Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

May 8, 2008
By: Kevin Drum




McCAIN CRAVENNESS WATCH....Speaking of craven pandering, Mother Jones and Brave New films have released a pretty good short video about one of John McCain's newest homies, the Rev. Rod Parsley. Compare and contrast. First, here's McCain on a stage in Cincinnati a few weeks ago:

"I am very honoured today to have one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide, Pastor Rod Parsley....I am very grateful you are here."

And now, the great moral compass himself:

"I do not believe that our nation can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam....I know that this statement sounds extreme. But I am not shrinking back from its implications The fact is that...America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed."

We have, of course, all gotten inured to this over the past few decades. Frothing at the mouth about Muslims and gays and baby killers and Hurricane Katrina just seems like normal stuff from crazy right-wing white preachers. But it's not normal. It's crazy, and John McCain used to agree that it was crazy. But now there's an election coming up, so he's delighted to cozy up with lunatics like Parsley and John Hagee.

This isn't just some dumb campaign gotcha, either. Unlike Jeremiah Wright's egocentric blatherings, which got truckloads of attention but don't, in the end, really matter, this does. That's why I chose to link to al Jazeera's report about McCain's appearance with Parsley in Cincinnati even though lots of other news outlets covered it too. One of the biggest foreign policy challenges Barack Obama will face if he wins in November is the fact that a very large number of Muslims believe that the United States is not merely fighting terrorism, but is engaged in a war against Islam. And why wouldn't they? Rod Parsley says so, and one of our presidential candidates is willing to get up on a stage, shake his hand, and call him a "moral compass." Andrew Sullivan, who is occasionally still readable when he takes a break from his 24/7 Hillary hatefest, gets it right:

And the truth is: the GOP is far, far more influenced by its religious fanatics than the Democrats by theirs'. And yet the right-wing extremist ranters are given a pass, as mainstream Republicans like McCain feel obliged to suck up to them. After what the right has done with Wright, they don't get a pass any more. The GOP needs to be held accountable for every religious extremist it panders to, especially when their sectarian rhetoric could impact the work of American foreign policy.

If McCain were serious about the war on terror, he'd stay a million miles away from a guy like Parsley. Instead he begs for his endorsement. It's an election year, after all.

Kevin Drum 1:39 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (83)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The GOP needs to be held accountable for every religious extremist it panders to, especially when their sectarian rhetoric could impact the work of American foreign policy.

Awesome. So when's the MSM supposed to start doing that again? Oh, November 5, you say?

Posted by: Cheney's Third Nipple on May 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, the 24/7 Hillary hatefest is the main reason I read Andrew Sullivan.

But he's absolutely right about the influence of the looney right-wing preachers on the GOP. Problem is, Fox News thinks those preachers are mainstream, so Fox News will never be critical of them. And besides, they're white.

Posted by: Lifelong Dem on May 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

One bigot's rants matter and the other's don't? Why, Kevin? Don't try to con us into thinking that this nut has the level of connection to McCain that Wright has to Obama.

Posted by: Brian on May 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

From your mouth to the ear of the MSM. Tweety, BigHead Russert, and George "Clinton Boy" Stephanopoulos all need to start covering this issue.

Posted by: Cal Gal on May 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: "... a very large number of Muslims believe that the United States is not merely fighting terrorism, but is engaged in a war against Islam."

They are mistaken. The "United States" -- which is to say America's Ultra-Rich Ruling Class, Inc. -- is neither "fighting terrorism" nor "engaged in a war against Islam". It is engaged in a war to seize control of as much of the world's dwindling fossil fuel supplies as possible. It just so happens that the last, biggest, best, richest reserves of high-quality, cheaply-extractable oil are located in Muslim countries.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on May 8, 2008 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

It's true, it's true, Rev. Parsley was right. It's a little-known fact that an original draft of the Declaration of Independence was found and, wouldn't you know it, this country was founded to destroy Islam!

We hold these truths to be self-evident (even to Muslim dummies), that all men are created equal (except for those Muslim guys. Oh yeah, and blacks, too. And notice we said "men" not "women". Make note of it.), that they are endowed by their creator (God, not Allah) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness, and the mission to destroy that false religion, Islam, from the face of the earth.

So there you have it. Any questions?

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on May 8, 2008 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

This is actually going to HELP McCain with the hardcore Republicans. This nutjob is saying exactly what they think.

Posted by: SFMike on May 8, 2008 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Brian, St. John seems to buy pander in Parsley and Hagee more than Obama panders to Wright. In fact, Obama has disavowed the divisive ideas Wright has voiced while St. John stands there and shouts "hallelujah"

St. John has actively SOUGHT the endorsement of these haters for political reasons. I don't think ANYONE today would say that Obama thinks his association with Wright will help him politically.

Kevin's point is more "sauce for the goose" of stuff, I think, and after all the time the MSM has spent on Wright, they need to show they aren't biased by examining the religious associations of St. John (and for that matter, Hillary) with at least a good fraction of the amount of attention they've given Wright.

Posted by: Cal Gal on May 8, 2008 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Yep. Secular animist nails the depressing truth. Terrorism and Islam are excuses to go after the oil. If the buddhists controlled the oil, we'd start a war on non-violence.

"The fact is that...America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed."

I must have missed that part of the Mayflower Compact in school.

Posted by: inkadu on May 8, 2008 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Sen. McCain is not serious about the war on terror because the idea has no merit, and was only concieved as a propaganda theme to make Americans more hysterical and ready to kill than they already were. The war on terror and the reason for being of the defense-petro-finance-evangelical complex is to make money and control power. McCain knows that, and seeks the endorsement of those who utilize it for the votes they may be able to deliver.

What is dismaying about the war on terror is its acceptance by progressives and liberals as something real and necessary. What might be necessary is to arrest bin Laden and try him for murder.

Posted by: Brojo on May 8, 2008 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, give us all a break. The only reason Kevin Drum thinks this Parsley fellow matters and Wright doesn't is because Parsley has endorsed the Presidential candidate he opposes and Wright is behind the Presidential candidate he supports. We're not supposed to believe Sen. McCain holds with what Parsley says about the American Revolution being dedicated to the overthrow of Islam just because he says so, but we are supposed to believe Sen. Obama doesn't believe the government is waging a war on black people because, after all, he says so.

And, by the way, Sen. McCain is not serious about the war on terrorism because he won't or can't censor his supporters, but some blogger who spends his days with his cats and his keyboard is serious about the war on terrorism because he, well, because he just is. And Andrew Sullivan, whose idea of a religious fanatic is any Christian who is not on board with gay marriage, absolutely is.

I guess it really is an election year.

Posted by: Zathras on May 8, 2008 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

I'm always surprised that people read Sullivan. Consider his positions over the years. He was a rabid Bush supporter through at least 2003. He worried that the US would be damaged by the reaction of the political left to 9/11 (the fifth column). He was an initial supporter of the invasion of Iraq. The ratio of chaff to wheat in his writing is inordinately high.

Posted by: rk on May 8, 2008 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry about the nonsense in the post. Still getting used to the laptop, where resting my hands on the keyboard seems to occasionally make the mouse move to funny places.

Meant to say St. John panders to Parsley and Hagee.

Posted by: Cal Gal on May 8, 2008 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Thomas Jefferson went a shooting at Arabs, and I doubt we are done with the game yet.


Posted by: Matt on May 8, 2008 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

If you think that's bad, he also hangs with Juan Hernandez.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/08/where-in-the-world-is-juan-hernandez/

Posted by: Luther on May 8, 2008 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

One of the biggest foreign policy challenges...is the fact that a very large number of Muslims believe that the United States is not merely fighting terrorism, but is engaged in a war against Islam.

Uh, no. A few Muslims who find it politically advantageous cunningly take the position that the US is against Islam. Why acknowledge their idiocy?

This Parsley is a spud. Many Muslims, like the above, are spuds. To try to work out their spudlike ideas is hopeless and boring.

I suggest you criticize McCain for not being positive about real American values, which include separation of church and state. If you play the GOP game of attack-attack-attack, you are not playing to your or Obama's strengths of reasonableness and balance.

Posted by: Bob M on May 8, 2008 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Dumb question:

Did ANY of the founding fathers even mention the words "Islam" or "Muslim"?

Maybe the actual quote was "I can not tell a lie. I chopped down the cherry tree because Islam is a terrible religion that needs to be destroyed."

It must be the lousy PC history books that took out the last part of Washington's famous line.

Posted by: neil wilson on May 8, 2008 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

"If McCain were serious about the war on terror, he'd stay a million miles away from a guy like Parsley"

In McCain's defense, no one should be "serious" about the war on terror. This has been Edition #500,461 of "Liberals Legitimizing Republican Frames Because They are Craven or Stupid".

Posted by: flubber on May 8, 2008 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

McCain first calls Rod Parsley by the name of "Ralph Parsley." Then he says "Rob." He never does get the name right.
Parsley has been a roided-up warhead, thoroughly impressed by himself, for years. That's his performance shtick: the pose of aggression.

Posted by: Bennett on May 8, 2008 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin is right. So is Sullivan. If I were a Muslim living in the middle east and somebody showed me a video of Rod Pasley standing next to John McCain, given his 100 year in Iraq comment and American behavior in the middle east over the last 8 years, I might conclude McCain is about to declare a crusade. Wouldn't you?

Posted by: Ron Byers on May 8, 2008 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

To be "serious" about the "war on terror" means, first and foremost, to acknowledge that (1) it is a fraud used to justify wars of aggression for the purpose of seizing control of valuable energy resources for private financial gain; and (2) terrorism is a trivial threat compared to (for example) anthropogenic global warming, depletion of fresh water supplies, loss of topsoil and the degradation of arable lands everywhere, depletion of major oceanic fisheries, nuclear proliferation, and other existential threats to human civilization which are being neglected while attention and resources are squandered on the fake, phony "war on terror".

Posted by: SecularAnimist on May 8, 2008 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

I lost the history link, but:


"In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

The point is, jackass Arabs declared war on the USA some 200 years ago, and shooting at Arabs is not only legal, this minister is probably right on that our forefathers saw Arab Islamic nut cases as a long term threat to the USA.


However, the fact is, when Obama's preacher says, "GodDamn America", I agree with him sometimes.


Posted by: Matt on May 8, 2008 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus Zathras, mendacious much?

It's more than just McCain not censoring his supporters and you know it. McCain is actively seeking and embracing the support of these hatemongers. Obama was never seeking the support of Wright.

And yes, I would think that McCain cozying up to these hatemongers and embracing their militaristic rhetoric toward Islam is dangerous and harmful to our foreign policies and suggests that McCain is more interested in getting elected than preventing this harm.

I also don't believe Kevin made any claims regarding his seriousness towards the "War on Terror" and I don't believe he's running for office.

Posted by: ckelly on May 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

"Ralph Parsley."

I thought McCain said Rob Cilantro.

The domestic terrorists of the Sixties and Seventies were half forgotten, even though some were never arrested until decades later when they turned themselves in. Our politicians have wisened up to the uses of FUD and the wealth and power it provides.

Posted by: Brojo on May 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Matt: jackass Arabs declared war on the USA some 200 years ago, and shooting at Arabs is not only legal
Based on Matt's reasoning, it's okay for black Africans to shoot at Americans because 200+ years ago the U.S. wrote slavery into its constitution. Right?

Posted by: thersites on May 8, 2008 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

"A few Muslims who find it politically advantageous cunningly take the position that the US is against Islam. Why acknowledge their idiocy?"

Too lazy to check facts.

"Did ANY of the founding fathers even mention the words "Islam" or "Muslim"?"

Another idiot too stupid to click on "USA forefathers Islam" on your Yahoo box.

"... a very large number of Muslims believe that the United States is not merely fighting terrorism, but is engaged in a war against Islam."

No, Kevin, again, you are either deliberately misleading or deliberately avoiding simple fact checking. Muslims know we are in a war with them, because Muslims are instructed to attack the USA, have been instructed to attack us, and have been attacking us since the day we were birthed as a nation.

This goes back to the point on avoiding science. Why does Kevin conveniently ignore history?

Posted by: Matt on May 8, 2008 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

"..black Africans to shoot at Americans because 200+ years ago the U.S. wrote slavery into its constitution. .."

The answer is, well, I have supportted violent black protests from time to time. But, the answer is, if Blacks are enslaved, then yes, rebel.

If Islam continues its 240 years war against the USA, then yes, we are invited to shoot them, they invite us to shoot them, they want us to shoot them.

Where did the progressives get the idea that it is ok for them to ignore science but not the Republican communists?

Posted by: Matt on May 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Matt, I'm appalled that a nation would use its religion as a pretext for military adventurism. How dare those Barbary pirates use their God to justify the forced seizure of American economic resources.

(as an atheist, can I justify my crimes with the statement, "No one told me to do it.")

Posted by: absent observer on May 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

ao -- try tree-worship. Nothing works as well as "The gnarled old oak behind the house told me to do it."

Posted by: thersites on May 8, 2008 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

The real question should be, How do we get these outrageous associations to be known to the people? The MSM is unlikely to do so, although they should be bluntly brought up in debate, and by outraged foreigners. We don't want to the in the (familar) situations where much of the rest of the world hates us for good reason, but the public is simply unaware of the why. We seem to be pretty skilled, at converting our outrage at the foreign dislike for us, into aggressive militarism, the only way to end this vicious cycle is to let Americans see us, as others do.

Posted by: bigTom on May 8, 2008 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

That gnarled oak is full of shit! Don't listen to it.

Posted by: absent observer on May 8, 2008 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

And if McCanine is actually considering a Bobby Jindal for Veep, he would have another religious extremist (who has ample writings available for review) associated with his run.

Posted by: bubba on May 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

heretic!

as the sage once said: absence of observation is not observation of absence.

Posted by: thersites on May 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Why does Kevin conveniently ignore history?

Why does Matt make shit up?

Posted by: ckelly on May 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, I'll bite.
What Republican communists, Matt?

Posted by: thersites on May 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Is Andrew Sullivan still mad at those Muslim Barbary Pirates for taking so much American seamen?

My God! What's wrong with America when a man can't just say he's gay without everyone making explicit references to body functions!!

(see: i concern troll, too.)

Posted by: absent observer on May 8, 2008 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

This is in the top 10 rules for the GOP playbook. If your party has a negative with voters, be sure to attack the Dems or Dem candidate first. That puts the Dem on the defensive and insulates the GOP because the Dems will want to let the issue drop.

Calling Obama elitist. The preacher business. Kerry war record. Whitewater and the rest of the Clinton faux scandals. In all these cases, the GOP was far more guilty but they were not hit because they leveled the charges first and insulated themselves.

Posted by: bakho on May 8, 2008 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

"We were built for the battle! We were created for the conflict! We get off on warfare!"

And Jesus, Prince of Peace, wept.

neil wilson: on May 8, 2008 at 2:45 PM:

Did ANY of the founding fathers even mention the words "Islam" or "Muslim"?

Yes. From the unanimously-approved 1797 Treaty of Tripoli:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Matt: on May 8, 2008 at 3:20 PM:

Why does Kevin conveniently ignore history?

Pot. Kettle. ibid.

Posted by: grape_crush on May 8, 2008 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

I am afraid that the presidential election of 2008 may be decided by which candidate has the worst clergy backing him (or her, which hasn't quite been ruled out.) That won't be an edifying spectacle.

Posted by: spider on May 8, 2008 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

"Why does Matt make shit up?"

This was not made up, the war with Islamic pirates is well documented.

I can speculate, and find and forward the results of research, but research will tell us that Islam was at war with us and never did it ever stop.

You will, I speculate, find a continual reference in Islamic preaching for 250 years that one gets to heavan if one kills an American.

Should I look up every bit of recorded Islamic history and point this out? I shouldn't. It is sufficient that they declared war in 1776. never stopped declaring war, killed Americans in 1770 and killed them in 2001. That is sufficient evidence to show we are at war and have the moral and legal right to take violent action against Islam.

No amount of rewriting history will get back the dead sailors 200 years ago or the dead stockbrokers 8 years ago.

Posted by: Matt on May 8, 2008 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, Matt.
But we still want to hear about your republican communists of 3:26.

Posted by: thersites on May 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

The thesis that 'Islam has been against America since the Barbary Pirates' is thin at best.

First, there is no Pope in Islam, so you have a multitude of voices, each authoritative to some degree. Finding one that says such-and-such is an easy task.

Finally, Pirates are hardly moral actors. If some pirates in 1770 justified robbing American boats under the pretext of Allah's will, big deal. They were Pirates. Pirates and Presidents say whatever they want, whether it's true or not. I'm certain God doesn't talk to Presidents or Pirates, to recommend military adventures.

Posted by: absent observer on May 8, 2008 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

From Conservapedia, Special: Popular pages:

http://www.conservapedia.com/ Special:Popularpages

Given that them conservatives are virulently anti-gay they sure do take a lot of interest in this particular subject.

Just sayin'

And that war on terror is going to go nowhere if the popular voice of conservatism get's it's way ...

Posted by: Ole on May 8, 2008 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Matt, Grape just kicked your ass.

I was going to quote the same reference to the treaty that ended the war with the "pirates," but he beat me to it. If memory serves the language was inserted at the request of the North Africans. It is often cited as proof that America's founding fathers never really believed we are a "Christian" nation, just a nation filled with Christians and fundamentalist religious politicians like Hagee and Pasely who pretend they are Christians.

Posted by: Ron Byers on May 8, 2008 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Matt,

I'm totally with you.

Obviously it is true that a single Muslim ambassador can speak for all of Islam, and for all time too, but in 1787 a drunk in a bar is Florida said "F America" so I'm thinking we should get to work on drunks in bars. For one thing they are easier to find and for another they will be easier to kill because they are drunk.

Once we finish that we can start in on all the countries that have killed our citizens. Oh, and soccer hooligans. Man I hate those idiots. Finally when we control enough countries it should be easy enough to round up the muslims.

Do we have a plan?

Posted by: Tripp on May 8, 2008 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

MUST READ for all you "serious" foreign policy types:

Portrait of an Oil-Addicted Former Superpower: How Rising Oil Prices Are Obliterating America's Superpower Status
By Michael T. Klare
TomDispatch.com
Thursday 08 May 2008

Posted by: SecularAnimist on May 8, 2008 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Tripp,

I been looking for a long time (well, about 8 years, anyway,) for an excuse to take out Florida.

Just don't make that drunks-in-bars thing retroactive, okay pal?

Posted by: thersites on May 8, 2008 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Matt, you numbnut, the Barbary pirates seized our ships (not "attacked us") ... because they were pirates, not because they were Muslim.

Ditto for pirates in the Malacca Strait today (and, there are many, but Big Oil doesn't like to admit its supertankers are that vulnerable).

Grape... I used the Adams quote in my newspaper column a week ago. I was writing about the FLDS here in Texas, but started with an analogy from 9/11 and days immediately after.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on May 8, 2008 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Islamic pirates

Were the pirates who killed all of those Spaniard Catholics, Christian Calvinist pirates?

Blackbeard, the Christian pirate, and Drake, the Church of England pirate, understood the real meaning of communion.

Posted by: Brojo on May 8, 2008 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo... did you mean "communion," or "communism"?

I heard Drake was a "Republican communist."

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on May 8, 2008 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

absent observer,

I strongly disagree. Sailors in the 1700's, stockbrokers in 2001, clearly there is a pattern here.

I don't really know why the Muslims started with the S's but in 2200 the Stylists better be watching their backs!

You cannot deny my logic.

Posted by: Tripp on May 8, 2008 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

"Why does Kevin conveniently ignore history?"

Mostly because your version of "history" exists only in your fevered imagination. The statement that "If Islam continues its 240 years war against the USA", for example, is so egregiously ignorant that it's impossible to take you seriously.

Posted by: PaulB on May 8, 2008 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Anybody remember the old Zap comic about homosexual Christian pirates?

Posted by: Brojo on May 8, 2008 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

thersites,

For you I'll look the other way.

I've started riding my scooter again (suck on 80 MPG, Saudi Royal Family) and I forgot to mention the idiots riding my bumper in their Extinction FUVs. We need to get them, too, because they are a threat to our way of life.

I do take some pleasure when they roar past me just so they can wait longer at the next red light. "Throw some more money down the drain idiot."

Posted by: Tripp on May 8, 2008 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Tripp, unfortunately, the Extinction drivers are either ignorant of, or saying Eff You to, the "tragedy of the commons."

Unless you have a private oil well in your back yard (I don't), they're hurting us as well as themselves.

Posted by: on May 8, 2008 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

"Oh, give us all a break."

We could say the same thing.

"The only reason Kevin Drum thinks this Parsley fellow matters and Wright doesn't is because Parsley has endorsed the Presidential candidate he opposes and Wright is behind the Presidential candidate he supports."

Complete bullshit, which is why you cannot back it up. Parsley matters, not because he endorsed McCain, but because McCain actively sought for, campaigned for, and welcomed, that endorsement, and it's rather foolish of you to ignore that.

The rest of your rant was equally stupid, so I'm not going to bother to address that drivel. Next time, turn your brain on.

Posted by: PaulB on May 8, 2008 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK


In which Kevin pretends to be stupid.

"Unlike Jeremiah Wright's egocentric blatherings, which got truckloads of attention but don't, in the end, really matter"

Of course, that isn't the point, is it? It isn't about Wright. It is about Barack Obama. The Presidential candidate who enbraced Wright for 20 years. The Presidential candidate who put Wright into a position of authority over his own children. All a good indication that the Presidential candidate is an America-hating far-left radical.

You can pretend to be stupid, Kevin. But don't count on the rest of us following along.


Posted by: a on May 8, 2008 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

a

It is also about the candidate who sought and embraced a couple of nut cases who scare the hell out of anybody and defame Christians everywhere. You can't be so stupid not to realize that when you actively seek someone's political endorsement and embrace them when they do endorse, you are signing on to their political positions. In the case of Pasley, he has called for a holy war (crusade) to kill over a billion people. That is insane.

Posted by: Ron Byers on May 8, 2008 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

"everybody" not "anybody."

a, you can't have it both ways. Wright is small potatoes compared to Hagee and Pasely. Are you telling me you agree with Hagee that Catholicism is "the great whore" and and with Pasley America was created to do battle with Islam. I would argue that by seeking their endorsements, with full knowledge of their positions, old man McCain agrees that the Catholic Church is the great whore and we need to get about the business of killing over a billion Muslims. I will believe that I am right until he renounces and rejects both of them.

Posted by: Ron Byers on May 8, 2008 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

did anyone hear McSame on Hugh Hewitt yesterday -
i had to laugh... poor John didnt really know who he was talking to -

somehow, we need to get him to denounce the support of talk radio...

Posted by: christAlmighty on May 8, 2008 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

embraced Wright

Sen. Kerry embraced Pope John Paul II, who counseled Catholics and all people with AIDS/HIV not to use condoms while having sex. Condemn the Catholics who supported that [epithet].

Posted by: Brojo on May 8, 2008 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

This shit is like watching Adolf Hitler speeches.

If you look on the Wikipedia page for Parsley, up near the top they sumarize his beliefs as agreeing with liberal organizations on some social issues, such as poverty and racism. But if you read the whole page, you get to the bottom and you find out that his stance on curing poverty is that the state should take a hands-off attitude towards big business (that's what it sounded like to me, at any rate).

Posted by: Swan on May 8, 2008 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Ron: I might conclude McCain is about to declare a crusade. Wouldn't you?
Well, he'd be too late since GwB did that early on with Operation Enduring Freedom. I recall that the Afghanistan tour was initially called Operation Infinite Justice until someone told them that was a concept in Islam and might piss off those Muslims who supported us.
It didn't take long for GwB to get over that last bit. He's now looking forward to this weekend's Jihadist league draft. I understand the combine really raised a couple of those guys to first round draft choices of Hezbollah.

Posted by: TJM on May 8, 2008 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

As usual these Preachers have no concept of actual history.
Treaty of Peace...Tripoli of Barbary.
June 7,1797. Read and passed by The Senate after the full text was read into the record by John Adams.

Article 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not ,in any sense founded on the Christian religion...
Every time one of the assertions that we are a 'Cristian" nation this should be the first rejoinder.

Posted by: P.C.Chapman on May 8, 2008 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo... that's why, contrary to the phobia of Americans even exceeding homophobia, we need...

An atheist president.

C'mon, Kevin, time to get out of your atheist closet and actually start posting about stuff like this.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on May 8, 2008 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

The real truth about John McCain run for the Presidency with 100% accuracy is in the May 15th Prophecy

Do a Google search of the May 15th Prophecy and you will see with 100% accuracy what the outcome of the elections will be

Posted by: LastDayWatchers on May 8, 2008 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

I must properly close html tags
I must properly close html tags
I must properly close html tags
I must properly close html tags
I must properly close html tags
I must properly close html tags

Entschuldigen Sie,bitte.

Posted by: TJM on May 8, 2008 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

A couple of links from Andrew Sullivan

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/the-facts-and-p.html

This first one talks about the founding of the US

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/dissent-of-th-4.html

This second one talks about the relationship between a pastor and the people in the church

Posted by: neil wilson on May 8, 2008 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I really don't think you want to pursue this line of argument -- trying to puff McCain's mild misdemeanors into something more ominous than Obama's stupid felony-of-bad-judgment is just not going to fly, and it shows how out of touch you and your team are with the mainstream. If McCain had dunked his kids in a moral sesspool for eight years, had claimed that there was nothing particularly controversial about his church on March 8 of this year, then pretended to be shocked about Wright's grandstanding the last few weeks, I think the left would consider that a pretty big deal. Remember the rumblings about George Allen's affinity for Confederate memorabilia when we thought he was a possible contender? I think Obama has put this issue to bed as well as he can. Let it the f**k alone. For the left to be constantly harping on the false claim that Republicans do it too or are just as bad only reinforces the original mistake.

Posted by: loki on May 8, 2008 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINK

McCains mild misdemeanors, lmao. Nice try Loki, but it aint gonna sell.

Posted by: Jet on May 8, 2008 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't check above to see if it was mentioned, but Rachel Maddow says that "Rod Parsley" is an awesome euphemism for male pubic hair. Just sharing.

Posted by: Brian C.B. on May 8, 2008 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

Matt,

Do you see more Islamic pirates when you forget to take your meds four times a day?

Remember, it's after every meal and at bedtime.

Posted by: Ex - Republican Communist on May 8, 2008 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

If you place Obama and Wright, then McCain and Parsley within the pervasive racial undertones of US society and its outlook on the world, one wouldn't be surprised by white-dominated media but also the white (and other) population's disinterest in what seems like despicable behavior by a white politician and his endorsement of a religious "leader" carrying forward the religio-racist traditions of this country.

How else can you explain the vastly disparate reactions?

Thank god that the upcoming generation seem, by the polls, to be finally leaving racism (and homophobia) somewhat behind.

Posted by: notthere on May 8, 2008 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

LastDayWatchers: Matt wants his tin foil hat back.

Beyond that, it's the May 13 prophecy.

That's when we see how much of a bite Matt Walsh takes out of Bill Belichick's ass.

Matt? Ron Paul wants the tin foil hat back after you get it from LastDay.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on May 9, 2008 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

"I do not believe that our nation can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam....I know that this statement sounds extreme. But I am not shrinking back from its implications The fact is that...America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed."

Wow, if any statement is worth condemning, not only for its implications but also its absurdly false conception of America and our history, it's this one.

Posted by: Jimm on May 9, 2008 at 4:46 AM | PERMALINK

We're still at war with the Barbary Pirates? Are we still at war with the British as well? After all, the British attacked us more recently than Barbary Pirates . . .

Posted by: rea on May 9, 2008 at 7:47 AM | PERMALINK

If McCain had dunked his kids in a moral sesspool for eight years,

What do we call McCain abandoning his first wife and children, the ones who'd stood by him during his captivity, to run off with an heiress 17 years younger than him whom he'd picked up at a cocktail party that night? Was that dunking them in a moral cesspool?

Posted by: Stefan on May 9, 2008 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

“Pick up your weapons” …”Lock and load”…”I’m here to start a riot”

Parsley is calling explicitly for a religious war against non-believers. He admits that openly and a war not just against Islam but against secularists. Isn’t this the type of rhetoric that inspired the terrorism of Timothy McVeigh? Yet McCain endorses his message? Says that he should be listened to?

I don’t think I ever heard Obama say he endorsed Wright’s message.

Posted by: The Other Ed on May 9, 2008 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Barbary Pirates Matt? Really? That's what you're sticking with? My, my, some people will say anything to pimp for perpetual war won't they?

Posted by: ckelly on May 9, 2008 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK

Of course, that isn't the point, is it? It isn't about Wright. It is about Barack Obama. The Presidential candidate who enbraced Wright for 20 years.

Obama's relationship to Wright was pastoral and personal --- which is different than political. McCain actively sought Hagee's and Parsley's endorsement within the political arena. Political relations and alliances are for of a condement of a pastor's policy proposals.

Had a candidate went out and sought an endorsement from David Duke, no one would be brushing it aside with the excuse "at least he didn't have a 20 year relationship with the guy". People would be outraged, saying that it's a sanctioning of the guy. The same standard should be applied to McCain. The lack of outrage and coverage by most media outlets over McCain's embrace of vile, far-right pastors can only be explained by a gross double standard...right-wing pastors who spew hatred towards gays or Moslems are given a pass as well as the pols who seek and embrace their political endorsement. It's about time people began demanding a more fair standard and stop enabling peddlers of hate who say far more toxic things than anything Jeremiah Wright bellowed.

Posted by: Adamo on May 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

Unless you have a private oil well in your back yard (I don't), they're hurting us as well as themselves.

I have no oil well, and if I did I do not own the mineral rights to my land, but I have something better.

I've got telecommuting - I live about a mile from my place of work, I've got a secure connection to my local power plant and a voltage inverter in case of power outages, and thanks to some of Bush's stimulus I'm finally buying a couple guns.

The best thing I have is a mind and the foresight to plan ahead. I live where global warming won't directly affect me much, and I live in a mostly well-educated community with excellent health care, plentiful fresh water, and good farmland around it. None of this was by chance either.

I've done what little I can to try to steer our country on a wise course and now I am doing everything I can to protect me and mine if it comes to that.

In the spirit of George Carlin's "Drink up Shriners!" I say "Burn your money, idiots!"

Posted by: Tripp on May 9, 2008 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Tripp, all well and true. But, oil production is a "commons," is what I was getting at, of course.

So, unless you've really cut down on your driving, that Extinction hurts you as well as him/herself.

I'm heat-tolerant, so I'll stomach global warming here in Dallas, which does have a lot of farming, once you get past the suburban/exurban sprawl.

I'll pass on buying any guns. And, on my salary, I'm frugal with my money. (Most of the "rich, liberal media" isn't liberal, and a fair chunk is nowhere near rich.)

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on May 9, 2008 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

getvardarbo

Posted by: zeltarocoloa on December 3, 2008 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly