Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
McCain's Failed Spiritual Endorsements
Why? Why, I ask, did John McCain disarticulate his presidential campaign from Pastors John Hagee and Rod Parsley last week? As we shall see below, he cut them off even though it looked like he would overcome the turbulence created by their support. I have a few theories, but first permit me to point out that the Senator’s move spells trouble for Spiritual Endorsers far and wide.
In the bestiary of Faith and Values politicking the Spiritual Endorser occupies a place distinct from the Spiritual Mentor (with whom s/he is always confused). Spiritual Endorsers (such as John Hagee) are to be distinguished from Spiritual Mentors (such as Jeremiah Wright) in the following tripartite respect. To begin with, the Endorser need not be of the same faith tradition as the endorsee.
The Episcopalian McCain--who last year pronounced himself a Baptist--does not seem too comfortable in that mode of modern religious expression known as Evangelicalism. Religiously speaking, the Maverick is the strong and silent type. He lacks Hagee and Parsley’s give-it-up-my-brothers-and-sisters-for-Christ-Jesus! exuberance.
This brings us to the question of familiarity. A Spiritual Endorser need not know very much about the candidate s/he champions (and vise versa as the McCain campaign has taught us). The sum total of their relation might comprise a few face-to-face meetings (with staff in tow) at the D.C. Hilton.
Hagee did not bring McCain to Jesus. He did not provide him spiritual sustenance across decades. He never prayed with him in a foxhole. Quite frankly, he didn’t seem to know much about the Senator from Arizona at all.
But he sure did like McCain’s views on “family issues.” This brings us to the final distinction: while the Mentor loves the candidate, the Endorser loves the candidate’s politics. In return for this admiration (and perhaps a direct line to the White House) the Endorser delivers a particular religious constituency. It’s a contract job.
In any case, this week’s lesson is: Mamas, don’t let your babies become Spiritual Endorsers! McCain abruptly jettisoned Hagee and Parsley. Moving from least to most likely, here are five reasons explaining why he may have done so:
Senator McCain was afflicted by pangs of conscience: After a long walk in the foothills of Arizona John McCain thought long and hard about what these men had said about Catholics, Jews and Muslims and concluded it was wrong. Just plain wrong.
The Catholic vote was threatened: Plausible. But even after Hagee’s views were publicized McCain’s support among this constituency was strong . And when the somewhat influential Catholic League forgave him it looked like McCain was in the clear. On the other hand, in the past few weeks Obama has begun to edge him out among these voters.
The Jewish vote was threatened: Let there be no doubt, Republican strategists see Judaism as a battleground faith in 2008. Recalling, with fondness no doubt, the 39% that Ronald Reagan sluiced off in 1980, perhaps the McCain people concluded that Hagee’s disquisitions on the Holocaust were a liability.
These guys weren’t even paying dividends among Evangelicals: Maybe a Jerry Falwell or a Pat Robertson or a James Dobson (who spent the better part of 2007 telling anyone who would listen that he would not endorse McCain under any circumstances) would be worth the trouble. But the truth is that Hagee and Parsley were not household names, let alone kingmakers, in an increasingly fractured and restless Conservative Christendom.
There has been an outbreak of pastoral equivalence: In the past few weeks I have detected in the media a mentality that goes something like this: “McCain’s got Hagee and Parsley. Obama’s got Wright. So let’s call it even and move on to more substantive matters.” In other words, the possibility exists that the McCain campaign will not be able to reap the munificent electoral bounty offered by Jeremiah Wright. The Senator anticipated this difficulty when explaining his decision: “But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual adviser, and I did not attend his church for twenty years.”
McCain is certainly correct and the distinction he draws is relevant. But if Senator Obama’s handlers are wily, they should have no difficulty blurring the already fuzzy lines between a Mentor and an Endorser.
(For more information about religion and the candidates check out Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs.)
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
May 27, 2008; 8:18 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Obama Passing "No Religion" Test |
Next: The Great Divide
Posted by: Ruth | May 29, 2008 11:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No matter what damage Hagee and Parsley do to McSame, it pales in comparison to THE CHICAGO TRINITY CHURCH OF UNITED JUMPING-UP-AND-DOWN-CHEERING BLACK RACISTS being hell bent on getting McCain elected. Their use of Christ's name is an abomination to the Lord.
Posted by: Roy | May 29, 2008 10:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Berlinerblau:
Why don't you switch your topic from the "God vote" to the "oil vote"? Too many of those who voted the way Lucifer's agents told them to vote last time need a little more lubricating this time around. Maybe if ministries started passing out "free gas for the needy"? St Vincent De Paul gang have a service station where soccer moms can fill up their gas guzzling yuppimobiles, free?
Posted by: BGone | May 29, 2008 12:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
These evangelical pastors present as much a threat to the existence of the United States as does the worst Theocracies in the Middle East. It is these sorts of religious types that underscore the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in formulating the doctrine of Separation of Church and State. The American People must be ever vigilante in preventing these false purveyors of the teachings of Jesus Christ (indeed the so-called "prosperity" gospel from a man who probably didn't even own the clothes on his back and most certainly never lived in a mansion). I applaud any political candidate, who rejects the nonsense that continually flows from these "pastors."
Posted by: Caliguy55 | May 29, 2008 9:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
These evangelical pastors present as much a threat to the existence of the United States as does the worst Theocracies in the Middle East. It is these sorts of religious types that underscore the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in formulating the doctrine of Separation of Church and State. The American People must be ever vigilant in preventing these false purveyors of the teachings of Jesus Christ (indeed the so-called "prosperity" gospel from a man who probably didn't even own the clothes on his back and most certainly never lived in a mansion). I applaud any political candidate, who rejects the nonsense that continually flows from these "pastors."
Posted by: Caliguy55 | May 29, 2008 9:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
These evangelical pastors present as much a threat to the existence of the United States as does the worst Theocracies in the Middle East. It is these sorts of religious types that underscore the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in formulating the doctrine of Separation of Church and State. The American People must be ever vigilant in preventing these false purveyors of the teachings of Jesus Christ (indeed the so-called "prosperity" gospel from a man who probably didn't even own the clothes on his back and most certainly never lived in a mansion). I applaud any political candidate, who rejects the nonsense that continually flows from these "pastors."
Posted by: Caliguy55 | May 29, 2008 9:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques:
I hope you see this comment.
Take a look at the faith and practice forum of baptistlife.com and my comments of May 28 on McCain and his Baptist Pastor Dan Yeary.
Parsley is not the key to this discussion. It is the dogma card held by Southern Baptists Richard Land and Ergun Caner.
It conflates with the Evangelical manifesto and Caner's misgivings as reported at ethicsdaily.com today.
Again, get a clue and refine your thinking at bl.com.
Stephen Fox
Posted by: Stephen Fox | May 28, 2008 5:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques:
I hope you see this comment.
Take a look at the faith and practice forum of baptistlife.com and my comments of May 28 on McCain and his Baptist Pastor Dan Yeary.
Parsley is not the key to this discussion. It is the dogma card held by Southern Baptists Richard Land and Ergun Caner.
It conflates with the Evangelical manifesto and Caner's misgivings as reported at ethicsdaily.com today.
Again, get a clue and refine your thinking at bl.com.
Stephen Fox
Posted by: Stephen Fox | May 28, 2008 5:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As an Obama-supporting Evangelical Christian who's been on the strange ride this subculture often offers, I think there are a few points left over.
1. McCain is not a faith candidate, period. In one of the more fascinating developments of this entire race, we have a faith-based Democrat -- and Obama is for real about his Christianity, whether or not we completely resonate with it -- over against a (I cringe to use the word) "secular" Republican. McCain picked these nimblewits as symbols of Evangelicalism because he honestly thinks that is all Evangelicalism has to offer! Incredible. It says a whole lot about him and his pal Joe Lieberman, but almost nothing about Evangelicals. (Ninety plus percent of us don't know who either of these yahoos is.)
2. "Evangelical" is a word which has been extremely abused over the past eight years, and actually for longer than that. It's abortion that created the nexus between Evangelicals and the Christian Right, but that nexus has never been comfortable for many of us, and has not even been operative for many more of us.
3. Rev. Wright should *never* be compared to these two. Wright, whether one likes him or not (and I frankly do--and yes, I'm a white male and love my country), is scholarly, articulate, versed in theology (James Cone isn't my fave, okay, but he's a serious scholar and has many truths we white folk could greatly benefit from).
4. The bizarre mix of Jew-loving and Jew-hating shown by Hagee proves one thing: that he is willing to use "Jews" as an abstract category. The favor is returned by Lieberman, who also (along with other extreme Right folk) is willing to use Hagee to sell Israel's foreign policy to American Evangelicals. In the process, both Jews and Christians are objectified, used as pawns in these peoples' absurd, draconian games.
5. Barack Obama is the faith candidate this time out. While I am one Evangelical who doesn't agree with his stance on abortion (but do not oppose civil unions for same-sex couples: it's complicated), I do think his pro-woman, pro-person, values-driven agenda in the larger schema of things is far more reflective of a serious Christian than is John McCain or George W. Bush.
IN conclusion, these men make me blush for shame that they would be called Evangelicals at all. To me, they are not. The "Evangel" is about the good news. In their case, I hear no such good news but only the same pompous compost emanating from the White House. Lots of "Jesus, Jesus," from the mouth but not so much with the hands. Show me.
Jon Trott, "Another Evangelical who often fails to be like Jesus."
Posted by: Jon Trott from Chicago, Illinois | May 28, 2008 2:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Corey:
The Bible is the word of God's enemy, Lucifer, the angel that tried to throw God out of heaven and take over. Just like that case we are now faced with Lucifer's agents, ministers, attempting to throw the government of the people, by the people and for the people out and take over. This being exposed is the best news the human race has had in about 5,000 years. NW, WAPO and of course Mr Jacques are all in a state of shock because of the "God vote" disappearing. You might say the God vote has gone to hell in a hand basket.
Note: this has nothing to do with the abortion we have for an administration brought on by voting the abortion issue. It's the "right to life" of the GOP that's kinda iffy. All they can say is, "let us pray" but folks are way too busy pumping gas. Or was that taking gas? Gas has something to do with it to be sure.
Posted by: BGone | May 28, 2008 1:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"glaring inconsistencies that anyone can recognize easily and quickly" The Bible itself is disjunctive, inconsistent, contradictory, filled with glaring holes etc. It's amazing that non-thinking individuals still believe the Bible to be the word of God! Absolutely amazing! I'm glad to see in my lifetime all these God monopolizers are being discovered for who they are: Lunatics with personal agendas clinging to irrational beliefs, doctrines, etc.
Posted by: Corey | May 28, 2008 10:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Renowned scientist Albert Einstein dismissed the Bible as a collection of “pretty childish” legends and belief in God as a “product of human weaknesses,” according to a letter to be auctioned this week.
Einstein, who was Jewish, also rejects the notion that Jews were God’s chosen people."
And yet, guys like Jacque, weak humans, get paid to propogate childish lies...
Posted by: Rob Littell | May 28, 2008 9:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jeez, Einstein said that belief in God was childish, what are all you children doing in here?
Posted by: Rob L. | May 28, 2008 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
LOL:
You proceed from the assumption that the"Liberal" media (the news who as Bush's Press Secretary noted today - gave Bush a free ride) hid the Wright story. I know of no basis in fact for that. If anything the media gave McCain a break. He actively sought the support of a man he knew was a serious bigot. There is not evidence that Obama knew of the two Wright rants that are so offfensive. McCain is clearly the more culpable but got pretty much a pass.
Posted by: Pragmatist | May 28, 2008 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain's Episcopalian-ism may have allowed him to accept Hagee's anti-Catholic views. After all, McCain was reared in a time when Catholics were still actively discriminated against, especially in the his father's and grandfather's navy and social circles.
Hagee's views may have not sounded any alarms in McCain's mind, particularly because Catholics are now so well mainstreamed, and that era seems long gone.
Yet, when a public figure picks on Jews and blacks, it seems all too real and current. Anti-Catholicism seems distant by comparison (and despite the Catholic League's protests to the contrary, it might well be in our distant past).
Posted by: A theory | May 28, 2008 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Among whom is the Catholic League "somewhat influential"?
Certainly not among Catholics themselves who view Bill Donahue as a milk-fed, apoplectic over-reactor!
Posted by: Kate | May 28, 2008 9:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Comparing Hagee to Wright shows just how desperately worried the liberal media is about Obama's chances to get elected in the General. Had the liberal media reported about Barak's 20 year relationship with racist, America hating Wright, Obama would never have won Iowa, and Hillary would already be the nominee. Working class white Americans will not vote for a racist black man for President. By hiding the news from the American voters on Wright, the liberal media has screwed the pooch for the Democratic party in November. At least Hillary 2008 had the brains to steal the election.
LOL@DEsperAtioN
Posted by: Monroe | May 28, 2008 8:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This is certainly an odd event, but I think you missed the oddest part, politically. John McCain and/or his staff were well aware of Hagee's anti-Catholic rhetoric before McCain actively sought Hagee's support.Then, he weathered the "why do you seek support from a guy who scorns Catholicism" storm. Then, when Hagee is found to have made anti-semitic statements - offensive to all but particularly to Jews and evangelical Christians - McCain dumps him. he did this, as you note, because he was not gaining anything and it was hurting him. But it is now possible to say with factual accuracy that McCain actively sought the support of a known anti-Catholic, but dumped him as soon as he knew he was also anti-semitic. McCain is a pretty bizarre guy but could anyone be that twisted?
Posted by: Pragmatist | May 28, 2008 7:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Interesting observations.
I was unaware that the science and critical philosophy of Spiritual Endorsement and Mentorship was so far advanced as to enable us to see so clearly into the otherwise opaque souls of mankind.
Posted by: montag | May 28, 2008 7:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Will the real John McCain please stand up?!?!?!?
Posted by: liz | May 28, 2008 6:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The candidates obviously do not bother to find out about these pretend Christians they associate themselves with. There are so many glaring inconsistencies that anyone can recognize easily and quickly. I will be so glad when the gullibles stop watching these counterfeits on tv and listening to their lies and sending them their money.
I am praying to God that Pat and Gordon Robertson will be brought out into this mix so they too can be scrutinized and exposed. Gordon had an extramarital affair and his daddy helped him keep it hidden, and they continued their "healings" and "words of knowledge" throughout the affair. They tell others to confess their sins and repent, yet they hide their own. They make money off of their gullible viewers by using all that fake holiness. People want to be a part of that. People want to be close to God and they want to believe it is possible. Pat Robertson has gotten away with lying and stealing all these years and now his adulterer son is in that seat to take over the con games. It makes me sick. I want those two to be outed too. They are completely immoral.
Posted by: Cheryl Spencer | May 28, 2008 5:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This parsing is keen and comprehensive. Jacques nails it again.
I initially dared to hope his declaring spiritual endorsers an endangered caste meant he foresaw religion losing its cache among pols, but no, he had to be realistic.
Posted by: jhbyer | May 28, 2008 4:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain has a Machiavellian mindset it seems when it comes to religion and getting support. He wasn't getting support from the Christian right, and was told he needed it. So he asked for them specifically to help him and they did. Trouble is he never knew much about either Hagee or Parsley, never spent five minutes in their church hearing them speak. Watch TBN on occasion and one quickly sees who and what they are. Which would have been a red flag had he listened to them.
Posted by: MotherLodeBeth | May 28, 2008 3:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
How is the distinction McCain makes (between a "mentor" and an "endorser" valid? Obama's relationship with Wright was a valid and meaningful relationship from which Obama drew spiritual support. The only thing McCain hoped to draw from his relationship with Hagee or Parsley was votes. I doubt if McCain takes much spiritual sustenance from any pastor living or dead.
Unfortunately most Americans aren't sophisticated enough to make the distinction between crack pots and legitimately, righteous angry pastors. Perhaps becasuse most americans haven't read much of the Old Testament where angry prophets abound. These guys had no problem asking God to damn his people. In fact they had the chutzpah to say that was exactly what God would do--damn them. And they were crazy enough to believe they were speaking for God. They weren't in the endorsement business but instead thought their task was to call God's people to righteousness.
Wright was right in about everything he said except for the AIDS business, but as I read his statement he was saying that why is not possible to think our government would use AIDS againsts its citizens when in fact they had contaminated blacks with syphlis and used them for scientific research without consent or knowledge of the indviduals involved. Or when the US government with full knowledge and deliberate action withheld information to Indians who were mining radium about the dangers of radiation.
And finally why not call God's damnation on the USA which trained, taught and condoned the use of terroist tactics in defenses of despotic rulers--tactices inflicted upon the natives who wanted liberty and freedom or at least the absence of oppression from their leaders. People who wanted justice instead of murder from their leaders. Too much to ask?
If I had to choose between a candidate who was mentored by such a man or by a man who runs away from his Episcopal church becasue episcopalians aren't getting kudos for their stand on women clergy and gay bishops--at least not in traditional evangelical circles where much of his base is.
s
Posted by: rick rikkers | May 28, 2008 2:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Maybe if we all pray hard enough Jesus will lower the price of oil.Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha......and so on.It won't be long before the ruling class will wish that they had a real President.Too bad,too bad.
Posted by: Swami of Iranamok | May 28, 2008 2:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain should not worry about the religious vote as most will go his way. He better try and lose the 4 more years of Bush Mantra and start pinning Obama "Four more years of Carter" Jimmy knew how to talk to Iran ask the 400 and some American hostages Obama will have the same success
Posted by: gar | May 28, 2008 1:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
While McCain was courting and defending Hagee, Oral Roberts University quietly removed Hagee from it's board. He had served as president of the ORU Board of Trustees while Oral Junior was plundereding the endowment fund, and was in charge of the "investigation that tried to cover it up. He is so notorious both as a leader of organized hate crime, and as a crook, that he was one of the first "bad apples" that ORU rid itself of, after Junior, in an effort to save the reputation of the school.
Posted by: Rev. Peter | May 28, 2008 12:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This is where McCain's whitebread Episcopalianism helps - he never attended a church where anti-Jewish or black nationalist things were spoken. Now suddenly he wants to be a Baptist because Episcopalianism is just too mainline for the Christianist voting bloc to like, but it shouldn't take much work to blow McCain's "Baptist" identification apart. He could easily be tripped-up in an interview of the kind that has busted other claimers of piety. Questions include "what's your favorite verse in the Bible' (and "Jesus wept" is lame), "what ARE the ten commandments?" and "what doctrinal issue made you decide to become a Baptist?"
Posted by: Judas Gutenberg | May 28, 2008 12:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Senator McCain was afflicted by pangs of conscience: After a long walk in the foothills of Arizona John McCain thought long and hard about what these men had said about Catholics, Jews and Muslims and concluded it was wrong. Just plain wrong.
OH JEZUS MOTHER MARIA YOU FORGOT TO MENTION THE HOMOPHOBIC UTTERANCES SPEWED OUT BY FAT DUDE HAGEE AGAINST OUR LESBIAN AND GAY AMERICANS!!
MORE PROOF THAT RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES!!
Posted by: william kraal | May 27, 2008 11:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
-
-
-
-
------------- The two witnesses of the book of Revelation
-
-
The work of the two witnesses, as it is found to occur in the book of the revelation (christian bible) of Jesus Christ, the son.
Some of that work, it is now occurring in the earth, forever. See the book: THE GOD OF TRUTH, found at: I-Proclaim, isbn # 978-1-60585-521-9.
Some of their work, is found, now and forever, as written by roger wallace. That book is found and seen, at the Greek Orthodox church Jerusalem, now and forever-- AMEN
-
C-257
-
Roger wallace
-
-
-
-
Posted by: roger wallace | May 27, 2008 9:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
-
-
-
-
------------- The two witnesses of the book of Revelation
-
-
The work of the two witnesses, as it is found to occur in the book of the revelation (christian bible) of Jesus Christ, the son.
Some of that work, it is now occurring in the earth, forever. See the book: THE GOD OF TRUTH, found at: I-Proclaim, isbn # 978-1-60585-521-9.
Some of their work, is found, now and forever, as written by roger wallace. That book is found and seen, at the Greek Orthodox church Jerusalem, now and forever-- AMEN
-
C-257
-
Roger wallace
-
-
-
-
Posted by: Anonymous | May 27, 2008 9:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Abraham never did teach his children how to get along with each other. Now it's spilled over to politics. Take back America from the theocrats.
Posted by: Roy | May 27, 2008 9:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama belongs to a church but it appears that McCain does not belong to a church as he is reluctant to be baptised in the North Phoenix Baptist Church he attends. Thus, he does not officially have a pastor of a church where he belongs. How committed to evangelical values is that?
Posted by: David Moore | May 27, 2008 9:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The problem with Mr. McCain is that he is trying to be all things to all people. Here in Phoenix, he claimed to be a member of the North Phoenix Baptist Church, but poor thing did not even understand that you cannot just GO to a Baptist Church but it takes Baptism by immersion. I would say that anyone who lies about Church membership is just not reliable. He is so uninformed that he did not recognize that folks like John Hagee and Rod Parsley were being so hateful about some religions, and they even went a step further and made those ideas part of their public discussion. I think if any person lies about church membership and has such poor judgment about religious ideas, you simply cannot trust them about anything. Just my opinion.
Posted by: Mari Johnson | May 27, 2008 8:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
McSame's only revelations comes in the form of lobbyists whispering in his ear. It's simply who paid the bill and what they now want in return.
McCain, McBush, McSame, McWar, McDeath.
Posted by: Chris | May 27, 2008 8:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Unless a candidate and his/her staff is willing to pull on a pair of rubber gloves and do a thorough vetting of the pastor before seeking his/her endorsement, it is not a good idea to cozy up to a minister. I thought Giuliani and Robertson were particularly well-matched because neitehr of them was morally fit to clean my cat's litter box but it can be rather problematic.
McCain is a Baptist as an opportunist. The elder Bush is a thoroughgoing Episcopalian and has never pretended to get in the trenches of evangelical belief. Ronald Reagan kept his religion to himself most of the time, a fact brought home at that moving graveside service in California by his son.
I would prefer an irreligious man to a fraud any day.
Posted by: Karen | May 27, 2008 8:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques wrote- "A Spiritual Endorser need not know very much about the candidate s/he champions (and vise versa as the McCain campaign has taught us)."
You mean what you and McCain would like to have us believe. Obviously, if McCain is accepting Hagee's endorsement he should know a great deal about him and vice-versa. McCain meets with him on stage for a photo op to be published nationally on his behalf for the purpose of garnering votes.... but you don't think they need to know anything about eachother!?!
McCain picked a crackpot entirely out of political expedience. McCain is entirely responsible and should have known more as the fall-out has proven. You have not yet learned this lesson taught by reality.
Posted by: Kevin Morgan | May 27, 2008 7:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
@Fred
Don't be so quick to characterize the "Jewish community". A few Likudnik organization heads have made a Faustian bargain with end-timers like Hagee, but they don't speak for me and many other American Jews, or many Israelis for that matter. Try googling "Jstreet" to see what I mean.
Hagee wants the Jews to return to Israel so the "prophecies" (more like psychotic delusions, or at best wild allegories) of the Book of Revelations can be hastened. As one Jew who has actually read that book, I'm not much impressed with the idea that half the Jews will convert and the other half sent to burn forever in the Lake of Fire. And I'm surely not alone in seeing the "bait-and- switch-for eternity" behind that ploy.
From the likes of Hagee, the hard-right Jews who want to permanently annex the West Bank and/or expel the Palestinians get unquestioning support for a policy supposedly based on religious conviction, that looks to perpetuate the unstable and dangerous condition of the ME as far into the future as the oil lasts, or the place explodes and the fallout lands everywhere.
Personally I think that both sides are basically cynical, using each other for widely diverging ends, and both have narrow unstated (or unemphasized) agendas that are at serious odds with the needs and desires of Americans in general.
FYI disagreement even to the point of violence is not new among Jews, especially when they were Israelites. Check out the Book of Kings or Judges if you have a minute or ten.
Posted by: jrosen | May 27, 2008 7:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This whole series of episodes (McSame rubbing noses with Jerry Falwell in prior years and seeking out Hagee and Parsley now) shows just what an opportunist and political panderer John McSame really is.
It should come as no surprise when we note McSames's willingness to cozy up to the same Bushes and Karl Roves of the world who in just 2000 did everything possible to drag McSame, his name and his family through the mud. Has McSame no shame, no backbone, no principles? When you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Now McSame is even doing his fund raising behind closed doors because 1) McSame does not want to be seen with Pres Bush in public though McSame is willing to take the money Bush raises and 2) McSame doesn't want us to see who the rest of his donors are.
McSame can forget about trying to draw a distinction here between this situation and that of Sen Obama and the Rev Wright. The issue is not just Advisor vs Endorser because, after all, McSame sought out these bigoted men to further McSame's political ambitions just as McSame has done with seeking the support of Bush and Rove. Pretty telling...
Posted by: vgorl1 | May 27, 2008 6:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
May Spiritual Mentors be flawed? It they are humans, perhaps they must be flawed?
Can someone chose a mentor based on the balance of their strengths and weaknesses? And how important a factor is the congregation?
Should we believe the polls that every Sunday millions of Catholics sit in their pews listening to priests, even though they disagree with what those priests say about contraception, immigration, the death penalty, or the invasion of Iraq?
Posted by: Doubting Thomas | May 27, 2008 6:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Which candidate has been helped the most by the religion operators?
I can see there's atheists here who don't even believe in Devil.
Fruitcake - Now that Jews have returned to their homeland the world can come to a proper end. Did I say fruitcake? Sorry, meant to say Hagee.
Is the world coming to an end a good thing? The trouble a Baptist preacher will go to just to baptize a Jew never ceases to amaze.
Posted by: BGone | May 27, 2008 5:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
McLame isn't getting away with this one.
He eagerly accepted Hagee's endorsement and even called Parsley his "spiritual guide'.
Parsley is one of those sleazy "prosperity gospel" hucksters who have been getting investigated by Congress...by the Repukes, no less. His greed is even too much for them, and Repuke greed knows no bounds.
And Hagee? God sent Hitler to punish the Jews? God killed 1800 Americans with Katrina because New Orleans was going to have a gay march??
Hagee is a TYPICAL Christian these days. A reich wingnut psychotic who is completely out of touch with that 2000-year-old hippy in sandals.
You Repukes made your bed of crap, now you get to lie in it. The smell suits you.
Posted by: Tom3 | May 27, 2008 5:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
BGONE's statement notwithstanding - which borders on vacuous - the nation has far more to fear from John McCain than his vacillating postures on religion. This is a politician, pure and simple, who cares naught for naught for the vulnerable populations in this country, only the welfare fo the rich ; cares naught for the rights of the Native Americans ( witness his handling of the Tribal Land Trust quagmire ); rarely shows us for work at the office to which he was elected ; believes that only those in uniform in a war somewhere are serving their country' that GI benefits should be doled out based on how many years you serve in a combat zone ; truly thinks that Iraq was legal and justified and that all costs at the expense of domestic issues (including teh Social Security System ) is acceptable; believes that violating treaties is OK during war time; and, for some odd reason, thinks that democracy MUST be imposed on the entire Middle East.
Indeed, my friends, this man is to be feared, seriously feared.
Posted by: consultantaz | May 27, 2008 5:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Obama did never tried to wow voters on religion. He probably would have liked Wright just stay around his normal business as retired pastor.
Remembering, that Obama was born black to a single mother, I think it is admirable, that he did not cut the ties to Wright, when he entered Harvard, it would have been easy.
Posted by: MARQ | May 27, 2008 5:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The really puzzling thing about the Hagee affair is that an intern with 10 minutes to kill could have saved McCain from the whole embarrassing episode.
I can't wait to see who they spring from the lunatic asylum to replace Hagee.
Posted by: Enemy Of The State | May 27, 2008 4:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred: apparently his past support for Jews and Israel is part of his apocalyptic vision which has Jews forced to convert or burn during the last days. in any event, it is inconceivable that Hagee's Jewish support won't change now that his Hitler comments are in the open. McCain certainly didn't neglect to consult some before concluding that he had to dump Hagee.
Posted by: JoeT | May 27, 2008 4:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reasonable not hateful:
Yeah, the facts just keep getting in the way. But why haven't we heard about abortion and why do the candidates avoid the gay marriage issue? Probably has nothing at all to do with that web site but does it have anything to do with what that web site says? And, why has the "God vote" disappeared?
Have you read Exodus and verified for yourself that was really God in the burning bush? Have the candidates done that? Their ministers seem to be dumb, fat and unhappy about something. Could it be they have read Exodus? Calling Devil God makes Devil God?
If religion is entitled to get involved in government then government is compelled to get involved in religion. Exodus must be debated in the house and senate. Ministers operating their tax advantaged ministries summoned and put under oath. God or Devil? That is the question. Which candidate has the fortitude to ask it? So far none. Their silence is deafening but then there is the possibility of a dooms day plan when the polls leave no doubt.
And Mr Jacques Berlinerblau has many excuses why a candidate would not offend but put distance between himself and the ministry. How much room should one put between one's self and Lucifer's reps? Insulting them is not a good idea either for they sway votes. Devil is powerless, can do nothing without help from people but people will help for Devil pays the big money for the souls of those leading the multitudes to Him.
Posted by: BGone | May 27, 2008 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As for Hagee's statements, read "Pruden on Politics" in today's copy of "the other paper" -- The Washington Times. You'll find that the Jewish community has a friendly relationship with Hagee and is not offended by his statements. In fact, Hagee founded "Christians United for Israel."
Posted by: Fred | May 27, 2008 3:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bgone-
Attempting to sell your false wares again?
Fruitcake and you have much in common.
The only proven hoax is you and your **upid website.
Posted by: Reasonable not hateful | May 27, 2008 3:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
McCain isn't comfortable because he knows the Bible is a proved hoax. Bringing religion into politics as forbidden by the constitution is like campaigning with a load of bricks suspended over one's head, not comfortable at all. The high ground of faith in Lucifer is very precarious.
Did the thought ever occur to you that maybe McCain is a patriot not willing to sacrifice the country to the Devil followers, even if it means he will not get elected. Bush wasn't. He used the Devil followers. They got him elected, twice, and he paid them with tax dollars for their efforts. Will McCain try to use the Devil followers hoping they can do that again? How badly does he want to be president? Madly? Will it even work?
Is it good for the religion operators to alienate the winner? The first amendment has been abused a long time. Is time up yet? Tax free, tax deductible and tax exempt clearly establishes religion. Taxes are the goose that lays the golden egg. The election is coming and the goose is rather fat. The wise goose will look as skinny as possible for roast *fat* goose sure taste good,, during these times that try man's soul with $5 gas and bread to match.
Posted by: BGone | May 27, 2008 2:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I have been at a loss since the comparisons began to understand how getting an endorsement is less an issue than having a pastor. Obama picked his church when he moved to the neighborhood before he even went to school and thought of being president. So he hears some liberation babble that is a bit over the top while he is in his early twenties (how radical were you in college?). He's not thinking of the political implications while he listens. He doesn't agree with, but understands the context of, his pastor's remarks in any event, and at worst, thinks they are harmless. By the time he's running, it's far too late to worry about the years in the pew, and the idea of having to defend years of remarks captured on CD let alone disavowing him seems a bit much, at least until Hannity gets the CDs and goes way over the top with the sound bite. The rest, as they say, is history.
Contrast that with seeking political endorsements while you are running a campaign from specific targeted individuals whose endorsement you have calculated that you need to attract a specific constituency. You know exactly what you are doing and why, and it's political in motivation from the start. At a minimum, you should have to show that you really were unaware of the anti - Catholic, Jewish and Islamic (sort of covers everyone, doesn't it?) remarks of Hagee and Parsley when you accepted the endorsements, and, assuming you can, why you didn't do your homework on either one of them.
And if you didn't bother to find out whether the ministers you looked for endorsements from as a candidate hated Jews, Catholics and Muslims, you really have no business griping that Obama listened to a pastor who subscribed to the blacks as victims of a white America theology, but by all accounts doesn't hate anyone and served his country as a Marine.
Posted by: JoeT | May 27, 2008 11:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Who is Palin?
Posted by: candide | May 27, 2008 9:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Here's an important piece of advice: If it looks like it's going to be McCain/Palin anyway (and that should be a "no brainer" for Team McCain), McCain should announce NOW or VERY SOON, rather than later towards the convention. There's currently a growing chorus for Obama/Hillary (as VP) ticket (in fact the Dems are likely aware of the Palin phenomenon). If the GOP waits while movement for Hillary as VP grows -- even worse until after it is solidified that Hillary will/could be VP pick -- selecting Palin will be portrayed by Dems/liberal media more as a reaction by GOP selecting its own female (overshawdoing Palin's own remarkable assets), rather than McCain taking the lead on this. Selecting Palin now or early (contrary to the punditocracy) will mean McCain will be seen as driving the course of this campaign overwhelmingly, and the DEMS will be seen as merely reacting. And, there's absoultely no down-side to this because even if Hillary is a no-go as VP for Obama, the GOP gains by acting early. McCain the maverick. Palin the maverick. Do it now!
There's no reason, and actually substantial negative, in McCain waiting to see what the Dems do first insofar as his picking Palin as VP, because, no matter who Obama picks, Palin is by far (and I mean far) the best pick for McCain and the GOP, especially in this time of GOP woes. The GOP can be seen as the party of real 'change' (albeit I hate that mantra, change, change, bla bla), while not really having to change from GOP core conservative values, which Palin more than represents.
In light of the current oil/energy situation, as well as the disaffected female Hillary voters situation, and growing focus on McCain's age and health, Palin is more than perfect -- now.
(Perhaps Team McCain is already on to this.)
Posted by: Ted | May 27, 2008 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Here's an important piece of advice: If it looks like it's going to be McCain/Palin anyway (and that should be a "no brainer" for Team McCain), McCain should announce NOW or VERY SOON, rather than later towards the convention. There's currently a growing chorus for Obama/Hillary (as VP) ticket (in fact the Dems are likely aware of the Palin phenomenon). If the GOP waits while movement for Hillary as VP grows -- even worse until after it is solidified that Hillary will/could be VP pick -- selecting Palin will be portrayed by Dems/liberal media more as a reaction by GOP selecting its own female (overshawdoing Palin's own remarkable assets), rather than McCain taking the lead on this. Selecting Palin now or early (contrary to the punditocracy) will mean McCain will be seen as driving the course of this campaign overwhelmingly, and the DEMS will be seen as merely reacting. And, there's absoultely no down-side to this because even if Hillary is a no-go as VP for Obama, the GOP gains by acting early. McCain the maverick. Palin the maverick. Do it now!
There's no reason, and actually substantial negative, in McCain waiting to see what the Dems do first insofar as his picking Palin as VP, because, no matter who Obama picks, Palin is by far (and I mean far) the best pick for McCain and the GOP, especially in this time of GOP woes. The GOP can be seen as the party of real 'change' (albeit I hate that mantra, change, change, bla bla), while not really having to change from GOP core conservative values, which Palin more than represents.
In light of the current oil/energy situation, as well as the disaffected female Hillary voters situation, and growing focus on McCain's age and health, Palin is more than perfect -- now.
(Perhaps Team McCain is already on to this.)
Posted by: Ted | May 27, 2008 9:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
How do we explain the very poor judgment shown by McCain in accepting in the first place the endorsements of Hagee and Parsley? He could have solicited the endorsement of more mainstream revs. These two were certainly not his cup of tea in any case.
Posted by: candide | May 27, 2008 9:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
McCain is not the only one who failed to vet Hagee!
I have studied Hagee’s sermons and writings as well as those of other apocalyptic Christian Zionist (dispensationalist) for many years and have a strong background in fundamentalist Protestant theology. It is difficult for me to believe that any Jewish leader would stand with Hagee if he/she knew what was in those writings. Just a small sampling would include: teaching that Hillel instigated the attacks on Jesus; anti-Jewish Federal Reserve conspiracy theory; a narrative of a future New World Order that sounds like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; and more. Hagee’s video, “Vanished,” features a series of images that evoke Kristallnacht except in his holocaust the “left behind” Jews, Catholics, and nonbelievers are attacking the newly “born again” Christians of the Tribulation. In his Kristallnacht it is the churches that are burning and New Testaments thrown in the bonfires. You can imagine the effect this imagery has on children that are being raised to believe that their brand of Christianity is being persecuted by liberal Jews.
While wrapped in Israeli flags and supported by some Jewish leaders, dispensational preachers feel they have the license to attack and denigrate Judaism and Jews who are not cooperating in the apocalyptic timeline in an open way that would have been unthinkable twenty years ago. They feel invulnerable because of their “pro-Israel” status. They have created an environment where it is socially acceptable in much of the country to openly attack the “bad Jews” who are not cooperating with their apocalyptic timeline as the source of moral degeneration in America and as the obstacle to their vision of a utopian Christian millennial.