Fox News' Cavuto ignored Hagee's Hitler comments, McCain's courting of his endorsement
SUMMARY: On Fox News' Your World, Neil Cavuto reported on Sen. John McCain's rejection of Rev. John Hagee's endorsement, but he didn't note Hagee's remarks about Adolf Hitler and Zionism or that McCain admitted he sought Hagee's endorsement.
On the May 22 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto reported that Sen. John McCain rejected the endorsement of Rev. John Hagee, but did not report Hagee's comments regarding Adolf Hitler and Zionism -- the exposure of which preceded McCain's announced rejection of the endorsement. Nor did Cavuto report that McCain admitted he actively sought Hagee's endorsement. Cavuto's comments were first noted by the weblog News Hounds.
Additionally, Cavuto did not mention any of Hagee's prior controversial statements -- including about Islam, homosexuality and Hurricane Katrina; nor did he note that the exposure of those remarks did not cause McCain to reject Hagee's endorsement.
In a May 21 Huffington Post article, reporter Sam Stein wrote that Hagee "argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God's behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine." From Stein's article:
John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser of Sen. John McCain, argued in a late 1990s sermon that the Nazis had operated on God's behalf to chase the Jews from Europe and shepherd them to Palestine. According to the Reverend, Adolph Hitler was a "hunter," sent by God, who was tasked with expediting God's will of having the Jews re-establish a state of Israel.
Going in and out of biblical verse, Hagee preached: " 'And they the hunters should hunt them,' that will be the Jews. 'From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks.' If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the holocaust you can't see that."
He goes on: "Theodore Hertzel is the father of Zionism. He was a Jew who at the turn of the 19th century said, this land is our land, God wants us to live there. So he went to the Jews of Europe and said 'I want you to come and join me in the land of Israel.' So few went that Hertzel went into depression. Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the holocaust.
"Then god sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says -- Jeremiah writing -- 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended. I didn't write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel." [italics in original]
From the May 22 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: All right, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has rejected the endorsement of that fellow; he's Texas evangelist John Hagee, who had been very critical of the Catholic Church, essentially saying that it was a dying institution and that its followers were lemmings. Hagee apparently seemed to understand that there was also going to be happening -- he issued a statement saying that "I hope that Senator McCain will accept this withdrawal so that I may focus on the issues that are most important to America and the world." So, again, the McCain camp trying not to have a Jeremiah Wright situation on its hand. There you go.
All right, and here we go. In Santa Cruz County, California, firefighters at this hour unable to contain this 2,000-acre wildfire.
This is just ridiculous. So McCain finally rejects this nut's endorsement, but of course that is not enough for MMFA, who wants to keep this slime by association alive until its very last breath is drawn.
So keep pumping on the breathless chest of this association for as long as you can MMFA, and then remind us again about how your mission of conservative misinformation has morphed into this.
I didn't miss the point, of course MMFA wants every hideous remark made by Hagee out there. That is the point.
Hagee isn't running for president.
I disagree. It is merely a clear example of Fox's support for the candidacy of John McCain. There is no double standard if you realize Fox is simply a propoganda tool.
But then again: Is there not the possibility for where the Religiopolitical Right might seek out a third-party Presidential candidate for to support in line with their support of "defending Traditional Christian Moral and Familial Values"?
Let alone simply boycotting the November elections outright as a show of protest?
I think we're ALL missing the point, here. What Hagee believes and has said is exactly what evangelicals believe. God sending Hilter (among other supernatural evils) to afflict the Jews, the upcoming "Ezekiel's War" episode, the Catholic Church being the great whore, all that bullsh!t, is evangelical dogma, not "lunatic fringe" ramblings, heard in churches across the coountry every single day. This is only McCain's "pastor problem" to those of us don't believe what Hagee is saying, but to the majority of evangelicals, what he is saying is God's honest truth. In the uni-mind of evangelical America, this is not guilt by association, but, rather, a very valuable imprimatur. Just something to think about... The more we harp on the pastor Hagee/McCain connection as being wrong or bad or embarrassing, the more we "fulfill prophecy" in their eyes. Witness, even, how soft and underreported Hagess's "apology" for his remarks was. This is proof of a Jellicle bias in the media. If we really took a deeper look at the Evangelical church, much like Hannity exhorts America to take a deeper look at the Black Church, we might find some interesting things. I would argue that the former is more dangerous than the latter based simply on the former's desire to bring the world to an end by, now, affecting national poilitcs in a way that would hasten the return of Jesus the Christ and the destruction of the world. I'm just saying... This is McCain's pastor problem. We should just leave it alone or play into the evangelical persecution mania.
If we really took a deeper look at the Evangelical church, much like Hannity exhorts America to take a deeper look at the Black Church, we might find some interesting things.
You nailed it there...EXCELLENT point!
"All we're asking for is balance. FOX needs to either stop harping about Wright or give both sides. Fair and balanced, right...?"
NO, you are demanding it! Fox is not required to stop anything. Mmfa is not required to stop anything. When mmfa starts giving "both sides" of the issue then you will have a point. Fox is a business, not a public service. Just like mmfa...a business, not a public service. You can stop your hypocritical whining about "fairness" when you start whining about unequal treatment of the right-wing at mmfa. Until that happens you are just another whiner with an attitude. Which, in case you don't realize it, makes you a liberal.
I don't think twisting meanings and selective quoting is the same as exposing missinformation.
'Fair + balanced' is dependant on your point of view. Those who like the show, probably think it is. Those who don't will not. Similar to mmfa, those who like it think it's the best thing since buttered bread, those who don't think it's simply a site where whiners gather to whine about anything they can create that sounds reasonable to them.
'DependEnt on your view'... are you serious? It's pretty easy to quantify fair and balanced (from here on out, called 'f-n-b' or f-ing b)- for each *news* show on fox that is conservative, BALANCE it with a liberal show or commentators. For each lie they spread, they are UNFAIR, and they say many lies.
Sure, people who may like the *news* network may THINK it's f-ing b, but that doesn't make it so. News reporting should be pretty much objective, and those throwing out their opinions should be able to back up their assertions with FACTS, not lies, smears, racist and sexist remarks, etc.
By the way, your thinking that those on this site are mostly whiners is waaaaay off base. Most of us here just want to be able to watch and read the news WITHOUT having to go to 15 other sources to verify that what was said is the truth BECAUSE the media has been so damn complicit in NOT being factual, truthful, or honest in MANY instances. I'm glad MMFA is here to point the spotlight on all the bs that comes from our main *news* outlets.
"What Hagee believes and has said is exactly what evangelicals believe. "
What a bunch of CRAP the church I have attended for 43 years has never once stated these views. Pull your head out of the blogs and see the real world...you really think your local church teaches/says these things?
Had you not been consistent in opposing this guilt by association concerning Wright, I'd say you were being phony.
However, didn't you find Cavuto's implication that Obama has a Jeremiah Wright problem just as insidious as you claim MMFA to be?
But, Tommy, you bashed MMFA (rightly or wrongly) and yet you did not likewise condemn FOX.
I would agree that from time to time MMFA runs pieces which are not exactly consistent with its mission statement. However, in this instance MMFA is right on the mark. Cavuto's piece is a perfect example of the misinformation spread by FOX.
No, I never condemn Fox. I think they are perfect in every way. Happy?
My happiness is irrelevant...as I am sure my children would agree. ;>)
Nvertheless, I am simply pointing out that in this instance you did not condemn FOX for balatantly misrepresenting the circumstances of McCain's rejection of Hagee...you bashed MMFA exclusively instead.
“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them,” McCain said in a statement Thursday. “I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.”
They did not report McCain's words in rejecting Hagee, nor "these remarks" for why he did so. Why did they report Obama's specific rejection and Wright's comments that led to it?
That means lie, distort or make stories up that are just not important to the American people.
Uhhh...what exactly are the lies, distortions and made up stories about McCain of which you speak?
Do you seriously think that Sean Hannity and others at FOX are going to stop harping about Jeremiah Wright and move on? Ha...yea, right!
Hannity and FOX are scum, does that mean MMFA needs to get in the gutter with these people?
So, Bobthep says that Media Matters is getting into the gutter, and doing similar bad things compared to Fox.
How exactly is MMFA spreading misinformation the way FOX is doing?
Did I say that? You brought up FOX not me.
Yes, you did say that, and this thread is about Fox and their misdeeds.
It would be amazing how similar this sounds to a Sueeld argument about the trash-talking she does about Keith Olbermann if it weren't for the fact that Bobthep and Sueeld are the same poster with different screen names.
"BTW, no one is saying McCain AGREES with Rev. Nutjob's remarks. We are saying that McCain is an opportunistic fraud for soliciting Hagee's endorsement for political gain and, further, that FOX News is distorting the circumstances of Hagee's endorsement and of McCain's subsequent rejection of it."
And no one is saying Obama AGREES with Rev Racist's remarks. We are saying that Obama is an opportunistic fraud for befriending Wright for political gain, and further, that mmfa is distorting the circumstances of Wright's teachings and of Obama's subsequent denial of it.
Obama is an opportunistic fraud for befriending Wright for political gain
That's a stupid comment even for you.
And no one is saying Obama AGREES with Rev Racist's remarks.
Ha...you can't be serious! That's EXACTLY what the right wing wants it dumb as dirt followers to believe...that is, those who don't believe Obama is a Muslim.
TOMMY, why are you trying to take this thread off-topic? Are you a troll? MMFA is simply pointing out Cavuto's misinformation. Why can't you see that? Of course, I can undertstand why you would be bothered to see Hagee's remarkes reported in full, since McCain actively sought out Hagee's endorsement. Not such great judgment on McCain's part, was it?
BR,
Funny juxtaposition with jellicle and dogma even if it doesn't make a lot of sense. :-) I'm surprised you don't have a bone to pick with Karl Rove or someone else in that category.
By "jellicle", I mean evanGELICAL. The mash-up was unintentional, but I'm glad you liked it.
Actually, you could look at this from another angle which is not so kind to McCain. Considering how most of Fox viewers are Republican rightwingers, they see that by McCain rejecting Hagee's endorsement without explicitly saying why could lead many of those religious "fanatacal rightwingers" to take Hagee's side not knowing about his Hitler comments, and be rather upset at McCain.
If Cavuto had told them the details of Hagee's remarks they might be more sympathetic to McCain and understand his rejection as being justified.
I think FOX is simply trying to make this a non-story so it will go away...and then they can get back to bashing Obama.
And it should go away. McCain has rejected the guy's endorsement and Hagee has withdrawn it, would it be so awful to now move beyond this pastoral tit for tat silliness and address real issues facing our country?
I know the slimers from both sides have no interest in that debate, but I don't have to lie down with them.
I think this whole ordeal McCain stepped into by courting the endorsement also contradicts McCain's maverick status. He's an obvious sellout to the radical base of the Republican party. His subsequent renouncement of Hagee is just another indication of his any way the wind blows lust for the presidency.
He reminds me of Gollum; twisted and deformed by his ambition for power.
Actually, TOMMY, Cavuto did tell viewers about Hagee's anti-Catholic comments (if not in precise detail). Apparently, Cavuto wanted viewers to think those anti-Catholic comments were the reason for McCain's repudiation of Hagee. (Apparently, McCain was willing to risk being considered if not sympathetic to anti-Catholic remarks, certainly insensitive to anti-Catholic bigotry.) If some of Hagee's followers are anti-Catholic bigots, perhaps they were angered to hear McCain repudiate Hagee. But they might have been heartened that it had taken this long to happen.
What I find surprising is that Cavuto reported on a wildfire in Santa Cruz and didn't gloat about liberals losing their expensive homes. MMFA never talks about it when Faux anchors do something RIGHT, do they Tommy?
That's a risk McCain took. But the election is not until November and it will be interesting to see what he does to bring the religious people he might have alienated back into the fold. IMO the game plan will involve selling Obama as dangerously secular.
irony wrote: ...and I find it difficult to believe that McCain knew nothing about Hagee's or Parsley's controversial (nutty) statements.
Is the same guy who defended Obama not knowing what his own Pastor shouted from the pulpit?
...and I find it difficult to believe that McCain knew nothing about Hagee's or Parsley's controversial (nutty) statements.
Just like many folks find it difficult to believe that Obama wasn't aware of most of Rev. Wright's controversial [nutty] statements, yet remained a parishioner & friend to Wright.
But that aside, Cavuto seems to have deliberately omitted 2 important pieces of information. Personally I'm sick to death of all these so called men of God. None of the 3 [Hagee, Parsley, or Wright] deserve that title.
Dig him up or not it doesn't change the fact that Obama was likely aware of the controversial remarks but chose to remain a parishioner, a friend & has referred to Wright as his mentor.
I don't believe McCain or Obama get a pass here.
Irony,
Did you even read the MMFA thread? How then did it escape your notice that Cavuto's clip mentioned Hagee's offensive remarks against Catholics?
A complete pass? I think you fumbled on this one. :-)
jaw,
You must have missed the fact I was replying to Irony's statement immediately above mine.
Yes I am familiar with Haggee's newly released statements. His pronouncements and interpretations of world events as though he were an Old Testament prophet have shown him to be of the same mold as Rev. Wright.
Hagee is not in the same mold as Wright in the slightest.
Wright has had 20 seconds of sermons cherry-picked out of over 30 years of sermons.
Every word out of Hagee's mouth is wackoism at it's lowest.
Just trying to help. I did read the whole back-and-forth and your comments were a bit confusing. I truly didn't know if you were aware of them.
That said, I think it is beyond silly to pretend that Hagee's statements that Hitler was sent by God to kill Jews and send the rest to Palestine in order for them to eventually be killed by Jesus are in the same ballpark as Wright. To quote the esteemed Jules Winnfield, "Ain't no f**king ballpark...it ain't the same league, it ain't even the same f**king sport."
I would love to see how you can take that quote from Hagee and find a quote from Wright that is in the same ballpark.
Let me stipulate that I don't agree with either of the men.
What is apparent is that they take upon themselves to interpret scripture and apply their particular interpretations to current events in order to advance their particular agendas.
We know the difference is that one candidate has a deep and personal history going back 20 years with his Pastor and the other sought out an endorsement.
Jaw,
I respectfully disagree. Accusing the U.S. Government of creating the Aids virus to wipe out blacks is a lot more outlandish in my book than saying God works in mysterious ways. However we're simply quibbling. Both Pastors went off the deep end.
Accusing the U.S. Government of creating the Aids virus to wipe out blacks is a lot more outlandish in my book than saying God works in mysterious ways.
And you find NOTHING outrageous about Hitler being sent by God to send the Jew back to Israel?
The other difference (and it's just my opinion, as even some of the more liberal posters here have made it clear that they consider Wright "hateful", "divisive", etc.)is that while Wright's wrath is generally directed at the power structure, the government, America as a whole acknowledging its past sins, Hagee (like most of the right wing preachers) seems to reserve his anger for those who are already on the receiving end of those injustices.
Why is that hardly ever mentioned? As good as the rightys are at spouting off their arbitrary list of "differences" (20 years, married, baptized, squaaaawk), , I don't see many pointing out the difference between making controversial comments towards those who have done wrong towards others, and comments towards those who have done "wrong" things in the eyes of conservatives, but things that are really none of the cons business.
Yes, we should all sit there and let some angry bitter nut tell us Americans how we should acknowledge our past sins, no thanks Colonel - I don't need the likes of Reverend Jeremiah Wright lecturing me on anything, if you need it for some reason, then so be it. I don't.
As for comparing their rhetoric, both are irrelevant to this campaign, as neither is running for anything. So you can applaud one, and despise the other, it's all a personal choice.
You're veering off there, Tommy. I don't attend any church, let alone Wright's, but nice job of completely avoiding my point with your little "I don't need a lecture" whine. I suppose if I needed a lecture, I'd go to church, or take some night classes.
You seem a little bothered by Wright's "friendly reminders", and that's OK with me.I don't expect anything more.
Bothered? You are the one who seems to need the scolding that Wright is handing down, not me. If you have some level of guilt, don't assume the rest of us share that, I am perfectly fine with dismissing Wright as an irrelevancy, you are not.
And I very much answered your question in the context of this political campaign, let me remind you again, neither of these pastors is running for office.
Or did I miss that?
Nah, I'm all set on scoldings, and I don't think Wright's comments can even compare to Hagee's. That's because I understand them, so obviously I don't need them.
I'm not going to tell anybody else what they need,Tommy.I don't think you even get the difference between the focus of the two pastors, which makes you unqualified to even say if you need any of their comments.
I do agree with you on one thing; Both clergymen are irrelevant to the presidential campaign.Your hypocrisy is in thinking because you've not condoned the Wright media blitz, not condoning the much-more -ignored Hagee stuff makes you consistent, and validates your criticism of MMFA for pointing out these things.
Colonel, Your arrogance is astounding, and I am perfectly glad you understand Wright's comments, good for you.
But I am curious, you speak of my hypocrisy on this issue, when yours screams out. For you wallow in Wright's wild-eyed hate-filled rants because it soothes your guilt, that's obvious by the way "you understand them and I don't", yet you think his comments are getting too much airtime?, when you should be doing cartwheels with glee because Wright is getting the exposure and has the opportunity to take his scolding tour on a much more national stage to explain his wackiness to all of us who just don't get it.
Why are you complaining about that Colonel, you should be thrilled?
'...you wallow in Wright's wild-eyed hate-filled rants because it soothes your guilt, that's obvious by the way "you understand them and I don't", '
Understanding = wallowing in/having guilt soothed. OK, if you're just going to be silly, I won't bother. Have a swell weekend, Tommy. Forgive my arrogance if you can.
Fine, don't answer my question about why you are so annoyed at all the Wright media coverage however you feel it's something we as Americans need to hear.
Your contradictions make no sense, perhaps that is why you avoid it.
Tommy,You're only seeing contradictions because of your own view of the topic. I'm not bothered by anybody hearing the comments of Rev. Wright. I'd love for people to not only hear them, but understand them.
This would most likely happen in this context;listen to an entire sermon, or at least a good long passage, with an open mind, and using some critical thinking skills.
Then, agree or disagree, at least know what you're disagreeing with.
This will probably not happen with a shrieking Sean Hannity introduction of "hate-filled" "bigoted" "anti-American" "squawk squawk, etc" followed by a loop of "God Damn America!"
You're on the turf now of those posters who constantly accuse others of "hating disagreement", or insulting those with a different opinion.
There's nothing I like more than discussing things with those who disagree with me. It's just very boring to keep knocking down strawmen, and trying to have a talk with somebody who's disagreeing with something that nobody said.
The Wright issue has been on these boards countless times. I may have missed it, but up to this point, I still haven't seen one conservative poster who seems to understand it enough to make a distinction between the anger of Wright at injustices of our country towards it's citizens, and the Hagee-types anger at American citizens just trying to live their lives, and other things that are none of their business.
Col,
I am all for having substantive discussions about the topics that Reverend Wright talks about, that is fine. But two things, they don't belong in this presidential campaign as he is not running for president, so those discussions are for other venues.
Secondly, as for those topics themselves, you can soften his rhetoric by wanting people to hear and understand him, but the fault for people reacting the way they do and viewing him as an angry bitter vengeful man is HIS fault, not ours. I don't care what Hannity did to facillitate it or not, or how out of context those words were, they were his very words, uttered by him, his responsibility. If you want to have serious heartfelt discussions you don't haul out idiotic, unproved accusations that we Americans introduced AIDS to kill black people and GOD DAMN AMERICA! He said those things, we didn't.
Don't whine about not having your message heard and understood when you live off that inflammatory rhetoric, that is on him, not us. I will not take anyone seriously when they operate from that premise, and speak such lunacy.
I have no respect for the man, but as I said, he isn't running for anything so it matters very little.
When he apologizes for his accusations, then that would be a good starting point for those discussions you feel are so important.
I don't care what Hannity did to facillitate it or not, or how out of context those words were, they were his very words, uttered by him, his responsibility
If you don't care about media misinformation, then why are YOU here.
Col, that aside...everyone should read this article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/5939999/reverend_doomsday/
Thanks, I just skimmed it (I'm at work), but will check it out over the weekend. LaHaye is another winner in that bunch. But at least he didn't say anything crazy, like mentioning that the KKK existed in America.Just the demonic posession of Saddam Hussein, factual stuff like that.
Oh Yeah, and he didn't baptize Bush's kids, etc.
I don't need the likes of Reverend Jeremiah Wright lecturing me on anything
And therein lies your arrogant ignorance.
Gov,
Hold on the meme even if it is no longer operable. :-) Hagee had already apologized for his Katrina comments along with his comments regarding Catholics.
When that bill rings the beginning of the Hagee for President campaign, then you can vote against him and urge your fellow citizens to do the same.
Until then, his comments are as irrelevant as yours.
his comments are as irrelevant as yours.
But he get 2,408 Google News hits and I get zero. :(
Hagee is now #2, and it's not my critria, it's something called The Google:
http://news.google.com/?ned=us&topic=nGov.
You probably think all sorts of things about Rove and Bush. So what?
Hagee apologized and retracted his earlier comments about Katrina and Catholics. It looks to me like you hold on to these disavowed comments only to further your agenda.
“As a believing Christian, I see the hand of God in everything that happens here on earth, both the blessings and the curses,” Hagee said in a statement issued through his public relations firm. “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.
-Hagee somewhere around April 24th.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/04/hagee_retracts.htmlSo, any idea if he did it in front of his church? Or perhaps in any of the large venues like he used to make the comments. No of course not, have your press agent say you are sorry you pretended to know God's will and that is enough. I am sure all of his parishioners are aware he took back those statements as well.
Hagee may have apologized for his comments about Hurricane Katrina, I don't know. What I do know is that the religious right has been following a pattern.
Each tragedy that befalls an American city, from the attacks of New York and Washington DC to Hurricane Katrina has been judged by the leaders of the religious right to be deserved for the sinful ways of the cities involved.
What kind of God would show his anger at the ACLU and liberals by killing almost 3,000 people at their jobs on September 11, 2001?
What kind of God punishes the Pentagon and I suppose our military by attacking the Pentagon on the same day for the same crimes of liberalism and perversion?
What kind of God destroys the 9th Ward in NO because there was going to be a parade in the French Quarter, which was one of the few areas of the city left unscathed?
These men didn't say "God Damn America", they said that God has already damned us. To me that is despicable.
They follow their pattern, they claim to know the mind of God, then they apologize at a later date. Probably after they suck millions of dollars from their gullible followers.
If these men are men of God, then count me as an enemy of them and their god.
Hagee had already apologized for his Katrina comments along with his comments regarding Catholics.
And your proof of that is presented where? McCain knew of Hagee's comments about gays and calling the Catholic Church "the great whore," and he still sought out and courted Hagee's endorsement.
Any later so-called apology does nothing to counter the timeline of the events.
McCain when notified of Hagee's comments regarding Katrina said they were nonsense.
During a Thursday visit to New Orleans neighborhoods still recovering from the hurricane, McCain repudiated Hagee's comments about Katrina. "It's nonsense," he told reporters. -boston.com(see my link above.)
"We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics," McCain said. - huffington post.How about Obama's attempt to distance himself from another radical? I know we dare not criticize Barry here but it seems he's less inclined to run from another nutcase in his background than McCain's dismissal of Hagee.
http://www.bythefault.com/2008/05/23/obama-rashid-khalidi/
Here's how Barry, "hardly knew" Khalidi.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-obamamideast10apr10,1,2127459,full.story
I know, its just the rantings of some Zionist....
Yikes, Loudcon! Obama knows people who aren't exactly like him, and even has connections to people with differing views on issues!
Yes, most people know that. That's one of the reasons he may be our next president. We've seen the result , over the past 8 years, of a president who didn't really seem too curious about anything in the world outside of his preppy, elite and sheltered life.Many Americans are wising up.
Its one thing to be curious, its another matter to be immersed in radicalism.(PlowedCon)
Very good. You've noticed that two different things are, in fact, two different things.
Beyond that, any particular insight, or are you just going to limit it to the Republican national pasttime of vaguely stating the obvious?
Actually, there are a number of mistakes even in that short post of yours. First, projection; You're assuming that Obama has the same gullible sheeplike nature as the average conservative, that by being exposed to a particular person's viewpoint, he must agree with everything that person says.
Immersion in radicalism? To get this phrase beyond the silly joke level, you'd have to show some evidence of both "immersion" and "radicalism".
It's not really your fault, you've just been programmed by years of conservative propaganda.For most of our country's history, the most respected leaders were those who had some familiarity with a wide range of diverse thinking.
Unfortunately, your ideological comrades have made a habit of choosing leaders based on who seems the most harmless and non-threatening, those you'd like to have a beer with.
Non-idiots have been characterized as "elites", and your masters have convinced you that elites are bad.
But keep voting for beer buddies.If enough of you do it, the chimpanzees may have their chance to move into the #1 spot,, as soon as we humans, by virtue of the majority of pinheads, get out of the way.
Kernalsanders,
Immersion in radicalism? To get this phrase beyond the silly joke level, you'd have to show some evidence of both "immersion" and "radicalism".
How about Frank Davis? http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5047/1/32/ From the link: When these sources are explored, I think scholars of the future will be struck by, for example, the response in Honolulu when tens of thousands of workers went on strike when labor and CP leaders were convicted of Smith Act violations in 1953 – a response totally unlike the response on the mainland. Of course 98% of these workers were of Asian-Pacific ancestry, which suggests that scholars have also been derelict in analyzing why these workers were less anti-communist than their Euro-American counterparts. In any case, deploring these convictions in Hawaii was an African-American poet and journalist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis, who was certainly in the orbit of the CP – if not a member – and who was born in Kansas and spent a good deal of his adult life in Chicago, before decamping to Honolulu in 1948 at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson. Eventually, he befriended another family – a Euro-American family – that had migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago. In his best selling memoir ‘Dreams of my Father’, the author speaks warmly of an older black poet, he identifies simply as "Frank" as being a decisive influence in helping him to find his present identity as an African-American, a people who have been the least anticommunist and the most left-leaning of any constituency in this nation – though you would never know it from reading so-called left journals of opinion. At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, "Living the Blues" and when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside. How about Bill Ayers? http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/04/30/2008-04-30_barack_obama_pal_is_an_enemy_too.html From the link: Obama was indeed only 8 in early 1970. I was only 9 then, the year Ayers' Weathermen tried to murder me.In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called "Panther 21," members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of Feb. 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. From Huffington: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html and Still, the connection is troubling, if only for reasons of perception, to at least some progressives. HuffPost blogger Larry Johnson suggested in February that, "William Ayers, in the age of terrorism, will be Barack Obama's Willie Horton."What makes Ayers so toxic is his own written record equating U.S. Marines with terrorists. Look at the beating that John Kerry took for tossing his medals over the White House fence. Ayers did not toss medals, he threw bombs. Real ones. Bombs that exploded.
We can also add Rashid Khalidi, Rev. Wright, as radicals with whom he is immersed.kernal, he seeks marxists and marxism, leftist and left ideology. Why not be proud of it rather than the attempt to hide from it?
I approve of your message, Mary. I have no idea what PlowedCons post was about, but I assume all of the copy & pasted fine print was some sort of Red Scare stuff.
All I asked for was some evidence of immersion in radicalism, maybe an off-the-cuff story or a single supporting item. The wingnuts are really running out of steam.
Mary and Harold,
all that I did was clarify the 'immersed in radicalism' statement. Rather than complain about the fonts, which were ill sized for sure, take a gander at the words themselves. then the sentences, and then paragraphs together and please respond to that if you please.
PC, what is there to respond to. You did not present any evidence? Your cut and paste was a non sequitur, it did not present any evidence related to your statement. Please try again.
Easy, Hawkeye. LoudCon pasted a bunch of crap that seems to contradict reality, and he fully expects somebody to spend some of their valuable time refuting it point by point.
Don't ruin the suspense.
I think we all know the truth here when it comes to Hagee and Wright. McCain doesn't believe in Hagee's nutty form of Christianity, he just sought the endorsement for political purposes. But, he should have realized that many people would be turned off by Hagee's insanity. Obama joined Trinity church and stayed there to connect with the community. He could have cared less about what Wright said.
The issue here as it relates to MMFA is that Obama was put through the ringer for things Wright said that were far less crazy than Hagee, so they now need to be fair to both sides. It would have been nice if they didn't harp on Wright for so long and then McCain could have dropped Hagee and we all could move on, but the media now has a responsibility to treat everyone equally.
Ultimately, the most important thing that should come from this has nothing to do with the Presidential nomination. It should open a discussion in this country about how crazy and abhorrent these Christian fundamentalists are. They need to be exposed, ridiculed, shoved in the corner, and never listened to again by mainstream America.