Gay Patriot Header Image

Leftists Act as if Hagee were McCain’s Longtime Pastor

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:01 pm - April 30, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,General,Liberals

Seems Obama supporters are really trying to mitigate the damage of the media focus on his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. First, they find gay-baiting in a clumsy remark by a Hillary supporter and now we learn (via the Washington Blade‘s Blogwatch) of yet another voice on the left decrying John McCain’s alleged hypocrisy for his association with John Hagee.

In yesterday’s Huffington Post, Valerie Tarico said the presumptive Republican presidential nominee had “positioned himself as a hypocrite” when he called Wright’s remarks “beyond belief.” Tarico claims that Bill Moyers “in an hour long interview last Friday showed the world the broader context in which the remarks were made.”

Actually, Valerie, Moyers used that interview to try to justify Wriight’s hate speech. Hugh Hewitt put the remarks in context by providing the text of the sermons. As Hugh put it, “The pastor could help us all if he would release recordings of all of his sermons, and Moyers ought to have asked for just that. If you are going to mount the defense of ‘out of context,’ then provide the context.

After attempting to claim that the Moyers interview exonerated Obama, Tarico reminds us that McCain “posed for the camera with John Hagee” who has uttered some pretty hateful (and nonsensical) things about Catholics and gays. Then, she asks, “why didn’t we hear Hagee’s ugliest remarks over and over on the air?

Valerie, that’s because John McCain didn’t sit in Hagee’s church on a regular basis for two decades and call him his “spiritual mentor.In fact.” it appears the Arizona Senator met with the Texas pastor only once–when he received his endorsement.

There’s a huge differnce between getting the endorsement of a narrow-minded preacher and associating with one on a regular basis over a twenty-year period.

Share

25 Comments

  1. Did Hagee marry McCain and his wife? Did Hagee baptize McCain’s kids? Did Hagee pray with McCain, downstairs and out of sight, 5 minutes before McCain announced his candidacy? Did Hagee write the books and give the sermons that inspired McCain to convert to Christianity? Has the McCain family personally given Hagee’s church multiiple tens of thousands of dollars over the years?

    Hint: no, no, no, no and no.

    Looks like liberals bring up Hagee just as a *distraction* from real issues. Issues like the fact that Barack Obama has for 20 years been involved intimately with the Black equivalent of hate-mongering, segregationist church. And then only yesterday realized (or pretended to realize) it was so bad. While still expecting us to trust in Barack’s awesome judgment, goodness, sincerity, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 30, 2008 @ 1:26 pm - April 30, 2008

  2. Does she provide the verbatum quote of what Hagee said?

    I don’t go to Huffington Post if I dont have to.

    Every time the Left raises this canard I ask to see the verbatum quote of Hagee’s and so far none of them have presented it yet.

    Comment by Vince P — April 30, 2008 @ 1:42 pm - April 30, 2008

  3. He did not just “get an endorsement.” McCain appeared at multiple events with Hagee, and said he was “honored” by the endorsement. Hagee has been a part of the campaign!

    You’re absolutely right that McCain didn’t see the guy as part of his religious life: he is using him as an active asset to the campaign and someone to appear with. Pretending that Hagee is some nut ball that McCain is trying desperately to get away from is ignoring the reality. Darn facts get in the way again, huh?

    Comment by torrentprime — April 30, 2008 @ 1:48 pm - April 30, 2008

  4. How DARE McCain meet with Hagee. After all Hagee has only been working toward the reconciliation of Jews and Christians for 30 years, and because he criticized the anti-Semitism of the historical Catholic and Protestant churches, people like torrent.. who hate the Catholic Church in all likelihood, call Hagee a hater because Hagee spoke out against hate.

    It’s so fucking low the way they operate. They care about nothing and noone but themselves.

    Comment by Vince P — April 30, 2008 @ 1:56 pm - April 30, 2008

  5. TP – Barack is the one saying we should ignore his *short* resume and trust in his awesome goodness and sincerity. Tell me: After Barack’s flip-flop on Wright with its suspiciously political timing, do you still think of him as sincere?

    Just as I said: Leftoids (which I know TP pretends not to be, but somehow his comments always pander in that direction) whip out Hagee as a distraction from the very real and serious issues/questions about Barack’s character.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 30, 2008 @ 1:59 pm - April 30, 2008

  6. Also TP, you haven’t told the whole story.

    Another difference between McCain-Hagee and Obama-Wright would be this: McCain was prompt in rejecting Hagee’s questionable positions, when he became aware of them. In February (this is the part you left out), McCain said this:

    “In no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not… I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society.”

    He did that the day after he became aware of Hagee’s other statements. It only took Barack, oh…. twenty YEARS after Barack became aware of Wright’s? LOL

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 30, 2008 @ 2:07 pm - April 30, 2008

  7. The Hagee thing is non-trivial but, like Vince, I’ll need to see the exact verbiabe and that no one has been eager to produce. In any case, no one is saying, I don’t think, that we must not speak of Hagee, that Hagee is a mere “distraction”. Indeed, we all have a universe of video at our command. If Hagee is all the Left claims he is, mash up some Hagee vid with Wright. Get the absolute BEST sermon snippets from Wright and the WORST of Hagee. And THEN we try to evade or minimize for our own guy and tar and feather the other. The election will tell us who was more successful. For those just tuning in, this is called “politics”. People like McCain and Barry are known as “politicians”. Good luck.

    Comment by megapotamus — April 30, 2008 @ 4:31 pm - April 30, 2008

  8. The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor. -attributed to Ronald Reagan

    When it comes to election campaigns, I think it’s fair to both sides to apply the same rules to partisan endorsements and political fellow-travellers. It doesn’t apply to political or personal mentors, nor your personal family paster.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — April 30, 2008 @ 4:34 pm - April 30, 2008

  9. It’s interesting how we’re supposed to look at the broader context of his sermons.

    Did anybody give a damn about Imus’s broader context?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 30, 2008 @ 5:37 pm - April 30, 2008

  10. I would love it if Barry were to give us a rough percentage as to what fraction of Wrightism he thinks is just dandy. If it is 80% we need to hear what comprises that. There is much blather on all the good Wright has done, just what is that? And has he done “good” at least proportionally to how he has done “well”. As I understand it, he has retired to opulence and ease; an ease Barry dearly wishes he would indulge.
    Obamoids are quite foolish to pursue the “context” defense. I do not think that word means what they think it means for all one needs for true context is the preceding and following verbiage to come out, for the whole text of a sermon to be addressed. Is this really what they want? Those with Wright based concerns should grab a couple DVDs and a beer and plop down on the sofa? Man, could even a Democrat be so stupid? Here’s hopin’….

    Comment by megapotamus — April 30, 2008 @ 5:44 pm - April 30, 2008

  11. Well well.. what do you know. The New York Times decided to run an editorial today equating Rev Wright with Rev Hagee.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/opinion/30wed1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

    Here is the entirety of their comments on Hagee:

    “Senator John McCain has continued to embrace a prominent white supporter, Pastor John Hagee, whose bigotry matches that of Mr. Wright. Mr. McCain has not tried hard enough to stop a race-baiting commercial — complete with video of Mr. Wright — that is being run against Mr. Obama in North Carolina. ”

    That’s it! Just an assertion. Not one example or quote or anything! Hagee has devoted his ministry to fight bigotry and hatred and the New York Time defames him. It’s so repugnant. It’s so dishonest.. but what else to expect from asshole Leftists.

    Comment by Vince P — April 30, 2008 @ 7:34 pm - April 30, 2008

  12. Note the care they took to imply – but without coming out and saying it – that Hagee’s “bigotry” is racial in nature. (I though his controversial views were only the area of religious sectarianism / doctrines.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 30, 2008 @ 8:00 pm - April 30, 2008

  13. Vince if you are really interested in what Hagee said it only takes a few seconds to google and you will find many direct quotes. I’m not going to do that now since I feel no need to prove reality. In the process of defending Jews and fighting anti-semitism Hagee was quite brutal (as in honest, not wasting time on saying it in a pretty way) towards the Roman church. Actually I happen to agree with much he said because it’s based on history. But then he went so far as to call the Roman church “the Great Whore” from Revelations. That is moving well beyond historical truth. Granted he is certainly not alone among ultra-conservative Protestant churches that feel that way but it’s still problematic for a presidential candidate to accept the endorsement of one with those beliefs. BTW, I’m not implying that conservative Christians/Evangelicals are all that judgemental of the Roman church. He has backpedaled on some of what he said against the church and against gays but it cannot take away the affect of his original words on those they were aimed at. Some will of course overlook that part of his beliefs because they support other things he has said/done and if they can, good for them, but it will impact other voters, especially when combined with the “wisdom” that has flowed from the lips of Rod Parsley. Maybe it won’t have much of an impact and I don’t think that if McCain was to now turn around and reject their endorsements it would change many minds. It doesn’t make sense to me to compare the two candidates and their reactions to their controversial endorsers. Is the issue who likes the candidates or their policies and beliefs that should influence voters? I acknowledge that the question for many is how much of Wright’s ideas has Obama abosorbed. But if Obama is to be judged by what Wright said – and the right wing media is making sure that he is, over and over, then why is it wrong to apply the same standards to McCain? And certainly the opposite is true. Those on the left who defend Obama while attacking McCain are biased in their thinking but they do have one valid point, the words should be taken in context – both Wright’s and Hagee/Parsley. The clips from various sermons over many years that were carefully edited and put together as Wright’s greatest hits was slimy politics at it’s worst. And were the same thing to be done by the left I would call it the same thing. Bruce says there’s a huge difference between the endorsers and the candidate’s handling of their connection the the campaign, fine, no argument, but in the end aren’t both wrong and isn’t it time to let it go and get back to the important issues facing this country?

    [GP Ed. Note — Um… when did I say this? “Bruce says there’s a huge difference between the endorsers and the candidate’s handling of their connection the the campaign.”]

    Comment by Dave — April 30, 2008 @ 9:03 pm - April 30, 2008

  14. Why should I go googling.. how do i know what comment people are talking about ?

    If someone wants to say that Hagee hates whatever, then lets hear it from the horses mouth.

    And are we to believe that Leftists really give a shit that Hagee called the RCC the Whore of babylon (I’m not saying he did, but i’ll go along with you)?

    Half of the Protestant world thinks/thought that the papacy is the antichrist… it’s not like this idea is rare or controversial. In fact many Catholics think that as well. I should know.. I was raised Catholic.. and in my neighborhood there was plenty of interest in Revelation and we viewed all speculations in a very detached way.

    If that’s the entire basis for statement that Hagee “hates”, it’s pretty pathetic.

    I listened to the complete Wright sermons … nothing is out of context.

    I agree ,.. we need to get back to facing the problems of this countries.. Obama should drop out of the race and stop inflicting his racial pyschosis on the country.

    Comment by Vince P — April 30, 2008 @ 9:33 pm - April 30, 2008

  15. This obsession with Hagee has had me confused since it first came up. Frankly, I had never known anything of Hagee beyond his mega-Evangelist status. When the left started attacking him, I just wrote it off as typical left religion bashing. The only religious person the left has ever lauded is Desmond Tutu. Otherwise, the left pretty much piles on every religious leader with a mild pass for the Pope and the late Billy Graham.

    What person of religion could McCain consult without getting charged with all manner of religious provincialism by the left?

    Comment by heliotrope — April 30, 2008 @ 11:08 pm - April 30, 2008

  16. Helio: I’m convinced that the people attacking Hagee don’t have the foggiest idea of what he actually said… I state this because from one of teh blogosphere to the other, whenever I ask the Leftists for the details.. i NEVER get an answer.

    I remember Dave from #13 appealing for understanding for Obama/Wright’s church a few weeks ago.

    But when it comes to Hagee Dave slings the mud too.

    Comment by Vince P — April 30, 2008 @ 11:17 pm - April 30, 2008

  17. “[GP Ed. Note — Um… when did I say this? ”

    The last line of the original article.

    “whenever I ask the Leftists for the details.. ”

    Vince, why would you ask people who you don’t even believe and you think get everything wrong, to give you details?!?!? If you want an answer look it up – is there some disease on here that makes certain people feel that acting totally childish and stupid is actually a way of thinking and/or communicating? You have fingers, you have a computer, obviously you can type – get your answers from the source. Or do you need someone to think for you? I’m not slinging mud at Hagee and if you actually read what I wrote you know that. There is simply no excuse for your ridiculous attitude.

    Helio, if you also would bother to read what the man said you would see that concern is an appropriate response to Hagee’s words. You people are as hypcrital and often more so than the left wing folks you so easily condemn.

    I finally realize, I’ve stumbled across a bunch of 4th grade boys parroting their parents without a clue of what the adults are talking about. Too bad it took me so long to see the truth. Time wasted. I’ll check back in a couple of years maybe some of you will have grown up. Remember the old public service announcements – Reading is Fundamental. No, probably not, you’re more of a Blue’s Clues crowd. Well whatever it takes, do try to learn how to read more than the back of a cereal box, it will widen your world in amazing ways. There’s a wide world that exists beyond youtube, find it.

    Comment by Dave — May 1, 2008 @ 12:00 am - May 1, 2008

  18. The clips from various sermons over many years that were carefully edited and put together as Wright’s greatest hits was slimy politics at it’s worst.

    The amusing part was when he repeated all of those ideas and re-endorsed them during his diatribes on Sunday and Monday.

    Not even Obama is trying that “out of context” excuse any more — but it’s too late, given that Wright has outed Obama as one of his supporters who’s just lying to the public to get elected.

    Furthermore, isn’t it amazing that the Democrat Party and liberal minions who are whining about Hagee’s “Catholic bashing” are the same ones who were supporting anti-Catholic bigots Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen last year?

    So let’s see; Dave’s going after Hagee for Catholic-bashing while himself endorsing Catholic bashers.

    Makes one wonder if Dave’s last paragraph is nothing but projection.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 1, 2008 @ 12:26 am - May 1, 2008

  19. The amusing part was when [Wright] repeated all of those ideas and re-endorsed them during his diatribes on Sunday and Monday.

    Indeed. The leftie refrain, “Wright was quoted out of context”, has been proven a total falsehood.

    But even before Wright appeared and reiterated those points himself, it was already proven as a total falsehood. All you had to do was view Wright’s full sermons. Wright wasn’t quoted out of context… he was quoted very much *IN* context. Hugh Hewitt provided a nice roundup here: http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/34fedc25-b630-48e8-b2f4-326c5d9d5314

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 1, 2008 @ 9:34 am - May 1, 2008

  20. The clips from various sermons over many years that were carefully edited and put together as Wright’s greatest hits was slimy politics at it’s worst.

    Yet another “1984 moment” from Dave. Telling the citizenry the facts is “slimy politics”. Just like having them vote is “denying the people’s voice”. Remember, folks: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

    Vince if you are really interested in what Hagee said it only takes a few seconds to google and you will find many direct quotes. I’m not going to do that now since I feel no need to prove reality.

    Translation: “I (Dave) don’t have to provide facts.”

    he went so far as to call the Roman church “the Great Whore” from Revelations

    A claim with a long history in sectarian, religious debate. I don’t condone it, but as thoughtcrimes (haha) go, it’s relatively a snoozer.

    it’s still problematic for a presidential candidate to accept the endorsement of one with those beliefs.

    Not if he disavows those beliefs – AS MCCAIN HAS INDEED DONE. SEE #6. Oh, wait – I should remember – I’m talking to Dave here, so facts don’t matter and must never be allowed to get in the way. LOL

    if Obama is to be judged by what Wright said… why is it wrong to apply the same standards to McCain?

    You seem to have missed #1 and #6, Dave. I already referred you to #6. Let me provide an extended quotation of #1, since you apparently missed it the first time:

    Did Hagee marry McCain and his wife? Did Hagee baptize McCain’s kids? Did Hagee pray with McCain, downstairs and out of sight, 5 minutes before McCain announced his candidacy? Did Hagee write the books and give the sermons that inspired McCain to convert to Christianity? Has the McCain family personally given Hagee’s church multiiple tens of thousands of dollars over the years? Hint: no, no, no, no and no.

    As for this comment of yours, Dave:

    I acknowledge that the question for many is how much of Wright’s ideas has Obama abosorbed.

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong again! WE ALREADY KNOW HOW MUCH OF WRIGHT’S IDEAS OBAMA HAS ABSORBED, BECAUSE OBAMA HAS TOLD US IN HIS BOOKS, “DREAMS OF MY FATHER” AND “THE AUDACITY OF HOPE”. (Hint: He absorbed alot) The real question is instead this, as I said at #1:

    Barack Obama has for 20 years been involved intimately with the Black equivalent of hate-mongering, segregationist church. And then only yesterday realized (or pretended to realize) it was so bad. While still expecting us to trust in Barack’s awesome judgment, goodness, sincerity, etc.

    In other words: credibility. The question at this point is Barack’s credibility and sincerity (or lack thereof).

    As for this:

    [GP Ed. Note — Um… when did I say this? “Bruce says there’s a huge difference between the endorsers and the candidate’s handling of their connection the the campaign.”]
    The last line of the original article.

    Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong again! LOL I’ll give you a clue, Dave: “Bruce” and “Dan”, or “GP” and “GPW” if you prefer, are not the same person. They are not sockpuppets.

    And then Dave closes, in a later comment, with the very sneers and personal attacks that he came here with from the beginning, claiming that his own biases and prejudices (that he can’t see past) have been proved. From past encounters, I expected no better. 🙂

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 1, 2008 @ 9:52 am - May 1, 2008

  21. NDT, one point:

    So let’s see; Dave’s going after Hagee for Catholic-bashing while himself endorsing Catholic bashers.

    You know I love you. But that is going a little far. It would require Dave to have said something like “I endorse Marcotte and McEwen”, or “M & M rock!” Not to defend Dave, but in our encounters I have not seen that from him.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 1, 2008 @ 10:31 am - May 1, 2008

  22. Point taken, ILC; however, I would point out that we have a “Dave” and a “David” commenting. Is that difference to what you’re referring?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 1, 2008 @ 1:06 pm - May 1, 2008

  23. Sorry, you lost me. Although I know about Dave, David and David. (UCC David vs. semi-conservative, pro-Ron Paul David.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 1, 2008 @ 1:21 pm - May 1, 2008

  24. “Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong again! LOL I’ll give you a clue, Dave: “Bruce” and “Dan”, or “GP” and “GPW” if you prefer, are not the same person. They are not sockpuppets.”

    Mea culpa, I had not looked close enough at who wrote the original article.

    I fully support the right of Hagee or anyone else to say what they want about the Roman church or any other subject. I did not “go after” Hagee, only a warped reading of what I said can be used to justify that statement. But, that’s what I’ve seen here anyway, complete asinine interpretation to make it say what you want it to.

    “Translation: “I (Dave) don’t have to provide facts.”

    No, what it means is that I expect when one is going to whine and condemn and scoff that they would take the time to actually research their target. To then turn around and screech like a five year old “they won’t help me” is ridiculous behaviour. If one doesn’t have the intellect or desire to learn for oneself then there is really not much use to attempt to participate in civilized discussion of the issues. You have found a place here where you can giggle and impress each other with how you can twist what some evil liberal has said, I’m happy for you. To quote Arte Johnson “very interesting…but stupid”

    Comment by Dave — May 1, 2008 @ 4:59 pm - May 1, 2008

  25. You’re the ones who insisted on Wright being an issue. You don’t think that there would be more demons flying out once you opened Pandora’s Box? Or are conservatives just incapable of thinking more than one step ahead.

    Everyone has seen the Wright videos by now (including the nauseating Fox version if sped up motion). How do you think the Hagee videos are going to go over in heavily Catholic states?

    Stop being such a crybaby. You want to play guilt by association, then I’m up for that game. There are plenty of Republicans with ties to pretty awful people including White Supremacists and ministers who have said horrible things about Catholics and gays. Bring it on, bitches.

    Comment by Houndentenor — May 2, 2008 @ 12:09 pm - May 2, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.