Eve, I think Joe was defending McCain was he not (i.e. not Rev. Hagee's views)?

Based on the link, it looks like Lieberman did both.  "[Hagee] represents a lot of people in this country, particularly Christians who care about the state of Israel. He founded a group called Christians United for Israel."

It is amusing to watch the MSM attempt to level the playing field after their less-than-stellar coverage of the Reverend Wright debacle. Of course, that which should never have occurred cannot be undone, so the only line of remediation remaining is to assail the other team, like NFL referees that make up for a bad call against one team by making an equally bad call against the other team.

Of course the remuneration never truly corrects the original imbalance, but I suppose it makes for a decent apology after the fact (especially considering the context-free methodology of hermeneutics being used nearly matches the original mistake).

You know, if people would just get it right in the first place, we wouldn't have to go through this.

Oh yeah, and of course the de-endorsement means nothing since McCain had been asking for it in order to bolster his "conservative" credentials in the first place. McCain needs to do the deed for the seperation to be legitimized.

The Jeremiah Wright affair merited coverage and the coverage was generally good, except for the oxmoronic Fox News, of course. Barack Obama has repeatedly sold himself as a new-style politician who claims to want to transcend cultural divides and yet it transpired that he sat in a hate-filled church for a generation. This episode was no Rovian concoction, no right-wing smear. Equating John Hagee to Wright is absurd. Hagee was not John McCain's pastor for a generation, nor was he his close spiritual advisor. Hagee is clearly just as much of a nutter as Wright and it was shameful that McCain didn't repudiate him promptly but these two instances are not comparable.

First of all, he has to say it three times.  I de-endorse thee, I de-endorse thee, I de-endorse thee.  Secondly, de-endorsements should be followed by an endorsement of the other guy in the race to really mean anything.   I guess this means Hagee is going to vote for Obama.  The media need to get on this right away. "Senator Obama, what do you have to say about your TWO crazy pastors?  How will you survive this latest scandal?"  I'm sure the Clinton campaign is working on some secret talking points as we speak.

It's certainly a relief to learn that the Roman Catholic Church isn't the sole object of Rev. Hagee's offensive sermons -- although that alone apparently wasn't enough to merit a "de-endorsement."

LR: There are differences between hate, anger, righteous anger, bitterness, and paranoia-caused-by-bitterness-or-anger. I'm not saying the differences excuse any of the objectionable things that Wright said; I think they don't. I'm just saying that it's a gross oversimplification to say that Wright's church is "hate-filled" -- an oversimplification which, unsurprisingly, we've heard frequently repeated by "white working class voters" interviewed in PA, OH, WV, etc.

Of all the despicable things that uber-Jew Lieberman could do. I'm unilaterally excommunicating Leebs, as his staff calls him behind his back. He and no one else should ever excuse someone who argues a theological justification for the Holocaust. It removes the responsibility from evil people, like Adolf Hitler, and places it in places we can only imagine.

rozenson: Exactly. Hagee's view of history as divinely superintended has very dangerous moral implications.

Since an endorsement is merely the public statement of private preference, then the only way to "withdraw" or otherwise undo an endorsement is to state a contrary preference. You can't simply withdraw your endorsement of a person. You must either endorse another candidate, or you must denounce the candidate you endorsed. So Hagee must either announce that he no longer believes that McCain is worthy of being president, or he must announce that he now prefers Obama or Clinton. Anything else is just an insult to our intelligence.

Almost all of it is an insult to our intelligence.

Eve begins "...Somehow, ages ago, I got onto Pastor John Hagee's mailing list..."

Eve, Eve, Eve.  No reason to be defensive or apologetic. So, at one time, you thought if you walked far enough in a straight line you'd fall off the edge of the Earth. So what?

We've all been young and dumb. (Some of us [cough] are now old and dumb.) Why, just the other day I was in line at the ATM when a gal about my age, whom I did not recognize, crossed the street, walked up to me, slapped me while hissing "Asshole!" and walked away.

The important thing is that you've learned the error of your ways and have renounced Satan, or at least Hagee. And because we're all Christians here, we are totally into forgiving.

Rhubarbs - I am with you. Withdrawing an endorsement is foolish unless one has changed their mind and chosen to support another candidate. I highly doubt that such is the case with Hagee, however, as I happen to expect him to be a closeted racist. One nasty prejudice (Catholicism in this case) tends to intermingle with a whole host of others, especially when it comes to individuals as despicable as this televangelist version of Rush Limbaugh.

LR - I see the merit in your point that the relationship between Hagee and John McCain cannot be considered quite analogous to that of Obama and Wright. However, one must also remember that McCain actively sought out his endorsement to score political points whereas Obama did not (not that he would have had to, to be fair, since it was a given). Likewise, it bears remembering that Wright, however mistaken in his views, speaks out of genuine resentment fueled by personal experiences of repression and social ills in his community whereas Hagee merely spouts inexcusable, bigoted and, I would argue, far more toxic statements.

I like John McCain generally but I have no sympathy for his embarassment at this point since I am persuaded he had pursued this nauseating endorsement in full awareness of objectionable viewpoints harbored by Hagee. Two things in particular stand out here as exceptionally depressing - 1) that this is the same candidate who once had the decency to denounce Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as agents of intolerance and 2) that courting the support of figures like Hagee appears the inevitable road to affirming conserative credentials before the New Right ideological police.

At any rate, you could not pay me enough to be a candidate charged with pandering to the audience of ranting televangelists...

Rhubarbs - I am with you. Withdrawing an endorsement is foolish unless one has changed their mind and chosen to support another candidate. I highly doubt that such is the case with Hagee, however, as I happen to expect him to be a closeted racist. One nasty prejudice (Catholicism in this case) tends to intermingle with a whole host of others, especially when it comes to individuals as despicable as this televangelist version of Rush Limbaugh.

LR - I see the merit in your point that the relationship between Hagee and John McCain cannot be considered quite analogous to that of Obama and Wright. However, one must also remember that McCain actively sought out his endorsement to score political points whereas Obama did not (not that he would have had to, to be fair, since it was a given). Likewise, it bears remembering that Wright, however mistaken in his views, speaks out of genuine resentment fueled by personal experiences of repression and social ills in his community whereas Hagee merely spouts inexcusable, bigoted and, I would argue, far more toxic statements.

I like John McCain generally but I have no sympathy for his embarassment at this point since I am persuaded he had pursued this nauseating endorsement in full awareness of objectionable viewpoints harbored by Hagee. Two things in particular stand out here as exceptionally depressing - 1) that this is the same candidate who once had the decency to denounce Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as agents of intolerance and 2) that courting the support of figures like Hagee appears the inevitable road to affirming conserative credentials before the New Right ideological police.

At any rate, you could not pay me enough to be a candidate charged with pandering to the audience of ranting televangelists...

i heard that mccain said he now had to reject hagee because the most recent statements about hitler were "indefensible"...  does that mean that the statments about catholicism and new orleans were defensible?

the connection between hagee and wright is that they give us glimpses into different facets of christianity in america today...  

stgla:

Does the mantra (I de-endorse thee) have the force of law if McCain text messages or uses his cell phone to transmit it?  The question is vexing one.  Courts in Egypt are currently wrestiling with the issue.

www.npr.org/.../linkfest_text_message_divorce.html

www.timesonline.co.uk/.../article3129013.ece

What is Halakha's stand on the question? The least McCain should do is adhere to it. Particularly because he knew all about Hagee's highly questionable attitude on the purpose of Jews existence (i.e., so Christian can get into heaven).

Kidding aside, so-called "Christian Zionists" such as Hagee strike me as beyond dumb and are definitely difficult to please.

First, they hate Jews for killing Jesus. Apart from the fact that the Romans actually offed the Jewish Jesus, weren't the Jews just fulfilling Scripture so the likes of Hagee could be saved. (Remember, Jesus had to physically suffer and die to forgive mankind's sins.)

Now, it's the Jews didn't return to Palestine fast enough, so God created Hitler to give them a kick in the ass. And, of course, because Jews are so stubborn, Adolph killed a few million in the process. (Why didn't Adolph just tell them the reason for his beef instead of the "too many Jewish bankers and lawyers crap"?)

Well, thank goodness the Israel exists so that Hagee and his end-of-times fanatics can have their post-Armageddon party.

Hemlock41: You should write for the Nation magazine. They had a piece a few issues ago placing Wright in "context". They probably will be needing more material because I don't think that we have heard the last of the Wright affair. You make a bizarre move by referring to the opinions of white (read: racist) working class voters instead of speaking to the merits of my contention. You seem awfully close to the type of liberals and left-liberals who are actually patronizing when they think that they are being equalitarian, the ones who "explain" away extremism on the part of left-wing blacks. this website contains far too many people who are immersed in identity politics, strange for a publication which has declaimed against such politics for decades (I highly recommend Against Identity by Leon Wieseltier). My God, we can't have a single standard for blacks and whites, the darker colored people aren't ready for that yet. More than a few people out here could do with heavy doses of John McWhorter and Shelby Steele.

Liberal Reformer:

Resorting to your usual dismissive moves again, eh? They are a strange combination of pompous and childish. When someone disagrees with you from what you perceive to be a leftist vantage, you tell them to go away and "read the Nation." Others who disagree with you are simply "not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier." You relegate any discussion of cultural or racial differences to that hackneyed, intellectually sloppy, catch-all category of "identity politics," and assume that doing so puts such discussions safely beneath you. You cite Wieseltier, along with a few other writers whose intellects or writing styles you have annointed as "superior," like a graduate student piously citing his thesis adviser. Other names you simply... well, drop -- as if doing so is enough to shore up your own authority. I'm sorry if this sounds rude -- I actually enjoy many of your posts and often agree with you. But it is late and I am tired and when you resort to these familiar moves, it annoys me.

In case you're interested, I am actually a critic of what I assume you mean by "identity politics." (The term is so baggy and over-extended, and your use of it so knee-jerk, that I'm not completely sure what you mean by it.) But as an academic, I've written extensively about a variety of political phenomena that would fall under this clumsy label, and everything I've written has been critical of these phenomena. (My field is political philosophy.)

As for addressing the so-called substance of your claim that Obama's church is "hate-filled", well, I made a hasty and inept start by trying to draw some distinctions. I should have spelled out their implications more fully... but I'm not inclined to spend much time on it now. Fortunately, jkolic has already offered a succinct response that is much better than the one I posted. He or she wrote: "[I]t bears remembering that Wright, however mistaken in his views, speaks out of genuine resentment fueled by personal experiences of repression and social ills in his community whereas Hagee merely spouts inexcusable, bigoted, and, I would argue, far more toxic statements."

As someone who has professed a concern for "nuance" (your ham-fisted lampooning of those who care about "context" notwithstanding), you will hopefully see the difference between a) excusing the morally objectionable aspects of Wright's perspective, and, b) acknowledging that sustained experiences of social discrimination will often provoke bitterness, resentment, and anger. And, yes, when the experience of injustice is real, the anger may well be righteous. Acknowledging this does not morally excuse the victims of injustice when they act on their anger in a way that harms others, e.g. by spreading paranoid or objectionable views about others.

LR - I agree with you that Obama's Wright connection isn't comparable to Hagee's endorsement of McCain.  As far as I am aware, Wright never endorsed Obama.  In contrast, nutjob televangelists like Hagee, Robertson and Falwell and their flocks are now and have long been an integral component of the Republican base, and wield a lot of influence within the party.  I don't worry about a President Obama being unduly influenced in office by Reverend Wright.  The political clout of the Religious Right is, however, well-documented.

If the Republican party of Connecticut had had the good sense to put up even a marginally plausible candidate for the US Senate, the egregious Joe Lieberman would be a private citizen, and we would be spared such clownish, disreputable performances as his recent defense of Rev. Hagee.  He continues to outdo himself as an embarassment to himself and his constituents.

Yesterday, John McCain rejected the endorsement and support of not one but two crazy pastors!

Wright & Obama:  27-year old Obama wants to make a political future in South Side Chicago and is searching for some sort of spiritual anchorage that would accord with his progressive social views.  He finds it in Trinity Church, with a minister who is dynamic, politically engaged, socially progressive and intellectually challenging.  Said minister sometimes also makes outrageous, sometimes conspiratorial pronouncements praising Louis Farrakhan, denouncing the US Government and the White Power Structure.  Obama doesn't agree with any of this stuff, but stays in the Church because he likes the community and the spiritual grounding it provides.  Obama realizes Wright's views will be a problem for him when he runs for President, tries to finesse the issue but is finally forced to repudiate him for his own political good.

Hagee & McCain:  71-year old McCain has made a political career out of antagonizing the Christian Right, but decides he needs to cozy up to them in order to get the Republican nomination.  Since most of the big-name pastors are committed to other candidates (or refuse to commit to anyone), he seeks out Hagee, who happens to be widely known for his fierce pro-Israel stance.  McCain thinks this will make a nice two-fer, especially in the general election.  McCain has no links or relationship with Hagee until the election, when he solicits his endorsement.  Then, when Hagee's nutty views start getting wider circulation, McCain tries to finesse the issue but is finally forced to repudiate him for his own political good.

Sure, the Jeremiah Wright relationship wasn't Obama's finest hour, but does McCain REALLY come off better in this comparison??  At least with Obama/Wright, you have sentiment and community and compatibility of some spiritual views -- what do you have with McCain/Hagee, other than political expediency?

If only this whole contretemps would turn into a question about McCain's judgment in trolling for these endorsements in the first place.  He couldn't find somebody less offensive than Hagee or Parsley to cozy up to?  

I suppose, in theory, Lieberman is signaling his willingness to be converted, ultimately?  That is the ONLY reason I could have conceived of him defending Hagee, even as turncoat-ish as Lieberman has become of late.

The significance of this contretemps is precisely this.  As Wright is to Obama and the Democrats, Hagee, Parsley, Robertson, et al., are to McCain and the Republicans.  My guilt-by-association neutralizes your guilt-by-association.  Now let's both sides stop trivializing the campaign and patronizing the electorate, and focus on real policy differences.

The real policy differences? Does Obama has any? His main policy is that Obama is great and that we should all trust Him. So that we have Bill Ayers as secretary of defense, Jeremiah Wright as secretary of state and Rashid Khalidi as national security advisor.