Mon 24 Mar 2008
Two Observations on Religion and Presidential Politics
Posted by ME under Barack Obama, John McCain, politics, religion
Tags: Barack Obama, Catholics, elections, John McCain, politics, religion
Just a couple thoughts I had this morning on religion and politics and the difference between two candidates.
It has been suggested that Barack Obama’s “pastor” problem with Jeremiah Wright doesn’t seen to want to away. At the same time, mainstream media doesn’t seem to be interested in devoting much attention to John McCain’s own association with John Hagee.
Reverend Hagee has said many things in the past that are just as controversial as any pronouncement by Jeremiah Wright, including the charge that the Catholic Church is “the great whore” and a “false cult system”.
I’ve got two theories about this apparent double-standard:
- John Hagee is not John McCain’s pastor and so the connection between them is not as clear as Obama’s association with Reverend Wright. As far as I can tell, John McCain’s church affiliation is with the North Phoenix Baptist Church but he self-identifies as an Episcopalian. It also seems to me that religion has never played a significant role in defining John McCain over the years and so he gets a free pass on that issue.
- The MSM realizes that John McCain probably doesn’t take Hagee or his eschatology very seriously and that he’s really just using him to turn out evangelical Christian voters in November.
Another theory may be that McCain serves the MSM free barbecue and the MSM likes free barbecue.
27 Responses to “ Two Observations on Religion and Presidential Politics ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
March 24th, 2008 at 9:58 am
The hypocrisy!
Not only does the MSM castigate Obama for not “distancing himself” from Wright, but they say nary a word about McCain *reaching out* to Hagee.
And, for what it’s worth, I’d rather go to America-hating Wright’s church, than Hagee’s “Let’s put the Jews back in Jewland and force Jeebus to come back” church…
March 24th, 2008 at 10:00 am
These are both good and valid points.
But there’s also the fact that black preachers are held to a much higher level of scrutiny for their craziness. The stuff that white preachers get away with saying is breathtaking.
White preacher crazy = mere eccentricity.
Black preacher crazy = grave threat to the nation.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Wasn’t Wright Obama’s pastor for something like 20 years, while Hagee and McCain had about a 15 minute news conference together?
March 24th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Oh, so it’s the length of the relationship, not the craziness of the sermons, that causes the reaction?
The shameless thing is that McCain went hunting for Hagee’s endorsement, just to corral a few more nutjob fundy Christian votes. I doubt McCain believe all that insane pro-Israel bull that Hagee peddles, so he should be slammed for pandering, if nothing else.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Just a casual glance, I don’t think McCain was ever a member of Hagee’s church whereas Obama was a member of Wrights. Also, didn’t Obama call Wright his Mentor? I think Wright was also part of the Obama campaign in an official capacity. McCain never made any mention of taking any advice from Hagee nor had him as part of his campaign.
I may be wrong here but I think the MSM is not focusing in on McCain because, really, there is not a story there due to the above information. But, that’s just me.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:30 am
There is no story? Are you serious?
The “story” in Obama’s case was related to the content of the messages Wright delivered. For there to be some consistency, the content of some of Hagee’s crap should be analyzed, and this attempt to deflect by making it about relationship or the official or unofficial ties to the campaign should be ignored.
Content vs. content, and Hagee is even more nuts than Wright.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Obama has had a 20-some odd year relationship with Wright, was married by Wright, and had his children baptized by Wright. Wright was part of his campaign. Even in Obama’s speech, he admitted that he heard things that he did not agree with. It seems that Obama did not publicly disavow the comments of Wright until it was politically in his best interests to do so.
Length and quality of relationship is very important because it is connected to how a person is thinks and is influenced. I think that we could all agree that both the right and the left have some pretty bizarre ideologues.
And if you think consistency has to be important, how do you explain the front=age story in the NYTimes about McCain’s “relationship” with a lobbyist and little of the same consistency to Obama’s ties/buying a house from Rezko, who is on trial?
March 24th, 2008 at 10:53 am
GKB, sure, analyze away but the connection is not even close to being the same between McCain and him and Obama and Wright. THAT is the gist of the story. If Obama never had a connection would there be a story? No way.
March 24th, 2008 at 10:54 am
McCain went to Ohio to stand beside and receive the endorsement of Rod Parsley who has stated that the U.S. should militarily destroy all of Islam, which makes him a “Christian jihadist.” Yet McCain was desperate to get his favor. You think he will refuse Parsley’s support? Of course not! In the South Carolina primary in 2000, McCain told people that he was now a “Southern Baptist” in this Southern Baptist state after being formally listed as an Episcopalean. Yet there is no record that he was ever baptized in the Baptist church in Colorada. You don’t suppose he would “use” religion for political points, do you?
One other point for the MSM. I wonder why it has been so important for the Dems candidates to reveal their tax returns, but say nothing at all about the fact that John McCain has not revealed his. Are they afraid that we might learn more about his business affair with Charles Keating?
One final point. Ever wonder why we don’t know who clients number one through eight were, but we sure know who number nine was? The CIA knows but won’t tell us. Were they congressmen, administration staff people, CEO’s, or who?
March 24th, 2008 at 11:00 am
P&C: So, there would be no story if Obama had merely gone looking for Jeremiah Wright’s political endorsement?
If you believe that, I’ve got some ocean front property out here in Abilene that’s going for a song…
March 24th, 2008 at 11:12 am
ChrisM: Please stop using your brother’s account to make comments on my blog.
If it continues, I’ll stop posting comments from his account name as well.
There’s a reason why I don’t allow anonymous comments on my blog and I don’t really care whether you like it or not.
Thank you.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am
The difference between Jeremiah Wright and radical, white evangelical ministers
March 24th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
In all of my years of growing up and living here in Phoenix, I would have never correlated John McCain and North Phoenix Baptist together. NPB is one of the most respected and successful churches in the Phoenix Metro area, and I have worked alongside some of their pastors and members in the past, and someone of McCain’s local popularity would have come up at least once.
Name grabbing religious titles for votes is pretty unethical in my book. I’ll always for for policy stances and track records over where someone “goes” to church.
March 24th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
What Rev. Wright says is no worse than what the evangelicals (white folks) say on tv every Sunday. John Hagee, Pat Robertson, etc. are nut jobs, not to mention scary.
March 24th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
I wonder what would happen if any political candidate said that their most influential book on political theory was David Lipscomb’s Civil Government. Now THAT would be a great scandal, since that book was responsible for many ‘un-American’ ideas a century ago!
March 24th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Ok, GKB, it’s media hypocrisy at its finest. That’s settled.
But the best part is this…Greg Kendall-Ball doesn’t get to decide what the electorate cares about. I’m comforted in that fact. Let’s say for a moment the coverage was equal between the religious connections:
There’s a very real, concerted effort to grab votes in the center of political spectrum this election cycle. That’s why the media has focused on the Obama-Wright connect and not McCain-Hagee. What would McCain’s association with Hagee cost him? The UCal-Berkley and Harvard vote he wasn’t getting anyway? There’s no votes to be lost for McCain there. It would only energize his base.
Here’s the heart of the matter; the political “independents” McCain and Obama heavily court are overwhelmingly middle class white men. So, I’d point to that as the reason this Obama-TUCC story seems to have no end, and if Obama hangs on to the nomination, you’re not NEAR hearing the end of it in the generals.
Here’s another political reality:
Senator Obama has been put in the very definition of a lose-lose situation. If he distances himself any more than he already has from Wright and TUCC, he becomes an “Uncle Tom,” with a very real possibility of sinking under his needed percentage of the black vote, around 80-85%.
The way TUCC has continued hammering at the media since the second firestorm (first one was March of last year) with Obama and TUCC, that could send him into a tailspin with his left flank.
His numbers don’t look good now, and if he fails the Pennsylvania litmus test, that could be the cover the Super-Delegates need to cross-over to HRC at the convention.
Does that sound about right, or am I totally off-base?
March 24th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“His numbers don’t look good now, and if he fails the Pennsylvania litmus test, that could be the cover the Super-Delegates need to cross-over to HRC at the convention.”
That remark seems totally off-base to me….
How do his numbers not look good now, and what is the source of that information?
I smell Sean Hannity and/or FauxNews….
March 24th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
You’re so right Gino. You called me on that one. I must be some Republican party hack dependent upon one news source for all my information needs.
No, I’m talking about 188 delegates up for grabs in a state where, according to “real clear politics,” Obama is down anywhere from 14-26 points with less than a month to go before the primary. While in most National polling only 2 points separates Obama and Clinton, and not all of the polling has Obama ahead.
Pennsylvania is the first major primary since round two of the TUCC junk, and it’s gonna count big going into the convention this summer. So yeah, I’d say with confidence (and facts) that Obama’s numbers don’t look good right now. If anyone can broker a convention it would be The Clintons.
Gino, if you need to label everything to feel comfortable with your politics, go right ahead. Just know that you look like a dilettante who’s accustomed to arguing with Harding’s finest GOP platform-holding youth ministry majors.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I know it’s boring to look at but…
Delegate Count (3/23/08)
Needed to nominate: 2,025
Obama (+131)
Pledged 1414
Superdelegates 214
Total 1628
Needed 397
Clinton
Pledged 1247
Superdelegates 250
Total 1497
Needed 528
Superdelegates: 332 remaining of 796
If Obama wins the 303 pledged delegates he projects winning (and losing 83-75 in PA), he still only needs 94 SDs to get the nomination.
It’s a war of attrition that seems to favor the Obama campaign.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I’m not saying that Obama has lost the nomination, not by any stretch. It’s also not wishful thinking on my part that Obama would lose the nomination.
I am saying that there is a chance, albeit quite small, that the nomination could fall to HRC IF, and only a BIG IF, the prevailing sentiment coming into the convention is that a “tainted” Obama cannot beat McCain; coupled with a beyond solid cover story for the switches, could give the SDs the opportunity to give the nod to HRC.
However, the TUCC story could blow-over by next week and racial tensions/splits stop being a prominent factor in the primary and general elections.
I DO think Obama is going to have a really hard time in the primaries with a race issue hanging around his neck like an albatross, or over him like the sword of Damocles.
Whichever preposition you happen to prefer.
March 24th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I’m not very smart at all, and my crowd is really not that smart, but being called a dilettante (french?) makes me feel smarter.
I think the 700,000 vote lead in the popular vote also favors the Obama campaign. If the popular vote stays anywhere near that, I don’t see a Clinton brokered convention convincing the SD’s to cover HRC.
But, she did land in Bosnia in ‘96 after evasive maneuvers and under heavy sniper fire to greet US soldiers….
She’s got that going for her…
March 24th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
tuesday: I think the numbers make it highly unlikely that HRC can catch Obama or get close enough in the remaining primaries to nudge enough SDs to HRC.
I don’t think we’re in disagreement; we’re just making different projections.
Few people alive have seen a primary like this one so I think all prognostications are equal at this point.
March 24th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Does anybody consider the idea that maybe Reverend Wright is actually right? Perhaps it would do everyone some good to think of our country as falliable on occasion…
March 24th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
The (admittedly) disputed attempts to equivocate the Rev. Wright with the many more well-known right-wing nutjob preachers misses the larger point. Why should it be excusable for any politician to associate with someone so contemptibly ignorant, from either side of the aisle or pew? (I’m thinking in particular about Wright’s statements about AIDS and 9/11.) Two wrongs certainly don’t make a right, and Obama’s long-term association (and only recent disassociation under public scrutiny) with Wright make me cringe.
For the record, I’m an Obama supporter. I’ve heard all about all the good Wright does as well in serving his community, but that does not excuse Obama’s affiliating himself with him. Obama could be involved in all those good works without having the man (or any man) as his pastor.
Frankly, I miss the days when the Republicans were the ones associating and apologizing for the nutty religious leaders, and you knew the Democrats were pleasantly secular with a window-trimming of gentle religion for political purposes.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Frankly, I miss the days when the Republicans were the ones associating
and apologizing forwith the nutty religious leadersFixed for historical accuracy.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Is it more historically accurate if I meant apologized in the Greek sense and not the “I’m sorry” sense?
March 25th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Not really.