn’t the recent controversy of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” prove that to this day there are still plenty of Americans blaming the Jews for Christ’s death? Since 9-11 it’s the Muslim’s turn as objects of our "Christian" wrath.
Many religious leaders killed in the name of their religion. Atheists do not kill in the name of atheism. Those in your list who actually were atheists were just simply evil people. Atheism does not factor into the reasons behind the deaths.
"… How can you explain consciousness? How can you explain the jump from non-life to life? How can you explain the origin of the universe? These are a few questions that perplex me. I do admit that part of my faith rests in hope for life after death. To believe that one simply ceases to exist when one dies is utterly depressing."
I realize that this is only a partial list of your “But WHY. Mommy?” questions that have haunted you all your life – and a great example of the reasons why man has bought into religion. I’d like to have all the answers too. So you’re saying that because religion gives man answers to the questions for which there are no answers, it is good for man and proves that “god” exists?
Your last sentence of this quoted paragraph is the whole key to religion. No ego there? If man was more concerned with making the best of life on earth, for not only themselves and their family – but for future generations of man – and not so hung up with the selfish, “What is going to happen to ME?” question - we’d all be living in a much healthier environment. Ad the fact that most religions preach and promise some sort of "end of the world" scenario such as The Rapture or "72 virgins in heaven" and man has been basically given an excuse for destroying the planet in exchange for THEIR ETERNAL LIFE AND SALVATION. To me, this is the scariest aspect of the embracement of religious beliefs.
Personally I find the idea that some “righteous” god would condemn uncountable trillions of non-believers to “hell” for eternity, a bit more depressing than the thought of what happens to me when I die.
Sorry, but I prefer to seek answers to these tough questions through science, not by believing in fairy tales.
"Reading MMFA's links about Hagee, he certainly seems like a evangelical nutcase in the mold of Pat Robertson, to me."
Actually, Hagee makes Pat Robertson look moderate. Check out Hagee's website sometime. I wish I had a dollar for every "Donate to Israel" or "Support Israel" button. I wonder who his financial backer is?
Hagee is the one who at one time, and it may still be there, had a logo with three crosses, the American flag waving in the wind, and three figher jets zooming overhead. Let's see if I can put it all together...um...Reverend Hagee's version of Christianity combines belief in Christ with precision bombing and American power? I can picture him asking "who would Jesus bomb?" only the question would be serious and not like the sarcastic bumper sticker. What to do about those pesky Bible verses about turning the other cheek, and giving the theif you cloak when he steals your coat - not to mention all that rubbish about leaving all your belongings and following Christ. Wait, am I confusing the Bible with Glenn Beck's "An Inconvenient Book"?
It is fun to watch you all whine and complain about the media's treatment of your side. Welcome to the club!
You listen to Rush? My husband is an Independent. I didn't think you liberals were so chauvinistic. Fox bimbo? I wish.
If you're not a Rush sychophant, my apologies. However, your implication that you believe the "liberal media" myth is a fairly reliable indicator of dittobot tendencies.
Nerzog,
It looks to me like you are projecting some gender related issues here my friend.
For once I find common ground with you libs. Hagee is as bigoted as Farrakhan. His views disgust me. I probably agree with you libs about Mike Huckabee the Christian leader. He is anti-Catholic as well.
I was in NH working for Mitt Romney. On the way out of morning Mass, Huck's brainwashed minions were handing out vile anti-Mormon propaganda. When I told them what they could do with it they informed me that I am not a Christian either. Hmmm, intereting.
I am as solid a Republican as they come, but there is no room for bigotry. Sen. McAmnesty should renounce this bigot just as Obama was right to renounce Farrakhan. We don't need the support of people like Hagee to win. We can win on the issues.