Wolffe identifies "free ride" for McCain over Hagee
SUMMARY: On MSNBC, during a discussion of the focus on Sen. Barack Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright compared with that on Sen. John McCain's relationship with Pastor John Hagee, Newsweek's Richard Wolffe stated, "In some ways, John McCain is getting a free ride." Hagee has made controversial statements about Hurricane Katrina, women, homosexuality, the Catholic Church, and Islam.
On the April 30 edition of MSNBC's Race to the White House, during a discussion of the focus on Sen. Barack Obama's relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright compared with that on Sen. John McCain's relationship with Pastor John Hagee, Newsweek White House correspondent Richard Wolffe stated, "In some ways, John McCain is getting a free ride." Hagee, who has made controversial statements about Hurricane Katrina, women, homosexuality, the Catholic Church, and Islam, endorsed McCain at a February 27 rally with the candidate. On the April 20 edition of ABC's This Week, McCain stated that it was "probably" a mistake to solicit and accept Hagee's endorsement, but said, "I admire and respect Dr. Hagee's leadership of the -- of his church." And when asked if he no longer wanted Hagee's endorsement, McCain said, "I'm glad to have his endorsement."
During the Race to the White House segment, host David Gregory read an email from a viewer who wrote: "Now that Barack Obama has categorically separated himself from Reverend Wright, when can we expect John McCain to reject and denounce Pastor Hagee? If some people can't see that there is a blatant double standard going on here, I'm afraid that America will never be able to bridge the racial divide that still haunts our country." After reading the email, Gregory said to Wolffe, "[T]hat's Pastor Hagee, who has endorsed John McCain and has been very critical of the Catholic Church and has been called out on that." Wolffe replied, "And look, we've all heard evangelical ministers, white ministers, condemn America and damn America for abortions. And so, yeah, I don't think there's an equal balance of criticism and focus here. In some ways, John McCain is getting a free ride."
Media Matters for America has documented (here, here, here, here, and here) numerous examples of the disparity between the media's extensive coverage of controversial comments made by Wright and other supporters of Obama and their coverage of controversial comments made by Hagee and other supporters of McCain. Most recently, Media Matters documented that since Hagee endorsed McCain, The New York Times and The Washington Post combined have published more than 12 times as many articles mentioning Wright and Obama as they have mentioning Hagee and McCain.
From the April 30 edition of MSNBC's Race to the White House:
GREGORY: Let's move on to another email, Terri in Maryland, who writes the following: "Now that Barack Obama has categorically separated himself from Reverend Wright, when can we expect John McCain to reject and denounce Pastor Hagee? If some people can't see that there is a blatant double standard going on here, I'm afraid that America will never be able to bridge the racial divide that still haunts our country."
Richard Wolffe, that's Pastor Hagee, who has endorsed John McCain and has been very critical of the Catholic Church and has been called out on that.
WOLFFE: Absolutely. And look, we've all heard evangelical ministers, white ministers, condemn America and damn America for abortions. And so, yeah, I don't think there's an equal balance of criticism and focus here. In some ways, John McCain is getting a free ride. But of course, that doesn't take away from the offensive nature and the outrageousness of what Reverend Wright has said. But at some point, that scrutiny will come.
Wright's own big mouth made this an issue this week, not media bias.
His NAACP speech was not only racist, but a rambling piece of complete intellectual nonsense-- and even that's using the word nicely. With this in mind, the MSM's preoccupation makes perfect sense.
The relationship between McCain and Hagee does not compare. Pointing to Hagee right now is just an attempt to distract from an obviously uncomfortable issue for Obama supporters.
Uncomfortable? Pishaw. Only 32% of the public think Jeremiah Wright is a problem.
And 71% think that George W. Bush is a problem.
WOLFFE: Absolutely. And look, we've all heard evangelical ministers, white ministers, condemn America and damn America for abortions. And so, yeah, I don't think there's an equal balance of criticism and focus here. In some ways, John McCain is getting a free ride. But of course, that doesn't take away from the offensive nature and the outrageousness of what Reverend Wright has said. But at some point, that scrutiny will come.
The time for that scrutiny is now.
And so, yeah, I don't think there's an equal balance of criticism and focus here
That's because there's not an equal balance between the Obama/Wright relationship and the McCain/Hagee connection. And Wright's been grandstanding the last few days-- Hagee's not been.
They are not the same thing at all, so the MSM scrutinizing Wright more than Hagee makes perfect sense at this time. It's comparing apples to oranges. Wolfe is a blatant Obama partisan and rampant MSNBC Hillary-hater, so he's hardly objective. Obama supporters are grasping at straws here.
Sorry guys, blame Wright's mouth for the current problem, not bias.
One can argue all day long about the vastly different relationships between each candidate and the pastor in question, or how one candidate is getting this "free ride", while the other is being bludgeoned non-stop......the point being, for me, is it should all just be done, finished.
As I said, in my opinion the left should not be pulling Hagee into any spotlight as some contrast to Wright - people have heard Hagee's brand of nonsense for years, his bigotry and inanities have cluttered up political campaigns for a long time - people are immune to it, obviously they heard similar stuff from the Falwells and Robertsons and it got little traction then, why should now be any different?
It's the left's fault that the Wright issue has traction?
The left posted it on YouTube?
The left endlessly brought it up on cable crap news?
The left relentlessly pounded it on right-wing radio?
The left propagated the e-mail smear campaigns?
So now Hillary comprises the entirety of the left?
Or it's just simply all her fault?
Ridiculous. You WITH'ers will do anything to downplay the power of the right-wing slime machine.
Did I say the entirety of the left?
Those of you that have to make stuff up in order to refute it are products of your own slime producing machine. Lighten up.
I also noticed how you didn't lay this at MMFA's feet, as you've done with other items, and instead piled it on the wants and expectations of "the left."
Nicely played.
And in regard to Hillary fanning the flames...
When and where does she do it?
Does she do it spontaneously?
Or does she do it when the "liberal" media insists on asking her about it?
Some of it may very well be spontaneous, I don't know off hand.
Regardless, Hillary deserves scorn for capitalizing on it with her responses, and she's gotten plenty of it from the left. Hartmann, Rhodes, Schultz and Olbermann have all come down on her for it.
But if the media were to leave it alone, I think she would too.
She did spontaneously play the 'slum lord' card, but I don't know of her doing it since.
Media person questioning Hillary; "What do you think of the controversy surrounding Senator Obama and Reverend Wright, what are your thoughts, please tell us!"
Hillary; "I have no comment, it's not about the issues or my campaign, I will not dignify the question, or the quote, unquote - "controversy", sorry, if you ask it again, my response will be the same"........"Next question".
Seems easy to me.
"Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan."
Meet Hillary's Religious Leader, Rightwingnut Doug Coe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5071798
"Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan."
Meet Hillary's Religious Leader, Rightwingnut Doug Coe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5071798
Tommy I agree with you, Hillary has pushed this and so has her supporters.
That's complete nonsense. They don't have to.
This is about Wright and his young protege in Chicago and nothing else (one can only imagine what would happen if Hillary had such a "mentor.") And McCain's day will come-- but Hagee is not his Wright.
Well, Hillary certainly fanned the flames, and she is a member of the "left".
She may have blown on the embers, but low-lifes like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and Ingraham and cybersewers like NewsMax, World Nut Daily, and Free RepubliKKK have been after it with leafblowers.
She may have blown on the embers...
She hasn't even done that. She hasn't done anything at all here.
This is Obama's fault plain and simple for following this intellectual crank, and scapegoating it or blaming an evil Clinton conspiracy is not just phony, it's positively Wright-like.
I made my point, it isn't about who started it or who keeps it up, if the left wants Hagee displayed next to Wright, then they will get what they deserve - a McCain inauguration in 2009.
I'm not sure how you're connecting the dots here, but hating gays and Catholics on top of being bad on economic issues and not knowing who's fighting who in the Middle East does not make the would-be-73-year-old's free ride to White House smoother.
Please show me where McCain says he hates gays and Catholics? Links please?
If not, find a dot connector Governor.......keep you busy.
McCain is "proud to have" the endorsement of a man who hates gays and Catholics.
(and Kevin Bacon played Willie O'Keefe "JFK")
But you said he hated them?
So you can't link anywhere to where McCain says he hates gays and Catholics?
"Parsing Flight 101, now ready for boarding"
actually, it's only part of him. I think most of his right leg, his left index and pinky fingers, and most of his lymph nodes.
Damn you lymph nodes!
So, how does one partially hate gays and Catholics, should that be called "hate" then? Or should it be called "irritated", perhaps? Because first you said McCain hated them, then you moved the goalpost to partially hated them, then you equated that to some level of pride over an endorsement, now can you kick that ball over those goalposts and score a direct answer? If you can, I mean.
"Parsing cleanup - Aisle 1"
What a great nation we live in, McCain spent 5 1/2 years in a POW camp to have some lowlife like you accuse him of hating gays and Catholics.
Sad nation we are.
If McCain was a Democrat, Republicans would undoubtedly blame McCain for getting caught in the first place and making anti-American statements.
I don't believe any of that, but you guys gave up the moral high ground when you supported the Swift-boaters against John Kerry.
Thank you Bob, I also voted for Kerry out of disguist with Bush, and I never endorsed for one minute the swiftboating of him.
Apologies are in order, Open.
I will state for the record that I don't believe that McCain hates Gays and Catholics. His acceptance of Hagee's endorsement results from the type of politics one has to play in the Republican party.
When you get campaigned against by the likes of James Dobson, then you have no choice but to find someone even more bat-sh*t crazy to support you.
It is the sad state of the Republican party and one of many reasons I will not vote for a Republican in an election anytime soon.
Bobthep, it's a very sad day for Democracy when any criticism of McCain gets countered with "He spent 5 and 1/2 years in a Hanoi Hilton" which you seem to be our resident expert at.
Where were you when the Republicans were dumping on Kerry for his esteemed military record? Probably at the convention, with a purple heart band-aid on our cheek.
I'm not playing partisan games, using McCain's service record against any criticism is playing games.
And as for the Republican swipe at you, I apologize.
But, I'd venture to say most Americans were not disgusted by the desecration of Kerry's war record. Seems over-whelmingly that Kerry should have won had it not been for the Swift Boat ads.
apology accepted
My point was that our nation suffers today because of partisan games played by both sides and good public servants are hurt. Not saying McCain is a good public servant but that was my point. Our nation is in bad shape because of this hate.
Bob the P the translation is you are not allowed to defend McCains military record or else you are a REPUBLICAN and you HATE Kerry.
See how it works here?
Governor, not sure you could have been any clearer, twice ... then again, you are talking to Tommy.
Hillary sat with Scaife because he's the publisher of one of the biggest papers in Pennsylvania. So what if she did?-- it wasn't like she had drinks with him...
...or listened to him preach hate and division and general nuttiness every Sunday.
... listened to him preach hate and division and general nuttiness every Sunday.
That's nothing but dishonest claptrap. It's been solidly established as a fact that those few seconds of carefully selected video of Wright aren't in the least typical of his normal sermons. His regular congregants have attested to that fact. There are hundreds of hours of his sermons recorded from his 36 years on the pulpit. We all know that they've been poured over looking for more smear ammunition. They haven't come up with anything else.
The only honest way to examine the record on Wright is to admit that the famous few seconds of video are abberations. The charge that Obama spent 20 years listening to "hate and division" is ignorant or dishonest. Those are the only two options.
Personally, I don't believe McCain hates gays or Catholics at all, but I think Gov is demonstrating how the wingnuts treat Obama.
Of course he doesn't, anymore than Obama thinks the US is as evil as al queda. But if the Gov wants to play the guilt by any association game, let's see him do it those he doesn't despise politically.
Good to see you post Open, we disagree often but glad to see you back.
Has McCain said anything critical about Hagee's hateful beliefs and statements? If so, I goofed here and am sorry. All I have to go on is his pride in getting Hagee's endorsement...
He most certainly has. "We've had a dignified campaign, I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics" McCain said. USA Today.
You goofed Governor, again.
In any event, you've moved the goalposts so many times in this post Governor to now some half/half baloney, your fingernails must be embedded with grass and sod.
You crack me up, honestly you do!
Its not only wingnuts but Hillary supporters.
because Falwell and Robertson got little traction, while Wright has made it through at least 8 consecutive news cycles so far. Sure, part of that is his fault, but it didn't help that the media wouldn't let the story die in the first place.
Tommy, I wish it were that simple. Wright should have been a one week issue, at best, and should have ultimately ended with Obama's speech in Philly. But it never did, I still heard it every night on any number of news shows.
Saying the left should drop the Hagee issue because the right should drop the Wright issue ignores that the right (and I include Hillary in that camp, go ahead and skewer me) WILL NOT DROP IT. It's either sink or counter at this point.
No. I think if the hypocricy is exposed you'll get your wish of all this going away. Repubs can't handle their own hypocricy being scrutinized.
Lucky for you Dems probably won't push the guilt by association bilge like the Repubs. Well, Hillary might but you can rest easy, she hasn't gone after McCain for his associations with the radical right. She's more afraid of Wright's liberation theology than Hagee's prosperity theology.
And despite your calls for focus on what really matters in this campaign I'm guessing you have some nervous apprehension over Hagee and Parsley being scrutinized for their thinly veiled sales job of conservative economics.
I mean, read for yourself what Rod Parsley, one of McCain's spiritual advisers, says about the role of government in helping the poor, "The best thing government can do to help the poor is get out of the way. If government reduced taxes, removed industrial restraints, eliminated wage controls, and abolished subsidies, tariff[s], and other constraints on free enterprise, the poor would be helped in a way that AFDC, Social Security, and unemployment could never match." -Rod Parsley
If I didn't know any better I'd swear that quote came from some skulking libertarian junkin' up internet message boards with their 'no gubmint is good gubmint' bs.
They are not worth responding to since they are just more of your bombthrowing idiocy.
Who do you think I have been supporting in this presidential race for months now? Who has inspired me to believe we can finally come together as a country instead of fighting and bickering along party lines constantly?
That is what is surprising about why you support Obama, he aspires to everything you hate and denounce. Are you sure Hillary is not your candidate,because she encapsulates the vitrioal and polarization you appear to relish in. Obama does not.
As for my support of Obama (albeit tepid), I am not Obama. I never pretended to give a two shakes about conservatism. I have never said there is anything in conservatism that is worth bending to meet. Conservatism has failed miserably.
I see in Barack, as you exemplify, a person who has unlimited potential to persuade a vast majority of people that they actually agree with liberalism.
As for Hillary, I don't support her at this point, not because she's divisive but because she simply does not inspire. That and she's a neoliberal whose triangualtion crap leaves me wanting to know what her core principles are.
As for Hillary, I don't support her at this point, not because she's divisive but because she simply does not inspire. That and she's a neoliberal whose triangualtion crap leaves me wanting to know what her core principles are.
This is scary Round - Two days in a row we actually agree on something.
One can argue all day long about the vastly different relationships between each candidate and the pastor in question, or how one candidate is getting this "free ride", while the other is being bludgeoned non-stop......the point being, for me, is it should all just be done, finished.
It should all be done and finished? All of it? I agreed the Wright issue should be done, but Hagee never started - so there's nothing to finish there. Unless you want the not reporting on it to be done, in which case, perhaps it starts now.
Go for it, get Hagee out there front and center, prop him up against Wright and see where you end up.
President McCain.
Your're wrong Tommy. John Kerry did just that when he should have come out swingin' and that's why he's not running for re-election this year. Politics is a bloodbath. Sen Obama may want a "different kind of politics" but he'll need to get elected first. McCain's hypocrasy and incosistency and the ludicrous nature of the far-right's religious whacko endorsments should be hung around his neck like an anchor.
The next 'Pub that comes along that says "Screw You" to the religious whacko's will get my vote. Unitl that happens I (and many others) will continue to see these guys as dangerous. Hagee ought to be front and center, forcing McCain to stop his spineless pandering as choose between the evangelical nut-cases and the moderates that he supposedly represents. He should not be allowed to hang onto both, becasue he cannot serve both once in office.
So let's stop the pandering and (finally) get some STRAIT TALK: Either screw the funny-mentalists or screw the moderates. Whichever he picks, just stop trying to have it both ways! (And the press should stop LETTING him have it both wasy so easily.)
As I said, in my opinion the left should not be pulling Hagee into any spotlight ...
Sorry, Tommy, but the strongest spotlight possible needs to be shone on this human cockroach - a despicable man whose endorsement Gramps McCain is "proud to have". America needs to know the type of "person" who's backing Gramps McCain.
Fine, then all is fair in love and war and Hagee and Wright - and you can come back here and November and scream and holler about how stumped you are that McCain beat Obama and is headed for the WH.
You will have gotten what you now wish for - that "spotlight".
Fine, then all is fair in love and war and Hagee and Wright - and you can come back here and November and scream and holler about how stumped you are that McCain beat Obama and is headed for the WH.
Nope - this should be be just the tip of the iceberg, Tommy. Once Hagee and Parsley are fully exposed, I'd like to see the media look into the links between the GOP and all the white supremecist groups - especially the KKK and the Conservatove Citizens Councils. Let the people learn who REALLY supports the GOP.
And we mustn't ignore that GOP congressional candidate who recently spoke at a celebration of the anniversary of Adolf Hitler's birth. I was surprised to see this on Fox's web site - it should be covered EVERYWHERE:
**********
The Indiana Congressional Candidate the GOP Wishes Would Go Away
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
By Joseph Abrams
On the face of it, Tony Zirkle looks like the perfect candidate for Congress: He attended the Naval Academy, he has a degree from Georgetown, and he went on to be a top prosecutor in Indiana, crusading against Internet pornography.
There’s only one problem — or maybe more than one, as far as the Indiana Republican Party is concerned.
Zirkle, who is seeking the GOP nomination for the state’s 2nd Congressional District, believes — among other things — that whites are victims of a "genocide," that the races should be segregated into different states and that pornography is a Jewish plot against women.
<more>
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,353536,00.html
None of you have addressed my point at all, your ire and anger at McCain and these nutty pastors blinds to you political reality.
We shall see come November.
None of you have addressed my point at all
You mean your prediction that McCain will win if Hagee is put in the spotlight? That's being discussed.
Yeah McCain gets a free ride on lots of things...
that Obama and Hillary don't get.
McCain's free ride on his ties to the most unpopular President in recent history, more than Nixon, is another free ride he gets.
Let's not forget the (literal) free rides he gets on his wife's jet.
Some random internet wisdom for y'all:
A race that includes a former First Lady of the United States and a multimillionaire Republican senator who owns eight residences ... and the black guy from Chicago is unforgivably elitist ?!?!
And bitingly insightful it is.
Thanks for the source.
http://www.dailykos.com/main/2
The whole piece is quite sad...my faith in humanity has plummeted since W. the Great took office.
Oops.
It appears I unknowingly paraphrased. I thought I was more accurate than that. Ah well, you get the idea...
Here is the Republican Party Platform in 1956, and Ike himself talking about the cost of bombers
Support of Hagee and other anti-Christ pastors is just a symptom of a bigger problem; the take over of the Republican party by war mongering psychotics. Eisenhauer, who knew the cost of war, would be appalled.
"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
"And please do not blame it on the way the right has perverted the word"
But Tommy, that is exactly why. Ever been spit on for your political beliefs? I have. Ever had your entire family ostracize you because you believe differently than them? I have. Ever had random strangers come up to you yelling epithets because you have a John Kerry sticker on your car? I have.
It's all happened to me at one time or another...usually only during campaign season. But my point was that there are quite a few people out there who see the most dangerous thing in America today are liberals. Or, Secular Progressives if you prefer O'Reilly's terms.
About the time the war started, my wife put a magnetic peace sticker on the gas door cover. Our car was keyed fairly flamboyantly shortly after.
Early in my career, I made the mistake of thinking adults could talk calmly about politics. Apparently my views were a little too liberal for a coworker who started complaining about me to our supervisor trying to get me fired. Fortunately, the supervisor saw through it or he just calculated how difficult it would be to find another guy with my skillset. He warned me about the coworker and saying anything around him. I was pretty scared at the time. Later, I found out he was also trashing me over the supervisor's head as well.
I have had many run-ins with conservatives over the years largely because I live in a very conservative place and I look like a typical conservative when I am out and about and for some reason people say stupid things to me assuming I share their opinions.
I could go on and on about the run-ins, but conservatives have tried to harm me in one way or another when they have found out I am a liberal. I feel no need to be "proud" about anything. I don't really understand the idea of being a "proud liberal". I would think pride gets in the way of being a liberal. It only makes you a phoney liberal IMO.
I too have been spit on for my political beliefs, and my wife and kids were with me at the time. The police were too busy keeping the opposing sides away form each other to arrest anyone for spitting.
My extremely large family was as divided as any in the country during the Vietnam War. We are as divided today over the war in Iraq. We argue and sometimes, they loose their tempers.
I've even had one of my best friends recently call me a coward for not supporting our draft dodging president's policies.
I get glares from some for my bumper stickers but the only ones who made comments were usually asking where to get their own bumper stickers.
Worrier, We all have our strong political beliefs, but if one's family ostracizes you because of those beliefs, I find that ridiculous. There is more to it.
they have ostracized me in the past. Maybe I should have clarified that point. This year, I have my aunt on board the Obama train, but only because Oprah endorsed him. Seriously, the woman does what Oprah says. Everyone else is still for McCain.
I should clarify...Everyone in my family (religious fundamentalists to a T, though I still love em) watches Fox News. They thought I was gay (I'm not) at one point solely because I called myself a liberal (wonder where they got that from???)
Tommy, I believe you are smarter than most of America. You probably have a college education, or at least some form of education after high school. I was the first in my family to go to college, and it shows.
I doubt conservatives would recognize the real Reagan either. Negotiating with terrorists, largest tax increase in history and real - honest to God amnesty for illegal aliens among his finest accomplishments.
If only Reagan were more Reaganesque himself.
Of course we know what W has done, cut taxes even more for the rich; put the Iraq debacle on the national credit card for our grandchildren to pay, and spent like a drunken sailor.
At any rate, I'd be glad to go back to Kennedy's tax reduction for the wealthy, thank you very much.
The Democratic party...far left?
A party dominated by the DLC, the most conservative Democratic representatives at all levels of government?
A party that actually has Hillary Clinton, a politician barely left of center, as a major Presidential contender?
Far left?
You are, quite simply, incorrect in your assessment.
I'm far enough to the left to recognize lefties when I see 'em.
The bulk of the Democratic Party is not "far left."
Tommy, I tend to agree with Arianna Huffington that the middle has been moved so far to the right, that no-brainer policies like "we shouldn't torture" and "health care for all children" are now on the left side of the issue, when most everyone should be in agreement that these ideas fundamentally make sense. (I'm not saying you personally agree with that sentiment...and to tell you the truth, you're probably to the left of what the center really is in this country today.) After all, they used the health care for children vote as a way to slam Obama as being too liberal. (The NJ article that says he's the most liberal was the first to pounce on it.)
Traditional left and right, as some semblance of it still remains in European societies, are not what we have in the U.S. In Europe, Clinton and Obama would be considered moderate conservatives.
Thanks for the links, Mary. You must have caught some of Tom Hartmann's show too. ;0)
Even all the God-talk in that stuff was better- sounded a lot more like the good version of it.Ike's '52 platform was interesting to listen to, as it makes it pretty clear who has hijacked the GOP over the past 1/2 century or so.
But anyway, it is remarkable how wacked the current Republican party is and how the country itself doesn't recognize just how far away it is from the party in the 1950s, when the population had been through a horrific war and wanted no part of war mongering.
HEY MMFA PAT BUCHANAN ALSO SAID ON THIS VERY SAME PROGRAM THAT MCCAIN WAS GETTING A FREE RIDE.
Funny how MMFA left that out & only quoted the Liberal biased Wolffe. Guess highlighting a Conservative saying the exact same thing doesn't keep with the so called image that MMFA prefers-- Cons are the bad guys.
Yeah I did.
Most Conservatives can see both sides & admit it.
Most Liberals stick to their talking points & rarely admit the other side has a point.
Straight enough for ya?
Generalizations about Republican/Conservatives are thrown around here everyday by Dem/Libs. Did you ever speak up about that? - Jeter
It absolutely is for me, clear as a bell, and damn to the point....thanks J. - Tommy
So in your earlier posts you seem to advise the Dems to stay above the fray and take the high road - don't bring this Hagee into the equation and lower themselves. Yet you seem to endorse Jeter's stance that since "libs" toss around epithets, the "cons" here are free to engage in kind?
I didn't say it would lower themselves, or to stay above the fray, why did you make that up? I said they wouldn't do themselves any political favor by putting Hagee up against Wright, they, or their candidate, would lose on that front, and probably the election.
Clear?
I made my point, it isn't about who started it or who keeps it up - Tommy
Generalizations about Republican/Conservatives are thrown around here everyday by Dem/Libs. Did you ever speak up about that? - Jeter
I would say...........ahh, No - Tommy
I have no clue what you doing? You are cutting and pasting all over the place to try and show some contradiction, it's rather entertaining, if you must.
But my response was No, when Iowalib was asked if he holds liberals to the same standard as conservatives. I have not seen him/her do it, if he/she has, let him/her respond. Simple.......can you not follow that?
So Jeter, are you saying you only threw this generalization around because the left does it here? ;)
I don't agree with any generalizations of the American electorate, though sometimes one has to use descriptive terms in order to categorize a particular group of voters, but I believe that those terms should be as acute as possible in order to get the full effect of the point.
D, I usually steer clear of generalizations myself because I don't like it when some folks try to say ALL Conservative/Republicans are a certain way or share the same opinion.
In this case I'm just offering my observation having listened, watched & read various viewpoints coming from both sides. It appears to me that Conservatives have been more apt to concede a point or at the very least grudgingly agree with Liberals more often during the coverage of this election cycle.
"It appears to me that Conservatives have been more apt to concede a point or at the very least grudgingly agree with Liberals more often during the coverage of this election cycle."--jeter2
Maybe I should start watching TV again. I don't remember that happening before. Have they gotten rid of all the old conservatives on TV?
Maybe that's your way of thinking but it has little to do with reality.
Tommy himself has little to do with reality, as his posts clearly show.
Most Conservatives can see both sides & admit it.
Most Liberals stick to their talking points & rarely admit the other side has a point.
That's a joke right?
In order to maintain the level of my respect you have earned for your comments in the past, Jeter, I must assume it's a joke.
Otherwise, you are the joke.
Deez,
Not joking at all. If that makes you lose any so-called respect you claim to have had for me in the past, then so be it. Quite frankly I don't recall any indication that you had respected anything I ever wrote here, so it won't leave a void in my life.
I have watched, listened & read enough throughout this long election season to have formed my opinion. Most Conservatives have been vastly more flexible & adaptable in their views.
Liberals, perhaps justifiably still angry about the 2000 & 2004 elections have been more rigid.
Don't agree? Well that doesn't surprise me.
Jeter,
Are you talkning about the conservatives that ignore science and promote Intelligent Design, don't believe in Global Warming or the conservatives that ignore facts and still think Iraq was behind 9/11 and Iraq had WMD?
Those Conservatives?
No.
I'm talking about the other ones ;-)
Oh,
I don't think I have ever met/heard of those other ones. They must be the ones who live with Sasquatch!
Sounds like a pretty rigid Liberal assumption there Skep.
I rest my case.
Jeter,
Maybe it was a joke like your comment, sorry I didn't use the emoticons, but you need to lighten up a little eh!
BTW Jeter,
I think your little observation regarding conservatives fails the smell test with my above obvious reference to the conservatives that post here.
Maybe you have missed those discussions regarding ID, GW, 9/11 and WMD, but it is the conservatives with the rigid thinking.
Can you point out some rigid thinking on behalf of "liberals". Maybe something where the facts fly in the face of the dogma?
A Pew Research poll found that 85% of conservatives who believe Saddam had WMDs, have also had at least one...
ELVIS SIGHTING in the last 5 years.
..Very Strange
No.
I'm talking about the other ones ;-)
The imaginary conservatives?
You know I was just joshing ya.
Last night, a reporter from the Huffington Post brought it up on MSNBC, and Dan Abrams absolutely refused to talk about it.... he even got a little testy, and told the guy he'd talk to him about it later. How odd....
Well done PEEBS...
This whole Reverend Wright business is such a classic example of the media bias against democrats.
Grampy is just sittin' back, lovin' it. Obama gets beat up, and the elitist old flip-flopper gets a free ride from the corporate press.
When the sewer conservatives go to the commercials, the Dems should respond immediately. They could actually turn this garbage to their advantage.
Audit,
How would you turn it to their advantage?
Jeter, you seem to not be aware of the empirical data that shows just the opposite of your "cons are more open to both sides" BS (I'm paraphrasing not quoting you). Cons are generally more authoritarian than libs. Cons do not like ambiguity and prefer absolutes more. Libs are more open to ambiguity. Sorry jeter but science has already answered that question. Cons like the world in black and white, while libs are able to appreciate both sides of a situation.
"You're either with us or you're against us." GWB
WOLFFE: "Absolutely. And look, we've all heard evangelical ministers, white ministers, condemn America and damn America for abortions. And so, yeah, I don't think there's an equal balance of criticism and focus here. In some ways, John McCain is getting a free ride. But of course, that doesn't take away from the offensive nature and the outrageousness of what Reverend Wright has said. But at some point, that scrutiny will come."
Sure the "scrutiny will come" - just after the election is over...
I rarely think of you as an optimist Oscar but.
Thats crazy talk!
;-)
The DUI made no impact that I remember. The Swifting certainly did. Can't say I'm really looking forward to having anybodies religeous laundry flapped in my face this summer.
I'd say Der Muckinator continues to get a pass and we are inundated with one artificial outrage after another about Obama and/or Hillary this summer. Just like today.