The McCain Campaign Stumbles Over Hagee

Maybe you cowards in the MSM should have started asking explicitly religious questions of Republican politicians, since Christianity plays such a huge role in GOP politics. Should infants be baptized? Was Christ human or divine? If God spoke to you in the night and told you start the Second Coming by starting a nuclear war, would you obey? Cowards.

Bill Donaghue is an ass.

The bigger question is why Obama is quizzed about whether he "denounces and rejects" Farrakhan (a man whose endorsement he never sought), while GOP candidates are typically allowed to slide while embracing crazy, white evangelicals.

Good to know that McCain will have to answer some questions when he takes the "Straight Talk Express" over to "crazy base town." (Thanks Jon Stewart!)

Better Michael.

HOWEVER, how about pointing out, as Greenwald did two things.

1. McCain openly and consistently has been attempting to win over Hagge for some time.

2. Barack Obama was raked over the coals because Farrakhan endorsed him. Obama didn't seek out this endorsement...yet he got tied to him by Tim Russert for several minutes during the debate and he both denounced and rejected association with Farrakhan.

There is NO WAY ON EARTH that McCain's people didn't know this, unless they are so incompetent they don't deserve higher office

They likely knew this guy's slime and hoped they could get away with it, without you guys noticing it.

And I have a feeling without the Glen Greenwald's of the world, you would not have.

This guy's as bad as Farrakhan and McCain begged for his endorsement, flew down to meet him with his wife and happily hugged him.

He should NOT be allowed to slide out so easily, and again, you've bent over backwards to let him off the hook as much as you can.

There's no "irony," Michael.

We detest Donohue, but are happy to see him attack the fundies. Frankly, they can all jump in a lake, but it's fun watching them attack each other. As I suggested in Joe's thread -- let's have a cage match!

Keep on this story. Escalate it. Please.

BTW, you are avoiding the issue with McCain entirely in regard to the repellent Donohue.

The issue is McCain's conduct, yet you in your last paragraph shamefully put it off on us "liberal" hypocrites...while not calling McCain out on BLATENT HYPOCRISY.

I bet you are still blind to your prejudice for the Maverick though huh?

Ah, attaturk, you almost gave me a compliment, and then you took it right back. Just as I get my hopes up, you cut them down. One day, perhaps. . .

And no, I was not putting anything off on anyone. Just pointing out the irony.

Michael, this is worse than you say it is because McCain courted Hagee. He sought Hagee's support. So that means that McCain endorsed Hagee as much as Hagee endorsed McCain.

As for liberals loving Donahue... we don't. He's still a dork. But we don't need a hater like Donahue to tell us that McCain shouldn't be sidling up to a hater like Hagee.

Titus:

I like your idea. Why didn't the Republican debates focus on schisms, starting with the Council of Nicaea, and proceeding on through the centuries. Proper understaing of Christian doctrine is clearly the key credential for today's candidates, so let's treat the subject with the seriousness it deserves.

Otherwise, we might be led to believe that these jagoffs are just pandering to idiots, and that surely can't be so.

the current celebration of Bill Donahue by McCain’s liberal foes

I don't think anyone is "celebrating" Bill Donohue, though if you have some examples of such celebration, please do point us to them.

Greenwald interviewed Donohue, though I trust you could search far an wide to find any "celebration" of that hateful bigot by either Greenwald or any of the commenters on his blog.

McCain deserves to be hammered on his reluctance to speak out more strongly against Hagee's endorsement. It contrasts badly with Obama's Farrakhan comments in the debate. And I have to admite Hillary should have been more firm when reacting to a Latino supporter who seemed to be making some racist remarks.

McCain's handling of this endorsement completely defuses the Farrakhan problem for Obama. Glass houses. Stones. I'm not saying that slimy people like Limbaugh won't bring it up on their radio shows but the MSM can't make an issue of it without balancing Farrakhan's support for Obama and Obama's words about it and McCain's handling of Hagee.

There is a lot of irony to be found in the fact that, while press reports of liberal hypocrisy tend to be sourced from conservatives, reports of conservative hypocrisy in the press tend to be sourced ... from conservatives.

Liberals, you people are to be ignored. (Unless a conservative is found who agrees with you. Then the press will be allowed to report that!)

Well, Michael, you see the problem is, your letting jibe about irony ignores the fact that no one is celebrating Bill Donohue.

Many people, and if you look in comments in your other posts, that would include ME; were alerting you to this Hagge issue for several days without the assistance of the repellent Mr. Donohue.

Who is for Donahue? Surely not the Catholic church. He's the most hateful person I've seen on the tube although that guy protesting funerals is pretty bad.

In Michael's world: Lobbyists Calling Clients While Aboard the Straight Talk Express: Bad for Obama. St. McCain sez there's only one.

The Maverick's Coddling of Fundo-Nutcases: Illustrative of Liberal Inconsistency, and Their "Love/Hate" Relationship with Donohue.

And he wonders why he gets criticized here. . . .

"...He has suggested that Islam is an inherently violent faith..."

Gosh.

Why would anyone ever think that.

cc: Time-Jazeera

[Note this not our product, just too un-PC not to post on this limpwicked lib infested message board.]

...

With apologies to Jeff Foxworthy, US troops in Afghanistan prove they've retained their sense of humor with the following,

"YOU MAY BE A TALIBAN IF......"

1. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to beer.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can't afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your rear with your bare left hand, but consider bacon "unclean."

5. You think vests come in two styles: Bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can't think of anyone you HAVEN'T declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs.

9. You have ever uttered the phrase, "I love what you've done with your cave."

10. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least one.

11. You bathe at least monthly whether necessary or not.

12. You have ever had a crush on your neighbor's goat.

...

Sorry, what was that about Texas, again?

Why would anyone ever think that.

Maybe because far, far more people have been killed in the name of Jesus and of Marx than in the name of Allah.

"I bring not peace, but a sword." - Matt. 10:34. Talk about an inherently violent faith.

Let's not gloss over the racial angle either.

Prominent black politicians are continually asked by the media to denounce other african-americans who step over the line.

Obama gets more heat for an asked for endorsement than McCain does for being a complete hypocrite, tongue bathing those who he called agents of intolerance in 2000.

But McCain is a dreamy maverick and he wouldn't go after the crazy vote, except of course when he does. He spits on lobbyists, except when they are cold calling clients on "the straight talk express".

It only takes about 5 minutes on Google to realize Hagee is a nut case. Take the following comment on Katrina for example:

"I want to ask Washington a question. Is there a connection between the 9,000 Jewish refugees being forcibly removed from their homes in the Gaza Strip now living in tents and the thousands of Americans who have been expelled from their homes by this tremendous work of nature? Is there a connection there? If you've got a better answer, I'd like to hear it."

This shows very poor judgment on McCain's part.

By the look of Hagee he doesn't seem to know that gluttony is a sin in Christianity.

"Maybe because far, far more people have been killed in the name of Jesus and of Marx than in the name of Allah."

Which has ZERO to do with This Week In Gaza, but thanks for playing Name That Deflection.

Michael, I know some of us are kind of yelling at you but I do believe if HRC's campaign had used a talk-show host who made the same remarks about Obama you and others in the MSM would have been very harsh with her, even if she apologized. You would have said it's one more sign that her candidacy was in ruins and no one knew what they were doing.

But McCain excapes the blame and in fact gets praised.

thanks for playing Name That Deflection.

I'll take Muslim-baiting for $500...

Yes, McCain made a terrible, terrible mistake, no question. I'd like to see him regain some more of that maverick backbone that he nearly lost in the beginning of this primary campaign.

Still, I know what he believes in, and it's not that.

Just want to say Joe Klein is really knocking it out of the park these days and has become the number one Swamplander.

John Hagee is not a good man. He feeds on poison and hatred. He's simply not a good man. To accept his endorsement is poor judgment. To outright court it is unforgivable.

"There is a bit of irony to be found in the current celebration of Bill Donahue by McCain’s liberal foes as a spokesman for Catholic outrage."

Ahh Michael do you know the difference between assert and demonstrate?

This just shows how much appeal McCain has for voters in every part of the political spectrum.

This is bad news for Democrats.

The Straight Talk Express is pulling past Obama.

Among other things, Hagee has suggested that Hurricane Katrina may have resulted from God’s displeasure over a gay pride parade. He has repeatedly linked Adolf Hitler to the Catholic Church. He has suggested that Islam is an inherently violent faith.

You say all of that as if those were extreme positions.

Michael Sherer writes:

There is a bit of irony to be found in the current celebration of Bill Donahue by McCain’s liberal foes as a spokesman for Catholic outrage.

And no, I was not putting anything off on anyone. Just pointing out the irony.
***********************

Attaturk, SFBear and Paul Daniel Ash have beat me to it but I'll comment anyway.

You are welcomed to share in the pleasing irony of seeing William Donohue siccing the likely Republican standard bearer but you surely are not pointing out the large blinking neon sign at the top of this story that says IRONY ALERT in the minds' eyes of those who read Swampland and other blogs.

You really think we're kinda thick, don't you.

Whoops,

I made and error in my comment above. That second Michael Scherer line is from the comment thread and did not follow directly the line that I quoted from the post. I should have indicated there was a break between the two.

Just pointing out the irony.

It's like rain on your wedding day, isn't it?

It's like rain on your wedding day, isn't it?

Boom! TomT wins!

Hey Michael,

Thanks for doing this post.

As I said in another post, I think this is a continuation of the "good cop, bad cop" VRWC conspiracy plan of manufacturing war between Mccain and the extremists in his party in order to make McCain appeal to independents in a year when he is going to be in stiff competition for them with Obama.

I wanted to point out another piece of history about why this is so ironic.

In the 2000 Republican Primary, McCain used the anti-catholic sentiments of Bob Jones University, where Bush got support, to portray Bush as anti-Catholic. I recall that McCain did "Catholic Voter Alert" robo-calls in Michigan on this issue that helped hin win the 2000 Michigan primary, There is a huge amount of hypocrisy in McCain neither denouncing nor rejecting the anti-catholic words of this guy.

So thanks, Michael for pointing this out...though clearly the rest of the McCain enamored press is not going to echo chamber this rank hypocrisy to the extent that they echo chamber false innuedo about Obama and Farrakhan......maybe the media is too busy manufacturing memes about how Obama gets all the breaks from the press to echo chamber this, who knows?

"maybe the media is too busy manufacturing memes about how Obama gets all the breaks from the press"

But...Obama does get all the breaks...

It's not like the Clinton campaign is really helping the situation, though. She sounded quite a bit bitter with her "shame on you" spiel.

Titus and SFBear:

Indeed, yes: I want to see Russert, in that hyperdramatic manner he puts on like clown make-up, pin McCain down on whether he thinks Jesus is "homoousian" or "homoiousian."

"Senator McCain, which is it? WILL you go on the record?"

In fact, one only has to look in the annals of Swampland to find a bit of media bias...

"The political news was: McCain takes a roundhouse swing at Obama; Obama counterpunches elegantly."

Obama counterpunches by referring to the past decision to invade Iraq, a decision he wasn't even present in the Senate for (and thus did not receive the same intel as Clinton or McCain). And in the press releases I've seen, he says nary a word about what to do in the future.

If Obama can get a time machine going, then referring to bad decisions in the past in order to counter criticism of present plans may be a valid tactic. If not...

There is a bit of irony to be found in the current celebration of Bill Donahue by McCain’s liberal foes as a spokesman for Catholic outrage

Scherer, (sigh)

Pray tell, which "liberal foes" are celebrating Donahue? Surely you aren't referring to your Salon.com colleague Glenzilla's "My new friends from the Catholic League emailed earlier to advise that Bill Donohue was being interviewed for tonight's program of The Situation Room on CNN." Please tell me that isn't the "liberal foe" celebration that you are talking about, because then I'd be forced to consider that you may, just may be irony-challenged yourself. And I'd really hate it if I were forced to think unkind stuff like that about you.

Please. Help me out here.

Even a Blind Pig finds an acorn upon occasion...Bill Donohue is right...Hagee is a Catholic,Jew,Mormon,Lesbian,Gay and Trans-Gender HATER...oh,he hates Agnostics and Atheists,too...can you imagine if Obama "embraced" the support of some other World-Class Bigot?...

Interesting reading the comments, since I view the Hagee endorsement differently: (1) advantageous to McCain with pro-Israel Jews (because Hagee's perhaps known more for his lobbying for Israel, CUFI, than for his preaching) and (2) disadvantageous to McCain w/Bible-believing Christians (even pro-Israel Christians), since Hagee's now getting increasing criticism for crossing the line into heretical teaching by writing that Jesus is not the Messiah.

sk:
"Hagee's now getting increasing criticism for crossing the line into heretical teaching by writing that Jesus is not the Messiah"

Whoa! Could you provide a link please (I'm too lazy to google). If that's true, Hagee isn't even a Christian anymore (by definition, since "Christ" means "Messiah").

BTW, has anyone else noticed recently that if you attempt to post 2 comments back-to-back, you get a page telling you that access is forbidden? Mind you, the post still goes through, but you have to hit your back button a couple of times and then refrsh to view it. Is this some sort of bizarre anti-troll measure by TIME?

Getting back to Michael's post:

How the f*ck can you write something this long w/o mentioning Obama, Farrakhan, "denounce and reject," etc.? Is this the sort of biased coverage we can expect from you going forward for the general election? It's nice of you to warn us.

Malcolm,

*Start here.* I'm not sure what he is saying, sounds like one of those "banned in Boston" come ons. Your going to have to buy the book.

You're.

Thanks, CMike. I have no sound on my computer at work, so I'll check it out at home.

I wish someone would get Huckabee to comment on all this. Maybe he could comment on whether Satan and Hagee are brothers.

From the first review *here*:

Hagee, has become anti-Christ in his teaching by now denying that Jesus was the Messiah. He is actually now claiming that Jesus did not think of himself as the Messiah and that he is going to be the Messiah at the Second Coming, but not at the first coming. He makes this argument in an attempt to rescue Jews from the charge of rejecting their Messiah, since they cannot reject something that was not yet offered.
**********************

You have an opportunity if you act now, I see they're running a special on the book.

"There is a bit of irony to be found in the current celebration of Bill Donahue [sic] by McCain’s liberal foes as a spokesman for Catholic outrage."

As others have asked, please produce examples of such 'celebration.'

Drilling deeper, we're willing to *highlight* Donohue's outrage for very practical reasons.

We're concerned that the 2008 Presidential election may well be decided by the media's 'see no evil' attitude towards McCain. Oh, y'all might notice an inconsistency here and there, but whatever he does, by the following week he's back to being the straight-talking maverick, as far as you're concerned.

It doesn't matter that he's changed his stance on numerous major issues in the past few years, from tax cuts to torture.

It doesn't matter that, well before Hagee, he went the extra mile to win the endorsement of a nutcase like the late Jerry Falwell, who claimed that Bill Clinton had had a baker's dozen of his political enemies killed off.

It doesn't matter that he does the same favors for lobbyists that every other pol does.

It doesn't matter that lobbyists are running his campaign, and other lobbyists are using the 'Straight Talk' bus as their office.

It doesn't matter that he's thumbing his nose at the FEC and the idea of campaign finance reform - his signature issue - by deriving material benefits from participating in the public campaign finance system, then ditching it and its limitations when he was able to succeed as a result.

None of these things seem to matter. He's Mr. Straight Talking Maverick to you folks, no matter that the record demonstrates he's no more of a straight talker than any other pol - and lately, not even that much of a maverick.

We in the lefty blogosphere have pointed out all this repeatedly, but our words fall on deaf ears.

But when a bigoted right-wing blowhard like Donohue makes one of our points for us, you're willing to listen to HIM.

We realize what he is, thanks. We're not 'celebrating' him. We have loudly questioned, in the past, why you pay any attention to him and his ilk.

But what it comes down to is, you're willing to listen to him, rather than Glenn Greenwald or Josh Marshall or Kevin Drum or Markos Moulitsas.

So if we can in some way boost the visibility of his objections to McCain's cozying up to Jew-hating, Catholic-hating, Mormon-hating John Hagee, **it's the best freakin' tool we've got** to get across the points we've been trying to make about McCain for the past two months.

So quit blaming the lefty blogosphere for a situation of your making. You guys are willing to give a platform to Matt Drudge, Powerline, and world-class jerks like Donohue, while shutting bloggers on the left out of the discussion who are far more rational and factual than those guys.

If you'd do your job properly in the first place, we wouldn't have to raise the profile of bad actors like Donohue in order to try to chivvy you into doing it right.

So do your job right. Be as skeptical and questioning of McCain as you would be of any other pol. See the patterns that are actually there, rather than defaulting to the myth you've created about him.

You might even want to get a reporter who's never met McCain to write about his record, and see if it looks different through the eyes of someone who doesn't spend hours and days on the Straight Talk Express.

Do your job. That should be your take-away from this.

"McCain’s critics have not claimed that McCain shares these views; there is no real evidence that he does"

But there is clear evidence that he wants the votes of those that do.

Also Michael, that's an interesting qualifier "real". Care to flesh that out?

Just imagine the MSM reaction if Obama solicited Farrakhan's support, made public appearances with him, and then when confronted on Farrakhan's antisemitism, praised some of his other views and dismissed the whole controversy by stating that they don't agree on everything.

"McCain’s critics have not claimed that McCain shares these views; there is no real evidence that he does"

Was there any evidence that Obama shared Farrakhan's views? Did that stop Russert et al. from raising the issue ad nauseum?

Malcolm, pretty much the same reaction as when he did none of those things.
Demands that he disavow, disassociate, display disgust, disembowel, etc.
All with Russert peering up from his index cards sadly shaking his jowls.

CMike,
Thanks for the link to the book (only $3!). The reviews and comments left by Christian fanatics tearing each other apart are priceless. We definitely need that debate that SFBear and Titus Pullo proposed.

Paul-no not that one,
"Reject and disembowel." Love it.

I second every single word in the post by low-tech cyclist.

Scherer?

Here is my prediction-from this point forward Michael will post nothing but his typical puff pieces on McCain and when called on it in comments he will say something along the lines of "Oh yeah? What about this?" And link to this post.
Like the cheap person who gives a nickel to charity once and forever uses that to show what a nice person he is.

Noted McCain supporter Hagee has repeatedly said that the Jews had it coming with the Holocaust. Why does John McCain hate the Jews?

Florida:

You bring up a good point.

I know Hagee is a QH knockoff (or the other way around), but I seem to remember that Obama took a lot of heat over the "endorsement" by Farrakahn.

McCain, nor any other Republican, has recieved as much heat over their affinities with hatmongers, and, unlike Obama's situation, their affinities are real.

Why is that anyway?

QH:

"[Note this not our product, just too un-PC not to post on this limpwicked lib infested message board.]"

I think, QH, it's more of a matter of you getting your arse booted routinely, serially, and severally on this board. Limpwicked?

I'd LOVE to see how long it takes for you to get thrown through a window trying to take YOUR philosphy in a bar with a mixed clientele.

"With every right, there is a responsibility"

This would be significantly LESS of an issue if Tim Russert hadn't made a complete ass of himself.

I couldn't help but notice that you guys didn't break this story UNTIL McCain had issued his statement Friday afternoon. If someone doesn't directly ask the Candidate on camera exactly which of Hagee's opinions he shares and which he repudiates, then the charge of press bias will not only continue but will basically be proven.

I guess this is just further proof that it's okay for right wing Beltway insiders to hate the Jews. After all, Pat Buchanan, a guy with a long history of publicly denying the Holocaust and defending the Nazis, is the senior political analyst over at MSNBC and no one thinks anything askew of that. And Jack Kemp, a guy with an actual history of praising Louis Farakhan, is a respected figure amongst the Villagers.

Such is the corruption of the inside the Beltway crowd.

Kind of wankerish.
How can you not see that this is part of St John's plan to dog whistle the wingnuts, and not an "accident"? St John might have wished the feedback was kept quiet by his good friends (Tweety, Pumpkinhead) but geez this is naive.

I think part of the problem is that most low information voters know very well who Farrakhan is, but don't know who Hagee is. Terry Gross did an interview with Hagee a year or so ago and it is a jaw dropper when you hear the guy talk. Yet he has thousands listening to him every week. Those people will definitely be supporting John McCain.

It is the people who say, McCain is an honorable man, I don't agree with every position, but I know where he stands (also said about Bush), and not to worry, McCain has denounced the guy's extreme positions. These are the people who are still focused on the years of media idolatry.

But as others have pointed out here, McCain sought his support, then issued a tepid denouncement, which to me is far worse than if Hagee had just come out and said McCain is swell.

No doubt Russert will ask St.John the tough questions when he has him on again. After all, no one else has had more appearances on MTP.

And, low-tech cyclist got it all right.

Time's overlords must be pissed that the news embargo got lifted on the McCain-Hagee embrace. Halperin is certainly going to be summoned to someone''s office.

Still, the latent effects of Halperin's company kool-aid (McCain sycophant flavor) have got to have a shelf life like a twinkie. How else do you this ... understatement: "McCain’s critics have not claimed that McCain shares these views; there is no real evidence that he does. Rather, writers like Salon’s Glenn Greenwald simply charge that a presidential candidate should not be sidling up to someone who holds such views."

Sidling up. That's rich.

Here is what Glenn put in an update: "John McCain has put his arms around one of the most radical and vile extremists in America. He has praised him, shared a stage with him, sought out his endorsement and expressed "honor" at receiving it, and has denounced not a word of anything he said." http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/#postid-updateV2

Didn't John McCain previously seek out and receive the endorsement of Jerry Falwell, a guy who is on record as saying that the U.S. deserved to be attacked on 9/11? Why does John McCain join the blame America first crowd in hating America?

In response to the accusation of embracing Donohue, I offer my first reaction when I got the nes of Donohue's statement:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/28/hagee/permalink/77dd3d29f38b853a71831f1ee0e5d21f.html

In the battle of "Your religious whack-job's whackier than my religious whack-job", Bill Donohue has just come down on the side of "whacky? Not me!"

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/28/mccain_endorsement_angers_cath.html

Florida:

Yes, but Fallwell, Limbaugh, Coulter and Robertson are "untouchables".

The Republicans ALWAYS get a free pass on hate.

Whenever these pundits try to do that, we should all collectively give 'em as much hell as we can!

It's interesting that both Joe and Michael seem to believe that one must look beyond all objective appearances to discover the "real" John McCain. That is, poor John simply has to pander left, right and center because of the vicissitudes of the political arena. But, in his heart -- again, despite the way it starkly appears -- John is pure as the driven snow, and perspicacious and canny about Iraq.

Yet these same folks will criticize Obama about being a "blank screen" upon which his supporters project their own visions.

Now THAT'S an example of irony, Michael.

I agree with Paul Dirks above.

The media, and everyone else who complains about the millions of opinions of supporters out there, need to look at the behavior of the candidate, not the behavior of all the rest of the American crazies out there.

In this case, McCain sought out this bigot's support. Obama has not sought Farrakhan's support.

Michael could have called up a more recent and intense example of the blogospheric left's opposition to Donohue's stance and methods; viz., his dust-up with the Edwards campaign and Amanda Marcotte. . . .

Make no mistake, Michael, we hate Donohue's guts. But his attack against a certain strain of fundamentalism allows for a very thin sliver of common cause. We all acknowledge that this is indeed a case of "strange bedfellows." Like Halley's Comet, we are unlikely to see a similar occurrence in our lifetimes.

For as much as Jesus talked about helping, these "religious" guys (Hagee, Donahue) never really seem to have anything nice to say about anybody. Well done, boys, you've truly taken the Gospel to heart.

Beth--

what really is central, and not mentioned in all this, is that Hagee is right down the fricking middle of the republican base.

Farrakhan is a bizarre, Clarence Thomas like aberration--a black conservative. While that may seem wrong, it often happens that on the extremes the spectrum comes together.

Hagee is not on the fringe. He's a pastor of a "megachurch." The reason that McCain is in a bind on this is that this guy is a perfectly typical republican.

So the weird side effect of Russert raising Farrakhan to Obama is that the "balance" that is our media required them to do something they heretofore have not done. Paid attention to the fact that the republican mainstream is racist, and filled with hatred. That "conservative" means "intolerant" and "unAmerican."

This latter message is one that Obama is doing very well delivering. We need to continue to reinforce this very clearly accurate narrative--that Republicans, in their current incarnation, are fundamentally opposed to American values of liberty, tolerance and paths to success.

On a completely different, and lighter, note-as our keepers seem to be off today- this new Clinton ad isn't half bad.
http://tinyurl.com/32c4f3

McCain is simply trying to hard to "unite" everybody in his party, even though he doesn't actually agree with them and may privately dislike them. Really, as Obama puts it, it's politics as usual. It's also reprehensible. I'm not even sure he knows the half of what some of these people believe, which might explain why he's been so cozy with them.

This doesn't mean I'm not going to vote for McCain, though, just that I think he needs to back off from crazy base world. He's done it before in this primary season.

Catholics around the world get on their knees to receive into their mouths the body of Christ, while Michael Scherer gets on his knees before Maverick(after elbowing Joke Line out of the way) to accept into his mouth Maverick's shriveled up, lobbyist spittle covered little...ah, nevermind, I don't have the time to flesh that out. There's a pro-choice rally this afternoon, a Greenpeace meeting this evening, and of course tonite's festivities at DonahueCon '08. See ya there!

Jay
While just being a republican is a bad thing I don't think it's as bad as you describe. You would be right though if you were putting him in with the Bush republicans.

Paul the no one
I hate it when they do that.

Totally off topic.
Nader's choice of Matt Gonzalez could spell trouble if the media pays much attention to him. He's very articulate and was barely beaten by our current mayor (Gavin Newsome) who is the most popular mayor we've ever had. He's very difficult not to like.

I would love to be able to feel sorry for McCain because of his endorsements. However, he needs to be careful and very selective just as Obama needs to walk away from Farrakhan and other extremists. You're known by the company you keep.

The late William F. Buckley purged the conservative movement of anti-Semites and Birchers. McCain has to purge his campaign of right wing nutcases who think Jesus is going to return and slaughter all the Jews who do not convert or who calls the Roman Catholic Church a whorehouse. It just doesn't work in this post-Rove political scene.

Here's some evidence of McCAIN OPENLY COURTING HAGGE:

January 29, 2007

This morning I had an extended breakfast with Senator John McCain of Arizona. Our topic of discussion was Israel and his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States of America....

We discussed his positions on other matters that I will share with you when I speak with you in person. This newsflash goes to the ends of the earth and I don't want to read it in the media tomorrow.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/03/mccain-reportedly-had-breakfast-meeting.html

And, of course, I don't recall many breakfast meetings Farrakhan has had with Obama.

Oh, yes I do.

ZERO!

Well, speaking of hate, here's a great example of the excuses Republicans make for not correcting present wrongs rooted in past hatred.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/01/black.officers.pension.ap/index.html

I hope all you "law and order" Republicans read it, and read it slowly, so you can understand it.

Afterwards, I invite you to justify it, if you can...

What is most curious about the whole ordeal is that the McCain campaign did not seem to see the firestorm coming.

That's what I've been wondering about. You'd think they would've called Donohoe ahead of time and talked to him about this.

It makes me think McCain's campaign is either 1) taking the conservative Catholic vote for granted; or, 2) not thinking though things very much.

More and more, I'm beginning to wonder about how good McCain is at actually running a presidential campaign. He's gone broke once and still has trouble raising cash. ($12 million last month?) His initial strategy against Obama seems to echo the kind of attacks that Clinton has waged to little effect, as if no one was paying attention to the Democratic race up to this point. He continues to tie himself to a president with approval ratings in the 20s, and to a war that 2/3 of Americans want to end. (Though, at least I understand his decision on Iraq.) Most importantly, McCain's "straight talk" too often resembles "speaking without thinking," a deadly trait for a presidential candidate: "I don't know much about economics," or "We could be in Iraq for 100 years."

So far, this hasn't appeared to be an expertly-run or politically savvy campaign.

A lot of us know who Donohue is. We're not celebrating Donohue, just equal treatment of d and R candidates.

McCain should have to reject Nagee as Obama was expected to reject Farrakhan, whose support he never sought.

jose--

The completion of the post civil rights act transformation of our political parties has resulted in the republicans being, exclusively, the party of racism and vote suppression. When Strom Thurmond was a democrat, this wasn't the case.

But now it is the case. And people who foment racial disharmony and hatred live pretty much exclusively in the republican party. The people who fear the "other" live pretty exclusively in the party of Tancredo and Falwell. The hallmark of the party is now intolerance and authoritarian control. This is why McCain must kowtow to these people--this is his party now.

It is very strange, of course, because many of their rich leaders, like McCain and Bush, are cosmopolitan, sophisticated people who are comfortable doing things like holding hands with Saudi sheik or celebrating the birth of a granddaughter coming from a same sex union.

This is, of course, part and parcel with the theocon wing of the party, many of whom profess beliefs that I strongly doubt they are sincere about, exploiting people's fear of the afterlife and fear of non-conformity to make themselves rich. There is just too much conflict between the eye of the needle and the private jet for these people to be anything but hucksters.

This has happened gradually; there used to be a northeastern, moderate wing of the Republican party, but your choices became those of Susan Collins or Lincoln Chafee. And we should see another bunch of them vanish, because they must, as must McCain, carry these frankly evil people around their necks.

So Coleman and Sununu and Collins and Smith are all in danger. 29 Congressmen, so far, have read the writing on the wall, and are cashing out now while they still can. The death spiral will continue, with the party becoming more purely a party of intolerance and greed.

One of the reasons the media love McCain is he seems to them to be a bulwark against this death spiral.

But they are wrong. This episode demonstrates why they are wrong. The republican party is now the party of ignorance, intolerance and authority. McCain cannot reverse this development, which will only continue as the party gets purer.

This is the party of Hagee and Falwell and Trent Lott. This is the party that has to lie about all its policy positions because they are so profoundly unpopular, the party that doesn't believe in science because it is inconvenient and the party with a central electoral strategy of suppressing voters' participation.

That's really who they are. That's what they've been, since Nixon. And all that has happened from 1965 today is that they have become moreso. More racist. More divisive. More engaged in illegal practices to win elections.

And still treated, for reasons that still escape me, by the media as if they did not have these characteristics.

Jay, that was substantially better than Scherer's post. Hope to see you at DonahueCon '08 tonight.

Well done jayackroyd right up to:

That's really who they are. That's what they've been, since Nixon. And all that has happened from 1965 today is that they have become moreso. More racist. More divisive. More engaged in illegal practices to win elections.

And still treated, for reasons that still escape me, by the media as if they did not have these characteristics.
**********************

Your claim that you lost the thread you were pulling at the end is hard to credit. This is a coalition that was put together with the money of corporations and the super wealthy. Those interests literally own the MSM and the infotainers that work in the business know that the deal is they serve the interests of the media owners or they hit the bricks looking for honest work.

jayackroyd:

VERY insightful commentary.

jayackroyd:

Excellent piece. Thanks so much.

Don't I get some credit for stirring Jay up?

I agree with everything he said. I just think there are a few Republicans who aren't completely crazy. That's really all I was saying.

I guess what I'd add, Jose, is that the death spiral metaphor is a prediction that the ones who are not completely venal or completely crazy will, like John Cole or Bruce Fein will continue to leave the party.

It is no longer the party of Lincoln, or Roosevelt or even Eishenhower, and people like them will leave.

And young people won't join, as we're seeing in this primary season. The numbers on issues like gay rights and just an attitude of tolerance are demographically devastating.

Paul Daniel Ash!

You really can't be so lazy as to simply pull out a quote from it's context to "prove" Christianity is violent?

Yes, there is a context to "I bring peace, not a sword." Jesus was discussing how disciples would likely alienate their friends and relatives by taking his radical path (eschewing material possessions, walking away from prosperous live and even families to serve the sick and the poor). This choice would set fathers against sons, husbands against wives, etc.

Metaphor, man, metaphor.

Liberals are "celebrating" Donahue? I must have missed that.