Russert noted media's lack of scrutiny of McCain over Hagee, other issues, but not Russert's own McCain "grace period" on Hagee
SUMMARY: Discussing a column by Frank Rich about media coverage of controversial comments made by televangelist John Hagee, who has endorsed Sen. John McCain, and those made by Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said on Imus in the Morning: "I don't think -- the Hagee thing, McCain has not been questioned ... scrutinized about that." But Russert ignored his own role in the lack of scrutiny, not mentioning Hagee once on Meet the Press since his endorsement. Russert also said "You know, if there was video of Hagee, it makes all the difference in the world." But there is audio of Hagee stating that Hurricane Katrina was "the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans" for its "level of sin" and audio of his defending those comments.
On the May 5 edition of ABC Radio Networks' Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus asserted that it was a "[b]ig stretch, I thought, for [New York Times columnist] Frank Rich to try to suggest that Reverend -- Reverend [John] Hagee is somehow -- [Sen.] John McCain has the same relationship with him that Senator [Barack] Obama had with Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright." As Columbia Journalism Review staff writer Liz Cox Barrett noted, NBC Washington bureau chief and Meet the Press host Tim Russert responded to Imus by saying: "You know, if there was video of Hagee, it makes all the difference in the world. It's interesting." But, in fact, there is audio of televangelist and McCain supporter John Hagee asserting in 2006 that "New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God" and that "Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans." Hagee -- whose endorsement McCain sought and recently said he's "glad to have" -- defended those comments on April 22. Russert also said: "I don't think -- the Hagee thing, McCain has not been questioned in great scrutiny by that -- scrutinized about that, or a lot of things. I mean, he's been -- really been given this grace period to go around the country, unify his party, raise some money, put a campaign together, and he's benefited from enormously. There's no doubt about it." However, Russert failed to note his own role in the disparate scrutiny given McCain over the specific issue under discussion -- Hagee -- compared with that given Obama over Wright. Indeed, according to a Media Matters for America Nexis search*, Meet the Press has focused on Obama's former minister, Jeremiah Wright, significantly more than Hagee. Between February 27 -- when Hagee endorsed McCain -- and May 6, Wright was brought up on eight of 10 editions of Meet the Press and his name was mentioned 62 times as indicated by transcripts of the program. Hagee's name does not appear in any Meet the Press transcript during that time. Moreover, as Media Matters noted, Russert's guest mentioned Hagee -- though not by name -- on the March 2 edition of Meet the Press, stating that McCain didn't need to be campaigning "with televangelists in San Antonio," but Russert ignored the comment.
As Media Matters has noted, Hagee made his controversial remarks about Hurricane Katrina on the September 18, 2006, edition of National Public Radio's Fresh Air, with host Terry Gross, and defended his comments on the April 22 edition of Dennis Prager's nationally syndicated radio show. Hagee's comments about Hurricane Katrina are available at NPR.org and audio of his defense of those remarks is available on thinkprogress.org.
Media Matters has also documented (here, here, here, and here) 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. For example, Media Matters documented that since Hagee endorsed McCain on February 27 through April 30, The New York Times and The Washington Post combined have published more than 12 times as many articles mentioning Wright and Obama than they have mentioning Hagee and McCain. Media Matters also documented that many media outlets had reported only on the controversy over Hagee's remarks about Catholics, but not his controversial statements about Hurricane Katrina, Islam, women, and homosexuality.
From the September 18, 2006, edition of National Public Radio's Fresh Air:
HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.
From the May 5 edition of ABC Radio Networks' Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: Big stretch, I thought, for Frank Rich to try to suggest that Reverend -- Reverend Hagee is somehow -- John McCain has the same relationship with him that Senator Obama had with Reverend Wright, but he did run it up the flag pole yesterday, didn't he?
RUSSERT: He sure did. And there's been a lot of chatter on that about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson's comments after September 11th. You know, if there was video of Hagee, it makes all the difference in the world. It's interesting. The Wright story was around a little bit, had been talked about at the Cleveland debate, right after [Nation of Islam leader Louis] Farrakhan had said some nice things about Obama. I asked Obama about Farrakhan and Wright, and what really broke it out, though, was that video that got on the -- on the reel, and it kept playing over and over and again, and because, as you point out, the 20-year relationship, and having married him and baptized his kids. But I don't think the kids -- I don't think -- the Hagee thing, McCain has not been questioned in great scrutiny by that -- scrutinized about that, or a lot of things. I mean, he's been -- really been given this grace period to go around the country, unify his party, raise some money, put a campaign together, and he's benefited from enormously. There's no doubt about it.
IMUS: You need to read Matt Taibbi's book, which comes out tomorrow, called The Great Derangement, in which Taibbi goes down there and he goes on a -- I mean, he's just an insane person. But he goes on a religious retreat sponsored by Reverend Hagee's -- I think he -- I think he actually knows Reverend Hagee so it's a lot of -- well, a lot of people who are devotees of Reverend Hagee are not going to be happy with Mr. Taibbi's book, but --
RUSSERT: How much time -- how much time did he spend with him?
Why on earth by the way does he appear on that Imus show still?
Uhhh...he likes the jokes? ;>)
On the other hand, Grampy McSame actively courted Hagee's endorsement, despite the hateful, delusional crap that he spews on a regular basis. Why? For political gain, period. Now, which person displayed more character, the one who was torn by his loyalty to a nutty old friend, or the one who crawled into bed with a nutty stranger to further his political agenda?
nerzog
Only in the world of the wacky left is it worse. They are not even close to the same. Wright was far more involved in the live of BO and his family. BO was very dishonest concering this man. He knew his radical views, and only threw him under the bus to save his campaign. That BO could sit there for 20 years and listen to the hate that man poured out shows a serious lack of judgement and character.
In light of your "racist on the left" comment. What reason, beyond racism, can you give for the fact that fundamentalist white preachers get away with remarks which are at least as incendiary as Jeremiah Wright's, such as Hagee's wet dream about the "thrilling" prospect of Russian/Arab nuclear attacks on both US coasts?http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/2/92739/11686/Front_Page/McCain_Endorser_Pastor_Hagee_s_Thrilling_Scenario_Includes_Nuclear_Strike_on_US_Coasts
POV wrote:
>>Put the drugs down Snoop....they are really starting to affect you.
In other words, you can't meet snoopy's challenge, so you'd thought you'd try a stupid 7th grade put down. I agree with the friendly dog on this one. The left may have been associating pastors with right wing politicians, but the main stream media has not. When has any candidate had to endure the criticism that Obama has?
Funny man, snoppy, Fried
You all have to be kidding right? Fried, I thought you were more intellectually honest than that. The left has been using Falwell, Graham, and Robertson for years in their direct mailings and their add campaigns. They have tied every president since reagan into the evil "religious right" and mocked them at every turn.
It is one thing to argue that Wright got more coverage than he deserved. That is a fair discussion. It is also fair to say that McCain has not got enough atention over the Haggee issue. But for the three of you and others to calim that the left has not been hitting conseratives over the head on religius issues, and "popular" religious figures, and painting them to be fanatics because of things these guys have said and done is dis-honest, disingenious, and lacks even an elementary understanding of politics in this country for the last 40 years.
Snoopy
You are calling me a dummy. Wow....you are such a dumb as$ it blows my mind. I said every....every republican president, has had to answer to the wacko left on the religious issue. Talk about being disingenious...you take the cake. Ever since you idiots decided the moral majority and any focus on values and religion were and evil thing, the left has stopped at nothing to label all conserative and religious leaders as racist. You guys wrote the book on that.
Now that the chickens have come home to roost you cant handle it. It is ammusing to see you whine and cry, and try to defend BO and Wright on this one. And now you claim ignorance to your parties actions for the last 40 years. Ok..in your case, you are not pretending to be dumb.......I can see it is not an act.
And just because I know you will ask again......because every president since Reagan is not specific enough for you.....here you go
Ronad Reagan
George Bush
George W Bush
I am glad my dog is not as dumb as you snoopy.........or Prince never would have been housebroken!!
Ah, so fun this is! You call us idiots and then get upset at being called a dummy right back. And you list 3 presidents with the claim that they somehow had to answer? Please, show me a fact, like oh, say maybe a video clip of any one of them saying just one thing denouncing a right wing leader. You can't cause one doesn't exist except in your mind.
Don't worry about us, we can handle it just fine. After 10+ years of the right having their way with the press, we're getting our say back. McCain is only the 1st in a long string of denounciations being forced on you whiney little zealots.
Funny you say we think religion is evil too. Got that talking point down too, I see. Nah, religion isn't evil. The only evil is the right wing phony christians who try to hijack religion and use it for their evil purposes of subjugating the masses. Why waste your time here trying to do that? Move to China or Russia, they have exactly what you want in a phony religion based government.
Snoopy
you said........"After 10+ years of the right having their way with the press, we're getting our say back."
How is that possible. I thought the media was run by right wing corporations. I guess NOT. Good to see you finallyyyy admit the huge left wing bias in the media. You are getting your say, through almost every network, and every newspaper in tne country. I am glad you finaly get it.
Snoopy, I don't think POV missed the point, he made it loud and clear;
Democratic candidate direct mailings are to the Democratic Party as
The Mainstream media is to the Republican party.
That is the essence of this site, and while the purpose of MMFA is to expose it, it's refreshingly honest of POV to admit it and say that he's here to defend the status quo.
POV wrote:
>>You all have to be kidding right?
No we are not kidding. But you are clearly trying to deflect from your weak position. You can't answer the challenge put to you, so you accuse your opponents of being on drugs, and then try to dismiss our argument by a rhetorical trick. "You all have to be kidding," you ask.
No. We are not.
Please answer the question. Show one Republican candidate who has had to endure the same scrutiny as Obama because of the religious leaders associated with him.
Funny man, snoppy, Fried
You all have to be kidding right? Fried, I thought you were more intellectually honest than that. The left has been using Falwell, Graham, and Robertson for years in their direct mailings and their add campaigns. They have tied every president since reagan into the evil "religious right" and mocked them at every turn.
It is one thing to argue that Wright got more coverage than he deserved. That is a fair discussion. It is also fair to say that McCain has not got enough atention over the Haggee issue. But for the three of you and others to calim that the left has not been hitting conseratives over the head on religius issues, and "popular" religious figures, and painting them to be fanatics because of things these guys have said and done is dis-honest, disingenious, and lacks even an elementary understanding of politics in this country for the last 40 years.
Well there is the fact that:
and:
So, I can see why people might get suspicious of these "fanatical" white preachers!!!! AND WHY WE THINK THAT POLITICIANS MIGHT ACTUALLY BELIEVE WHAT THESE GUYS SAY.
If it barks like a dog, looks like a dog, and pants like a crazy dog in heat, it might just be a crazy dog in heat that wants to hump the next sinner/country right into hell.
oops sorry,
Hagee has led an intense lobbying effort on Capitol Hill to present government officials with his message of Armageddon, or that Hagee's efforts have been praised by President Bush and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
POV,
Can you name one preacher who was linked in a political ad or find one news story similar to the Wright-Obama effect? Bush said that Billy Graham was the one who really turned him onto Christ, was Bush called an anti-Semite?
" Bush said that Billy Graham was the one who really turned him onto Christ, was Bush called an anti-Semite?"
Probably not, since Graham isn't a racist, like Wright is. Which seems to be the key difference and NONE of you are willing to address that part of the situation. EACH of you will "reframe" the question to fit your twisted logic of unwarranted contact with a preacher.
Phillib wrote:
>>Probably not, since Graham isn't a racist, like Wright is.
Graham isn't a racist? Oh really?
Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are
Jewish, saying they "swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he
confides to Nixon, "They don't know how I really feel about what
they're doing to this country."
link
Phil,
Are you saying that being anti-Semitic is acceptable? Why are the same analogies not done with Bush who gives much credit to Graham for helping him find Jesus?
Philib wrote:
>>fried, are you saying befriending a racist for 25+ years is OK? See, I can play the same game you play.
Yes, you can play that game, but it doesn't make your argument an less weak. You claim that we should treat Wright differently than Graham because Graham is not a racist. But he is. And rather than answer that charge, you simply try to switch the topic.
I hardly think ONE out-of-context statement which you have no clue to what he was talking about proves Graham is a racist. But, according to merriam-webster you have a 1 in 3 chance of being correct. While Wright is a racist, teaches racism and supports other racists, yet you deny he is one. More liberal hypocrisy?
"anti–Semitic : hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group "
Phillib wrote:
>>I hardly think ONE out-of-context statement which you have no clue to what he was talking about proves Graham is a racist.
Oh, this is funny. And why is that statement out of context? And why is Wright's statements not out of context?
You have yet to show any proof of Wright being a racist.
And your exercise in the use of a dictionary is simply bizarre. If a Graham fulfills any of the definitions of racism, then he has a *100%* chance of being a racist, not 1 in 3. That is how definitions in dictionaries work.
Phillib wrote:
>>You win. Graham not liking someone becaue they are of the Jewish religion is fully racist, but Wright teaching the destruction of the white race is NOT racist. You've fully made your point of who is racist and who isn't.
What a strange post! Graham just didn't like one person because he was Jewish! He blamed all the Jews for "what they are doing to this country!"
And where does Wright ever teach the "destruction of the white race?" We have asked for proof of this again and again, but you don't provide it.
"We have asked for proof of this again and again, but you don't provide it. "
I provided it. You just choose not to believe it. Which is your right.
Philib wrote:
>>I provided it. You just choose not to believe it. Which is your right.
No, you didn't.
Phil
No matter how many times you and I point it out, they will simply not accept that an African Amercian can be racist. They have been taught for years that that is not possible, and they will never accept it. Even if Wright held a press conference and said that he was in fact a racist, they would find a way to blame that on Bush
POV,
Do you impute the anti-Semitic beliefs of Billy Graham to George W. Bush? Obviously, anyone who praises Graham like Bush does in his autobiography automatically installs all of his beliefs into himself, right?
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/georgewbush.htm
Bush also wrote that he enrolled himself and Laura into many of the Focus on the Family programs, therefore, he is a homophobe, correct?
I don't believe Bush is a anti-Semitic homophobe, but since he said that Billy Graham planted the seeds of his faith, it would be fair, in your mind, to play the anti-Semitic statements of Billy Graham and use them against Bush, correct?
"Bush also wrote that he enrolled himself and Laura into many of the Focus on the Family programs, therefore, he is a homophobe, correct?"
You subscribe to the beliefs of liberalism, right? Does that mean you are a child molester, too? Has anyone ever said you have a tweeked way of deducing end results by past actions? According to YOUR method of deducing someones ultimate behavior by what they are taught, then every liberal must be a child molester.
Phil,
Provide me a racist statement made by Wright in context. Don't provide me the liberation theology link, I want a statement from Wright's mouth in context that is racist. And, please, provide me with the context that would make Billy Graham's statement about Jewish people acceptable.
Since you think Wright is also anti-American, who said this: “If God doesn’t judge America He’ll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”
Fried
Explain to me how this works.........graham makes a comment to NIXON.....over 30 years ago, and he is a racist. But Wright, in recent times claims a govt plot to kill blacks, and it not racist. I cant even imagine how one can make their mind work in such as way so that makes sense. It is beyone belief.
Making a statement against one's government that is racially charged is not a racist statement. Wright did not single out a race for his charge, did he?
I was just pointing out that if you can take statements made by Wright and call him a racist that you can do it with Billy Graham too. I don't recall anyone in the press imputing Billy Graham's statements into George W. Bush's beliefs, do you?
"Wright did not single out a race for his charge, did he?"
I would like to point out that only a complete moron would think Wright was talking about the Asain/American government. Only a moron would think Wright was talking about the Mexican/American government. Only a moron would think Wright was talking about the Indian/American government. And...only a moron would think he was talking about the African/American government.
Are YOU a moron? How many colors are left to figure out which government he was talking about?
Come on!! Where are all the morons who think Wright was talking about the African/American government?!? I expected the morons to have something witty to say, by now! Fried? Solon? Funny? Snoop? Nothing witty to say?
Liberals...you're all alike
POV wrote:
>>sorry snoop..........have to work on ocassion......my response has been posted
And you never answered the challenge, except by name calling.
(Has anyone else noticed that when right wingers are backed into a corner on these boards they use ellipses? What is up with that? It is like they are signaling "We are desperate to save face...")
snoopy
if only you made sense in anyyyy of your comments it would be a different ballgame. You are very good however, at backtracking, changing the rules of the game midstream, and denial.
Backtracking, changing your point of view, denial, you just described yourself. And as suspected, you could never come up with anyone other than the name I handed to you on a silver platter who had to come out and denounce their right wing looney phony christian support. Nope, not one fact supported name. But I'm not surprised.
where I come from 10 conservatives in a room never get anything done because they are too busy stabbing each other in the back and stealing each other's ideas to ever finish anything they started. Which explains why you can't even come through on a simple challenge.
What racist on the left. Just because you keep CALLING him a racist despite your COMPLETE AND TOTAL inabilty to show a SINGLE RACIST THING HE HAS EVER SAID. Doesnt mean he IS a racist it means YOU are delusional.
"Just because you keep CALLING him a racist despite your COMPLETE AND TOTAL inabilty to show a SINGLE RACIST THING HE HAS EVER SAID."
I'm sure he's talking about the racist Wright. You asked for this info over a week ago, did you not read it? Do you want it again? Or, will you get the info and ignore the post the rest of the time it is available, like you did the last time?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804300007 between 61-80. Are you going to slink back into the night again, or are you going to actually respond to the proof of racism this time? I expect major slinking action happening.
The most funny thing about mmfa AGAIN bringing this issue up, is that the very post before you get your proof of racism, another loony leftist is asking why people so stupid would continue to "beat this dead horse" of an issue of Hagee/Wright. He was trying to insinuate me, but I pointed out that only mmfa is actively pursueing the hate teachings of Hagee/Wright and not another word was heard from him either. I wonder if writer will have the nuts to ask that question a second time while mmfa is AGAIN the only organization still questioning the 25+ year personal freindship that Hagee had with McCain.
Phillib wrote:
>>I'm sure he's talking about the racist Wright. You asked for this info over a week ago, did you not read it? Do you want it again? Or, will you get the info and ignore the post the rest of the time it is available, like you did the last time?
Ah, but your link doesn't show racism.
(By the way, since you are in to name calling, let me just point out that you cannot "insinuate" a person, as you wrote in your post. I really don't even know what you mean by that phrase.)
Phillib wrote:
>>Following and teaching Cone's "black liberation theology" doesn't show racism?
No. And the rest of your post is just nonsense, a way for you to pretend you have an argument when you don't. Do you think if you just repeat an assertion in different ways it becomes true?
Phillib wrote:
>>You don't think Cone's theology is racist? Well, then that is YOUR opinion and I won't be able to argue that. I don't think anyone who doesn't subscribe to Cone's theology would agree with you though.
Again, do you think you can just repeat an assertion and it becomes true? And the second part of your statement is meaningless. Many people don't subscribe to Cone's theology (including myself), who don't think Cone's theology is racist.
Solon
As usual, you are a day late and a dollar short to the discussion. You used to make a fool of yourself early on these threads. Now all you do is come late, call me a few names, and feel proud of yourself. What is the problem. Did you forget to pay your bill for Loony Left Weekly? Are you behind in your talking points? Get in the game man. Without you here, all I get to do is kick that dumb dog snoopy around, and answer the same question for Fried 4 or 5 times.
POV,
You remarked on a previous thread that Hagee was fair game for McCain to be questioned about. When do you think this will happen? I agree the relationships are not the same, but for people to question Obama's judgment for not leaving Wright's church, shouldn't those same people question McCain's judgment for seeking out guys like Parsley and Hagee? Some have even bashed Obama for Louis K's endorsement, but he did not seek it. McCain actively sought the endorsement of these two men. Shouldn't the same people who question Obama's judgment at least question that same quality in McCain when a simple Google search for "John Hagee" would reveal far more disgusting statements by Hagee than anything uttered by Wright?
Fried
I do in fact think it is fair game. I simply think this is one game the dems will lose. There is just not the relationship between McCain and Hagee as there is between Wright and BO. This game by the way, has been played by the dems for years, attaching every reliegious figure who said something stupid to any conserative candidate. The libs are just trasting it for the first time.
POV,
You missed my other point. Shouldn't those who question Obama's judgment for his relationship with Wright question the judgment of McCain actively seeking the endorsements of Hagee and Parsley without doing his homework?
And the bigotry of Falwell, Robertson, et al, is ok with the Right. Bush regularly consulted with Dobson on SC nominees and Robertson about the war.
POV,
I am not saying the base feels that way. I just wonder if those people who question Obama's judgment should question McCain's for his actions in pursuing the endorsement of Hagee. You told us your wife would not vote for Obama because of Wright. Shouldn't she be at least as skeptical of McCain who actively sought the endorsement of a bigot?
Fried
Never said she would vote for McCain either.....lol. My house normally has two yard signs out front. She did say she will not vote for BO because of the Wright issue, and in fact she turned the tv off in saddness last night when the last chance for HC was lost.
It will be interesting........to see how many HC will actually vote for McCain, or not vote. The number now I believe is 19 % of HC supporters who said they will either not vote for BO or will vote for McCain. I dont know how big the number will actually be, but I know it will be at least one.
Fried
I really dont know how many ways to tell ya......my wife is not a McCain supporter, so I doubt she cares who he associates with. She would have no reason to question anything he does. She was a HC supporter......as much as it pains me to even type that.
And also......I have told you many times, that I do not care for, nor do I follow any of the televangalists. Having said that, they are still fair questions to ask McCain so ask away.
Having said that.......the list of shady people that endorse all candidates is very long as you well know. Some of the things Bill Mahr has said on real time are a total disgrace and as anti religion as you can get, yet he gets big time politicans on his show all the time. I dont hold it against McCain, he is free to seek approval from anyone he wants, and the voters are free to question him on the company he keeps.
Thats what you are missing here. That is what you seem to be missing. I dont hold McCain to any diff standard than BO. He can associate with anyone he wants...but he is pandering for votes and there is a price to pay. Just because the dems got caught on this one, and it is a bigger story than McCain Hagee does not mean there is some huge media conspiracy. It simply means that BO still has not been fully vetted as a candidate, and that the racial games the left has played for years reached around and got them this time.
I still think Tommy had it right on this one. Let the left keep pushing McCain Hagee, and each time they do, Wright and BO will be brought up again.
"Fried I really dont know how many ways to tell ya......my wife is not a McCain supporter, so I doubt she cares who he associates with."
He isn't actually seeking an answer to his question. He simply is interested in finding a way to make you blunder during an answer. Since he cannot, he is trying to frustrate you with continued asking of the same question over and over, even though you answered it the first time he asked. You've got to remember, that you are dealing with people who feel racism is not bad. This is the same organization (democrats) who hired an ex-leader of the KKK to be a leader of the democrat party.
Philib wrote:
>>You've got to remember, that you are dealing with people who feel racism is not bad. This is the same organization (democrats) who hired an ex-leader of the KKK to be a leader of the democrat party.
Would you like to be more explicit here? And would you care to explain how this one supposed example indicts all members of the Democratic party? And then would you care to explain how, since the Republican party tried to thwart the civil rights movement, one could equally smear that party as racist? (I don't think the current Repub party is the same as the party of the 60s, but if you want to start making those associations--well!)
"Would you like to be more explicit here? And would you care to explain how this one supposed example indicts all members of the Democratic party?"
Robert Byrd: "According to Byrd's recollection, a KKK official Joel L. Baskin told him "You have a talent for leadership, Bob ... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd recalls that "suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did." He participated in the KKK during World War II".
Ever wonder why Byrd did not serve in the military when only the lame and women stayed behind? "vowing never to serve in such a military: "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd
Let's also use this link to provide evidence of democratic racial leanings; http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030801.asp (it's old, but still accurate).
POV and Phil,
All I am asking is that do you think John McCain showed good judgment in going after the endorsement of John Hagee?
If voters think Obama showed poor judgment in staying in Wright's church, shouldn't those same people question the judgment of John McCain? I am sorry if that message did not get through in earlier posts.
"If voters think Obama showed poor judgment in staying in Wright's church, shouldn't those same people question the judgment of John McCain?"
Yes. But, when you make unfounded claims that questions of McCain's judgment AREN'T being made by those questioning Obama's judgment, then why would they answer you? You automatically (don't worry, you're not the only one) assume that group of people do not question McCain's judgmental ability. I do question it, but I also put it into perspective in comparison to befriending a known racist and being taught by him for 25+ years.
For me, it now boils down to: do I trust a person with poor judgment who was taught by a known racist for 25+ years? Or, do I trust a person who showed poor judgment by seeking political endorsement from a known hater? How would YOU answer that situation?
Phil,
Please provide the statements of Wright, in context, that are racist. Has Wright appeared at any political events with Obama? Has he spoken at any Obama events? I don't adopt all of the political views of the pastor in a church I attended for many years, and in fact, I sharply disagree with him on some, but his spiritual guidance was wonderful, so I stayed at the church. I call him a spiritual mentor, I absolutely love and respect him, but we are very very different people. I would not want him speaking at an event for me or for his political views to be imputed to me, but I stayed at his church because of the role he filled in my life.
Have you listened to the sermons of Reverend Wright in context? I agree his performance at the National Press Club was shameful. He gave Obama no choice at that point to disavoww him because the American public isn't into nuance.
"I agree his performance at the National Press Club was shameful. He gave Obama no choice at that point to disavoww him because the American public isn't into nuance."
Please provide proof of what was "shameful" about his performance at the NPC. Why would you think that it was "shameful"?
fried, I have fully provided the proof you have asked for. This time and even the last time you asked for it. Now, how bout you provide proof that Wright's "performance at the National Press Club was shameful". How was that shameful? What could he possibly have said that shamed you in any way? You're just making things up to get sympathy from your liberal brethen, aren't you?
Since you have ignored my posts that show your hypocrisy before this one (and after) I don't think I'll get an answer from you concerning your being shamed by Wright.
Phillib wrote:
>>For me, it now boils down to: do I trust a person with poor judgment who was taught by a known racist for 25+ years? Or, do I trust a person who showed poor judgment by seeking political endorsement from a known hater? How would YOU answer that situation?
But you still have not shown that Wright is a racist. We are still waiting for the proof of that. And I really don't see why seeking out an endorsement for a nutcase like Hagee is somehow better than having a pastor who makes statements you disagree with, but whose belief in God you do believe in.
"That BO could sit there for 20 years and listen to the hate that man poured out shows a serious lack of judgement and character."
You know, even idiots like O'Reilly are forced to give the benefit of the doubt on such a point as yours. There is no way to verify over the past 20 years how many "controversial" sermons Wright gave. We just don't know. Don't you believe that since his sermons are for sale on DVD, if there were a myriad of these types of sermons people like Hannity would have beat us over the head with them by now? Alas, all you got is around 6 minutes of snippets? We also have no way of knowing how many Sunday's Obama attended that church int he past 20 years and if each time he attended that church a controversial sermon was given. For you to continue with this blanket insinuation that Obama attended a church in which each Sunday Wright gave controversial sermons is ludicrous. As much as I hold in disdain people like Falwell and Dobson, I am not naive enough to believe that each and every person who has attended those respective churches for the past 20 years somehow is as loony as their preacher or even for that matter holds the exact same beliefs. You so want to believe that Obama secretly holds the same views as Wright you will not yield in this futile effort to make others believe something which you yourself cannot prove. I gaze in wonder at your tenacity though. I wish you would put that kind of energy into supporting your candidate instead of trying to tear another down.
They are not the same thing, Obama had a personal relationship with a man who has gone completely nuts, does not mean Obama believes or shares his views.
McCain welcomed and was glad to have this disgusting mans endorsement.
Big Difference
"Obama had a personal relationship with a man who has gone completely nuts, does not mean Obama believes or shares his views. McCain welcomed and was glad to have this disgusting mans endorsement."
Are you saying that McCain shares the same views as Hagee? If not, then why can Obama have a "personal relationship" with a nut-case, but McCain cannot have an endorsement from a nut-case? If you are saying McCain does not share the same views as Hagee, then why is it you feel McCain has done wrong, when you feel Obama has done no wrong?
More liberal hypocrisy!
McCain could be grilled and barbequed till the cows come home over the nutty comments from Hagee and most people would still respond "meh"......they would see him as some new incarnation of Falwell or Robertson, stuff that has been marinating around politics for decades and there is no sting left.
The left will never win trying to push Hagee out there, not only will it force further comparisons to Wright, but keep him on the front burner as well.
Be careful what you wish for.
" If he said he was wrong to pursue this endorsement, I would have a lot of respect for that."
For some reason, I doubt that. You still think teaching black liberation theology is not a racist thing and demand proof that it is. You say it's OK for Obama to be taught and befriend a known racist, but it is unpardonable for McCain to seek an endorsement from a known hater. I'll take a pass on any 'demands' you have. Besides, I wan't even asking you.
Philib wrote:
>>For some reason, I doubt that. You still think teaching black liberation theology is not a racist thing and demand proof that it is. You say it's OK for Obama to be taught and befriend a known racist,
Yes, we actually want evidence to show that Obama is a racist, rather than your mere assertions. That is only fair.
Obama was not "taught" by Wright. Wright was his minister who turned him to Christ.
Phil,
Regardless of what you think of Obama, he disavowed Wright completely. McCain has not done the same with Hagee. If McCain showed any signs of being the man he was in 1999-2000, I would have a lot more respect for him whether you believe me or not.
Since so many sermons of Wright's are online, it shouldn't be hard for you to find the racist statements. Please, outside of posting what Cone thought, show these statements to us.
"Regardless of what you think of Obama, he disavowed Wright completely. McCain has not done the same with Hagee. "
How about you give McCain the same 25 year grace period you are giving Obama to realize he is a nutcase? You give Obama 25 years to figure out Wright is a racist (why else would he disavow Wright?), but you demand immediate judgment from McCain on the personality of Hagee. Why is that?
Russert will next time McCain is on. Right? ;-)
JLyons,
Bottom line is if Hagee is in the news, then Wright will be in the news. Wright is moving off the front pages, push Hagee and you push Wright back into the spotlight......it's as simple as that.
They are not the same thing.
Obama hs denounced Rev Wright and did not seek his endorsement.
McCain seems to welcome Haage's endoresement.
**cough** eask yourself that question.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/28/monday-morning-engine-starter-jeremiah-wright-racial-phrenologist/
Tommy,
Don't you think that its sad that most will shrug their shoulders at someone like Hagee? Religious bigotry and gay bashing is almost mainstream in this country and so is war-mongering, and advocating genocide (Parsley on the last one).
This whole thing reminds me of my parents with my brother and me as kids. My brother was much more the rascal. It got to the point where an instance or two of behavior from him led to a pattern of explanation of "Oh, that's just your little brother." But if I did a similar thing, it was big trouble because they weren't expecting that from me. Same with the Religious Right, people just shrug, but when a preacher who is controversial embraces someone on the left, people are "shocked" and "appalled."
Fried,
Of course it's sad, Hagee is a nut, in my opinion. But if I don't buy the guilt by association with Obama/Wright, then I would be a hypocrite if I did with McCain/Hagee. We are not responsible for other people's words or actions, even if we have a relationship on some level with a person who said or did something offensive or egregious. It would never end in politics if we started dredging up every personal relationship the candidates have with some nut, somewhere........I don't want our political races stooping to that level.
Hagee is not running for president, neither is Wright.
Tommy,
While I agree with you on the association thing, the quality of McCain's relationship with Hagee and Parsley that is being downplayed in the media is McCain seeking the Hagee endorsement. Don't you think that those who question Obama's judgment at the very least should question the judgment of a man who actively sought the endorsement of such a nut?
Fried,
Of course, I don't disagree with that at all. But we are speaking of two different things, you are speaking from a moral perspective, and I am speaking from a political one. Politically, Wright is far more damaging than Hagee will ever be, for reasons I have already explained, in my opinion.
Don't you think that those who question Obama's judgment at the very least should question the judgment of a man who actively sought the endorsement of such a nut?
I absolutely think so. The same questions - particularly questions of judgment should be asked of both of them. Regardless of how the politics play out, it is simply dead wrong to hold candidates to different standards. If McCain's pride in seeking and getting Hagee's endorsement somehow proves rewarding to him, so be it. Personally, I think American voters should know that McCain chose to endorse gay hatred in seeking Hagee’s blessing. If that helps get him elected, then perhaps Hagee’s wRight and God will stop damning America with the catastrophic hurricanes.
People like Matthews and Russert are being disingenuous when they pretend that the Press doesn't shape public opinion.
I think there is one difference, Tommy. While Hagee's views aren't necessarily different, few, if any of the others on his side have had an audience with Congress for their followers and a PAC. I think that makes Hagee much more dangerous.
I agree with you on the politics angle because of the mindset of the general public. It breaks my heart to see the difference, but its there.
I agree with you on that point. Hagee is a dangerous man. He wields enormous influence among the religious right in this country, and it looks as though Hagee wants to use that influence to bring about the end of the world.
What about us non-Christians? We have to face war and death because some nutjob with influence decided he was ready for Jeezus to make an appearance? Please.
Ridiculous paranoid rants such as yours don't help your case........"the end of the world"
Yep, is that in McCain's first 100 days?
I know of much of the crap that Hagee spouts, he is entitled to it absolutely....and if thought for one minute that McCain was going to him for policy guidance that would be a different matter, but his endorsement of McCain and McCain's acceptance of that is not enough to scare me into thinking any of Hagee's notions will ever be reality.
Look, I am not even supporting McCain so I certainly am not sticking up for his allegiances. I am only saying that by wishing Hagee to the spotlight only keeps Wright in the news as a comparison, and Obama needs him to get out of the media glare, not have to volley his wacky ideas against Hagee's, because neither of them are running for anything.
To quote Dick Cheney:
"Go f**k yourself", Tommy.
You knew what I was saying - and you know the point I was making.
He wield enormous influence with the President and the White house also, and I suspect if McCain is going to be president he will then too.
Question is, since McCain seeks out the type of evil spouting "christian" that Hagee and Parsley are, what are we going to be in store for should he be president.
He has already made statements similar to what these preachers say regarding Iran, etc.
One questions the way he perceives this country to be.
The other seeks to influence legislation, to legislate his religious beliefs into law and actively works toward fulfilling the end times his scriptures predict.
The political implications of each pastor just flies right over your head doesn't it Governor?
If you think that Hagee can ever do the damage politically that Wright has done to Obama, then you are delusional, in my opinion.
You can compare and contrast their nuttiness and who is cozier to whom all day long, but politically speaking, Dex is right - they are apples and oranges regarding the political damage both can and will do.
Again, I hope they do. As for your political persuasion, I just assumed from you prior posts tht you were not only a democrat but a liberal. Each to his own.
Damn Gov, watch your mouth! You know 'liberal' is a dirty word!!
Just kidding - don't want Tommy to get the wrong idea.
Tommy,
Good point.
But I say let the Left insist on bringing Hagee up to counter Wright... they do seem to like biting off their nose to spite their face for some reason ;-)
Nah, this doggy just licks his balls every now and then.
Oops, that was that darned outside voice again, wasn't it?
PS, Tommy:
The political implications of each pastor just flies right over your head doesn't it Governor?
Your constant belittling and insulting of other's intelligence on these threads is something I'm done with. I'm ignoring your posts from now on.
Good night and good luck.
Nice try, Tommy..
More like air ball, strikeout, fumble...:)
For whatever reason, Wright is more of a liability than Hagee.
For whatever reason? It's because McCain is getting a pass from the press.
"Luke, your going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view." ~ O.W.Kenobi.
Whether or not it's "the same" (better/worse) is a matter of opinion. It's FACT that one has been overplayed and misrepresented while the other has been almost completely ignored. Without any coverage at all, how are we supposed to even FORM an opinion? I doubt that most McCain voters have even HEARD of Hagee (apart from Hagee's own sheep). The media knows it'll cost him votes so they keep it quiet. How many votes is the real question (and goes to your post) maybe a lot, maybe almost none. But we'll never know if the info doesn't get "out there." (And they don't want to risk even a single vote in somethign as trivial as the pursuit of good journalism.)
And this is from NBC! "St.Keith's" own parent station! How's that for your "liberal media"?!
On a somewhat different topic..
I understand that Russert pronounced last night on MSNBC that Obama had clinched the nomination.
whoever is watching imus in the morning for media matters is not getting paid enough.
But we all know that won't happen, don't we?
Nerzog,
You are mistaken. The following is from Dennis Prager's column in Tuesday's Townhall.com
Hagee was not calling the Catholic Church "the Great Whore." That is an eschatological New Testament term in the Book of Revelation. Hagee teaches that the "Great Whore" will be an "apostate church" and a "false cult system" made up of all those who claim Christianity yet reject the gospel, whether Catholic or Protestant. He has stated explicitly and publicly -- and should continue to reassure Catholics -- that he does not believe that the "Great Whore" of Revelation is the Catholic Church. For Hagee, the sure sign that a Christian has rejected the gospel is an embrace of anti-Semitism. In the video referenced by Rich, Hagee chooses his examples of "apostate" behavior -- the Crusades, the Inquisition and a Hitler quote referencing the Catholic Church -- not because they are Catholic, but because they are anti-Semitic.
Very funny. :-)
It is apparent that Rev. Wright was not misinterpreted. Prager is saying that Rev. Hagee has been misinterpreted.
One was not. One was.
Even so your reply made me laugh.
AA,
Wright was absolutely taken out of context on his G-D America quote. Without looking it up, tell me what you think he meant by it.
Fried,
I've had this conversation with other's more than once. I am sorry I don't have time to get back into it. If you think Wright was taken out of context, that is fine with me. Having watched Wright, read the transcript, and watched his explanation, I am of the opinion that he meant every word of it.
AA,
Its a short response, what do you think Wright meant by G-D America, do you really think he meant to damn the country?
Did you take a look at the video?
AA,
I thought you would like that comparison. I sure didn't think it would magically help you to see the light, but I have to try right?
Yes, we have to try. :-)
I do not care for Hagee nor his statements. However Hagee did apologize for his Katrina statement and Prager points out, his Catholic Church comments were attacks against the Church's middle-aged antisemitism.
You may say that Wright's "GD-America" comments were also taken out of context. If you want to make that argument, go ahead. I find it a bit disingenuous for Wright to be shouting those words from the pulpit. Add to it his other statements and I think we have a pretty clear picture of the type of anti-American sentiment that Wright espouses.
Now the difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain's relationship with Hagee is purely political. Obama's relationship with Wright is over 20 years of Wright being Obama's minister and is one that is/was religious.
While I don't agree with either Wright or Hagee and their respective bloviating, I do see the clear difference of their associations with McCain and Obama.
Obama is linked by a 20 year history to Wright as his pastor. McCain is linked through an endorsement. That is why Hagee's comments are not sticking to McCain the way Wright's are sticking to Obama.
and that is just what is seems...a bullhocky explanation.
Hagee is a regular at the whitehouse, he has MUCH political pull, in fact visited bush at his ranch.
Mccain/hagee are more than JUST PURELY political.
Still no one talks about their like beliefs regarding the future, and war, and Iran, and etc, et effing cetra!
AA wrote:
>>Now the difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain's relationship with Hagee is purely political. Obama's relationship with Wright is over 20 years of Wright being Obama's minister and is one that is/was religious.
That is a meaningless distinction. McCain *sought out* Hagee's endorsement and has not denounced it. The fact that McCain's relationship is political makes it worse, because McCain had a choice to not seek out the endorsement of a deranged person. He did so anyway. What does that tell us about the judgment and values of McCain?
AA,
Watch this video and tell me what you think:
http://www.infowars.com/?p=1922
Fried,
If you want to defend Wright, go ahead. Rather than always asking me what I think when I've already told you what I think, tell me what you think and why you think he was misinterpreted. While you are at it, explain why Obama felt the need to finally disown Wright? Was Obama taking Wright's words out of context too?
The G-D America comment was in reference to those who worship the country and not God. He talked about how America failed those for many years who looked different (slaves, the Japanese, American Indians) and then expects those same people to sing God Bless America. The people who have been through those experiences, he felt, sing G-D America. He added in statements about the three strike law and drugs (the drug comment I don't agree with, but American prison systems don't work (three strike law and our rate of repeat offenders).
Quick Quiz, who said this: “If God doesn’t punish America He will have to apologize for Sodom and Gamora"
and that is correct that is what the context was.
was that haggee that said that.......hmmmm
Lorelei,
It was Billy Graham who said that. You know, the guy who turned Bush to Christ. I guess GWB wants to damn America too.
AA,
To your other point. The statements Wright made at the Press Club thing were over the top and completely different from what I had seen of Wright to that point. Obama's campaign is completely different from that rhetoric which Obama probably saw as divisive and frankly, a "performance" and because he had done that, Obama cut ties.
Any chance McCain cuts ties with Hagee/Parsley?
Fried,
Thanks for posting your opinions. I had to type and run...
It seems apparent to me that Obama only distanced himself from Wright's comments when it became personal. There never was any sort of anger, that I saw, when Obama did not disown Wright after these comments hit the mainstream press the first time. Obama's 20 year relationship with Wright as his pastor and his non denunciation denunciation the first time through reveal much about Obama's leftist views.
I have seen McCain's similar statements saying he repudiated Hagee's "anti" comments. Because of the purely political nature of McCain's relationship with Hagee, I don't see McCain doing anything further. (Unless of course it starts affecting his polling numbers.)
AA wrote:
>>I have seen McCain's similar statements saying he repudiated Hagee's "anti" comments. Because of the purely political nature of McCain's relationship with Hagee, I don't see McCain doing anything further. (Unless of course it starts affecting his polling numbers.)
Well, given the completely personal nature of Obama's relationship with Wright, I don't see Obama doing anything further. Let's make meaningless definitions to practice the logical fallacy of special pleading.
AA,
The biggest difference is that McCain was asked if he wished to keep the endorsement from Hagee and he said yes. To me, that is the biggest difference here.
AA wrote:
>>You are mistaken. The following is from Dennis Prager's column in Tuesday's Townhall.com
I find the explanation an exercise in tortorous logic, in which a right winger tries to defend a fundamentalists whose endorsement McCain sought.
Hagee - “As a believing Christian, I see the hand of God in everything that happens here on earth, both the blessings and the curses. But ultimately neither I nor any other person can know the mind of God concerning Hurricane Katrina. I should not have suggested otherwise. No matter what the cause of the storm, my heart goes out to all who suffered in this terrible tragedy. There but for the grace of God go any one of us.”
AA wrote:
>>Hagee I should not have suggested otherwise.
What is this supposed to prove--that Hagee isn't a nut job? What Hagee said is not the type of thing that is the slip of the tongue. You have to really build a type of world view to come to the conclusion he did. He merely got caught.
Something life threatening, perhaps not to John directly? Can't think of much else that would stop him.
That would be a very cold blooded plan. Perhaps by what ever group is reprising the plumbers of the Nixon adminstration. Been quite a few strange breakins, seemingly after specific paperwork from specific people.
Why Romney and not one of the other two, or someone outside the current crop? Maybe Nordquist's group will finally find a new sockpuppet.
Those results are a far cry form showing "that Wright had no lasting effect". What do you mean by "lasting effect?" As much as I wish your statement to be true, the poll you refer to is along way from proving such a generalization, IMO. Wasn't there some pollng data last night that said that Wright was an issue to 50% of the voters? The pundits have talked about the middle class "blue collar" voters being the key to this election. I think that to be true. That being said this poll doesn't seem to address swing voters perceptions. Indications that 60% of voters think he handled it well can be construed many different ways. Saying that three quarters of voters polled didn't change their minds about Obama doesn't address how many of those people didn't like Obama in the first place. If the Wright issue reinforced a prior negative views then there is in fact lasting effects. Look, I believe there has been fallout from this issue and I fear there will more in the fall.
I remember how the media went on a feeding frenzy when the current President sought the advice of Jerry Falwell on a SUPREME COURT NOMINEE.
Oh, wait. They didn't do sh**.
But it's different...(followed by no rational reason why it's different) !!!!!
Sorry, there was a void there that just seemed unbearable. Wake up, wingnuts, you have parroting to do!
I think we've found Rev. John Hagee's "god":
Yes, regarding matters of defense and space policy we definitely need to find leadership. For example, high resolution photos of the genocidal Myanmar Cyclone reveal conspicuous evidence of applied beam weapon formations, presumably to force high pressure cells as ameans of pushing the storm system as if with tugboats.
[url]www.freewebs.com/writingindependence/CloudCraters.pdf[/url]
[url]www.freewebs.com/writingindependence/main.htm[/url]