McCain's emphasis on Judeo-Christian values

LiberalViewer has posted a video of John McCain and his (well, not just his) premise that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and principles.



Liberal viewer points out, quite correctly via Thomas Jefferson himself, that our country was founded on English common law principles which significantly predate the introduction of Christianity (or Judaism for that matter) to the British Isles.

I think that LiberalViewer is correct in positing that Sen. John McCain was pandering to the audience in Pastor Rick Warren's church. (As he was with the forcefulness of his abortion answers as well.) I also agree that the example that he shows of Sen. Barack Obama in a speech in a Baptist church both was more inclusive and is more indicative of the inclusiveness most Americans feel our leader should show.

I could really get into this on a lot of different fronts including the interesting religious views of the founding fathers. From George Washington's somewhat deistic tendencies to John Adams Unitarianism and, of course, Thomas Jefferson's bible. They all considered themselves christians. However, none of them, indeed, very few of any of the founding fathers, would recognize today's evangelicalism as something close to their own beliefs. They would never have imagined instructing someone on how to live their lives and pray to their God. Indeed, a founding principle of this country was to avoid exactly that.

I digress.

The video provokes discussion however. Particularly on the different styles/views of the the two main candidates for president. Do you have a view on the video? This post?

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

That Wasn't a Speed Bump Barack

Nope. That wasn't a speed bump Senator Barack Obama's campaign bus rolled over today. That was his now, apparently, former pastor the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright after the senator threw him under the bus. Not that he didn't have it coming. After all, he dared to defend himself and his ministry rather than fall on the sword for Sen. Obama.

I won't get into the specifics problems with Sen. Obama's statements today. Suffice to say he largely reiterated what and how Dana Milbank and the rest of the media establishment chose to interpret Rev. Dr. Wright's remarks to the National Press Club. I already stated my rebuttal of those interpretations in this post.

What does concern me is the deep sincerity with which Senator Obama made his statements. It is the same honest, no BS tone he uses for all of his other speeches. That worries me. This is, indeed, must be, a purely political move. His campaign staff saw no other option after yesterday. He himself may have seen no other option.

The problem with this is that:

1. Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright's comments could not really have been that shocking to someone who has belonged to his church for as long as Sen. Obama has or


2. Sen. Barack Obama is an incredibly naive person who is not even capable of seeing a man he has known for many years at face value, much less read what the man's real values are.

If it is number one then this is a man who can make anything sound like it is coming from the "Tree of Hope." That is, on the one hand, absolutely great. On the other hand, it is scary as all hell. When is he being earnest and when is he being expedient if he always sounds as if he is delivering us to the 'promised land', even when he isn't. His greatest differentiation from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was the belief that he wasn't full of crap and he wasn't jaded enough to throw his own values out when it was politically expedient. He may very well have lost that differentiation now. Why?

Because, otherwise number two has to be correct and Senator Barack Obama makes President George W. Bush look like the world's greatest judge of character. I don't think anyone believes this is the case.

This is a man who married Obama, baptised his children, was his pastor for a great many years and inspired the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope." Now we are supposed to believe that Obama did not know of his pastor's views? All of this is a great big surprise? Ridiculous.

I can understand if Senator Obama is pissed about the theatrics yesterday, and, from his comments, it appears that he is. But to completely repudiate the Rev. Dr. Wright? You haven't defended him. Why shouldn't he defend himself. I also suspect that there is more than a little truth to the feelings Rev. Dr. Wright implied that Sen. Obama had towards the views of the Rev. Dr. Wright. Did the reverend hit too close to home? We won't ever know because, yes or no, the campaign has to make that implication seem like a smear.

As I have said, the comments don't really need repudiation when they are viewed/listened to in context. Senator Obama and his staff have come to believe that they do, however. They have come to believe that the soundbites cannot be overcome. They have come to believe that it is more important for the Senator to distance himself from his pastor, who, "spiritual mentor" or not, obviously was a major influence on him (see the title of his book), than it is to embrace the man while rejecting the comments. Even better, defend the comments as not being seen in context, as I have done. (I do, however, realize this is far too much to ask a man to do for his pastor when he is running for president.) He almost, vaguely, defended the 'soundbites' in just such a way at the news conference. (Think that that might have been a hint at what is in his heart?) Nope, we're gonna cut bait.

This could, and most likely, to one extent or another, will backfire on Sen. Obama and his campaign. Sen. Obama is too closely linked to Rev. Dr. Wright. His protestations about "not knowing" are disingenuous at best. I think that more will see this as a failure to stand up when he is needed than will see this as a necessary step to be taken if he wishes to win in November. His best hope is that Sen. John McCain will be too embarassed by his own connections to the likes of John Hagee and Rod Parsley to attack him for abandoning his own minister. Or, maybe, McCain will do just that after not abandoning Hagee and Parsley!

I don't agree with everything my pastor says. Never will. He sometimes says some relatively controversial things. Nothing quite like the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright. Nevertheless, even if he did say things that controversial, and I were running for president, I would like to think I would stand by the man. I am not sure I am that strong. I do, however, now know that Barack Obama is not.

Short "Soundbite" version from the AP


Essential Elements version from MSNBC



Full News Conference Video from MSNBC



Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Well...if it's going to keep going...

If we are going to keep beating up Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama because of him, I, for one, am sure not going to let John McCain get away with just shrugging off his own extremist religious supporters and "spiritual guides."

How about John McCain's good friend, whose support he values, John Hagee. Via Veracifier:



Or perhaps you would prefer Sen. John McCain's spiritual guide, Rod Parsley. Via RightwingWatch:



Now, are you really going to tell me that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is more incendiary or more offensive than these people? Or even close? At least Rev. Wright seems somewhat grounded in reality.

"The chickens are coming home to roost!" Everybody seems to find that one comment "offensive". Do you? Well, have you actually seen more of that sermon than just the soundbite on FoxNews? No? Well, WHY THE HELL NOT!? Here you go, if you want to tear down a man who has spent 36 years building his ministry in Chicago; if you want to tear down a presidential candidate because of something that his minister said; the least you can do is spend 10 minutes (really, you only have to go about 6 minutes, but watch the whole video anyway) and watch the sermon (or at least more than just a sound bite of it) and get the context that remark was said in. You, yes you, can do more than the rest of the media has done:



Still sound as "offensive?" If it does, fine. At least now you have seen the remark in context. I didn't blog at the time, but I can't say I disagreed with this type of sentiment at the time. Heck, I don't really disagree with it now. Neither does a decent size chunk of the left in this country. But, it is in vogue to attack Rev. Jeremiah Wright for this sentiment. Ooooo, if we don't, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will eat us for lunch!

Screw them. Review Rev. Wright's comments in their proper context. For that matter, review the comments of John Hagee and Rod Parsley in their proper context as well. Tell me who comes off better and who comes off worse after that. Then, and only then, please explain to me why the hell the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is an issue right now.

(If your final answer is "a lazy media" than you get a "ding-ding!")

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Wright's National Press Club Appearance

Many seem to want to continue to make Rev. Jeremiah Wright into a demon that will drag Sen. Barack Obama down into the muck. I, as I did this morning, still wonder why.

I am usually a fan of Dana Milbank, but I wonder if we saw the same appearance from the way he describes it in the Washington Post:

Speaking before an audience that included Marion Barry, Cornel West, Malik Zulu Shabazz of the New Black Panther Party and Nation of Islam official Jamil Muhammad, Wright praised Louis Farrakhan, defended the view that Zionism is racism, accused the United States of terrorism, repeated his view that the government created the AIDS virus to cause the genocide of racial minorities, stood by other past remarks ("God damn America") and held himself out as a spokesman for the black church in America.

That is one heck of a picture. If you weren't paying attention you might think that Rev. Jeremiah Wright is an rabidly anti-semitic Nation of Islam sympathizer that has generated more conspiracy theories than Ross Perot and Oliver Stone combined from that one paragraph.

Now, I do not mean to pick on Dana Milbank. I selected his interpretation precisely because he is not a right wing nut job like so many who are fond of continuing to promote this hypocrisy. This is how the mainstream media is portraying Rev. Wright.

Let's take the 'Zionism is racism' and 'praised Louis Farrakhan' statements in particular. The following excerpt from the transcript contains all of the reference to both Zionism and Louis Farrakhan in their non-soundbited, full context glory.

MODERATOR: What is your relationship with Louis Farrakhan? Do you agree with and respect his views, including his most racially divisive views?

REVEREND WRIGHT: As I said on the Bill Moyers' show, one of our news channels keeps playing a news clip from 20 years ago when Louis said 20 years ago that Zionism, not Judaism, was a gutter religion.

And he was talking about the same thing United Nations resolutions say, the same thing now that President Carter is being vilified for, and Bishop Tutu is being vilified for. And everybody wants to paint me as if I'm anti-Semitic because of what Louis Farrakhan said 20 years ago.

I believe that people of all faiths have to work together in this country if we're going to build a future for our children, whether those people are -- just as Michelle and Barack don't agree on everything, Raymond (ph) and I don't agree on everything, Louis and I don't agree on everything, most of you all don't agree -- you get two people in the same room, you've got three opinions.

So what I think about him, as I've said on Bill Moyers and it got edited out, how many other African-Americans or European-Americans do you know that can get one million people together on the mall? He is one of the most important voices in the 20th and 21st century. That's what I think about him.

I've said, as I said on Bill Moyers, when Louis Farrakhan speaks, it's like E.F. Hutton speaks, all black America listens. Whether they agree with him or not, they listen.

Now, I am not going to put down Louis Farrakhan anymore than Mandela would put down Fidel Castro. Do you remember that Ted Koppel show, where Ted wanted Mandela to put down Castro because Castro was our enemy? And he said, "You don't tell me who my enemies are. You don't tell me who my friends are."

Louis Farrakhan is not my enemy. He did not put me in chains. He did not put me in slavery. And he didn't make me this color.

Where, exactly, in all of that, is he defending the idea that Zionism is racism? Is it because he will not renounce, reject or repudiate Louis Farrakhan? Is that also why he is characterized as 'praising' Louis Farrakhan? Simply because, on principle, he refuses to repudiate him? Because he is acknowledging the effect that Farrakhan has on the black community, whether they respect what he is saying or not?

This is almost becoming a McCarthy-like witch hunt except the Dems are in with the bad guys too.

Let's go to the AIDS question:

MODERATOR: In your sermon, you said the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. So I ask you: Do you honestly believe your statement and those words?

REVEREND WRIGHT: Have you read Horowitz's book, "Emerging Viruses: AIDS and Ebola," whoever wrote that question? Have you read "Medical Apartheid"? You've read it?

(UNKNOWN): Do you honestly believe that (OFF-MIKE)

REVEREND WRIGHT: Oh, are you -- is that one of the reporters?

MODERATOR: No questions...

(CROSSTALK)

REVEREND WRIGHT: No questions from the floor. I read different things. As I said to my members, if you haven't read things, then you can't -- based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything.

In fact, in fact, in fact, one of the -- one of the responses to what Saddam Hussein had in terms of biological warfare was a non- question, because all we had to do was check the sales records. We sold him those biological weapons that he was using against his own people.

So any time a government can put together biological warfare to kill people, and then get angry when those people use what we sold them, yes, I believe we are capable.

I will at this time point out an absolutely fabulous post by Peterr at Firedoglake.com. The reason it is so relevant to this part is the Rev. Wright's response of "Have you read...?" Read Peterr's post and you will understand that one of the fundamental reasons all of this continues unabated is because the media is being lazy and simply reading and listening to soundbites. Here is part of Peterr's post:

Some critics have said that your sermons are unpatriotic. How do you feel about America and about being an American?

Again, "diplomatic" is not the word I would use to describe Wright's answer:

I feel that those citizens who say that have never heard my sermons, nor do they know me. They are unfair accusations taken from sound bites and that which is looped over and over again on certain channels. I served six years in the military -- does that make me patriotic? How many years did Cheney serve?

When Wright finished that answer, he stepped away from the microphone, shrugged to the audience, and saluted. Once more, not diplomatic, but a direct slam at those members of the media who can't be bothered to do their own research and would rather simply pass along rightwing talking points.

I apologize for the length of the post but I was taken aback, yet again, by the unbridled vehemence with which a minister who served a congregation for over three decades is being attacked. Has he gone a little far in his comments at times? Probably. Is it really as serious as it is being made out to be? I don't think so. Take the advice of Peterr, read and/or listen to Rev. Wright's full sermons, not just the sound bites. I am not saying you will agree with what the man says but I am virtually certain you will have a different impression of his remarks when they are put into context.

Full transcript of today's press conference is available here.

The full video is available at C-Span.

Finally, here is some video of today for your edification. To me it shows an angry but reasonable man who feels his entire religious way of life is being attacked. I'd be pissed too.



Comments are very welcome,

Pat McGovern

Sphere: Related Content

Wright speaks to NAACP

Here are some of the words from Rev. Jeremiah Wrights' speech to the NAACP Detroit Branch last night:



There are several things I have to wonder about all of this. First, what is really so divisive about his comments? When you get past the sound bite shock value of some of his phrases what he is saying, in general, is really not all that far from John Edwards and his "Two Americas." It is more race focused than Edwards but the message is quite similar.

Second, I have to wonder what the Obama people are thinking about all of this. Do they want him to just go away? Speaking out may actually be the best way for him to show what he is and to dampen the problem. Meanwhile, the Obama camp isn't scripting HIS speeches so even if they are alright with this strategy, they have to be nervous every time he approaches a podium with cameras focused on it. (As he will again today.)

Obama was asked about Wright again this weekend (from the WaPo):

Obama himself was asked again about Wright in a "Fox News Sunday" interview broadcast Sunday morning. Although the senator from Illinois said Wright had been "caricatured....in a fairly deliberate way," he noted, "People were legitimately offended by some of the comments that he made in the past," and added "the fact that he is my former pastor...makes it a legitimate issue" in the presidential campaign.

I personally think this whole issue of "attribution of affiliated peoples views" crap needs to go away. Candidates usually have enough problems explaining the things they said on subjects long ago. Is Obama's record really so unblemished that we need to go looking for others around him whom we can hold over his head? Apparently the media thinks so.
Oh, and please don't blame this on Hillary Clinton. She is trying to win a nomination for President here. I think it can be justified that she tried to make it an issue. The problem is that she tried and the media acquiesced. This is the media, plain and simple.
Rather than continuing to try to pin John Hagee's comments on John McCain, perhaps we should try to focus on real issues. McCain does not support every (or even most) utterance(s) of John Hagee any more than Obama supports every utterance of Wright or I support every utterance of my pastor. While a more distinct repudiation of the specific remarks made be Hagee would be nice, I still don't believe that McCain himself believes a word of this bunk. (And it is rather insulting to him to ask him to specifically repudiate them.)
Stop covering crap and get back to the real issues please.

Sphere: Related Content

(This is old but...) Ted Haggard Tells Richard Dawkins He is "Arrogant"

After implying that science is wrong and he is right, Haggard tells Dawkins that "I don't communicate an air of superiority."This is a nearly one year old clip of the Richard Dawkins - Ted Haggard interview but it bears re-watching:





read more digg story

Of course, I prefer this version, which is no less nonsensical:



Ted gives 'creationists' and 'intelligent designers' a bad name. I know a few people that are quite reasonable who are believers in intelligent design. At least these people are TRYING to incorporate science into their beliefs to some extent. What? Science is the creation of Satan? Even if I believed in God or Satan to that extent, that seems like a silly supposition.

To just dismiss science and all the mountains of evidence for evolution? That, seems to me....wait for it.....arrogant.

Comments welcome

Sphere: Related Content