Saturday, March 01, 2008

Religious extremist John Hagee endorses McCain

Another H/T to Spirula to pointing to this story at Crooks and Liars

LINK: Pastor John Hagee endorses McCain: Bill Donohue Freaks out

The Catholic League demanded that McCain repudiate Hagee and his endorsement, just as Barack Obama did earlier this week with Louis Farrakhan (despite the fact that Obama, unlike McCain with Hagee, never sought out or accepted Farrakhan’s endorsement) In the interview, Donohue made some extraordinary statements. He compared Hagee both to Louis Farrakhan and Bob Jones, but noted: “Hagee is far more powerful than Farrakhan is today. . . . Hagee is a major player. There’s no end to his money. He has an empire down there.”

The sound in this video isn’t the best, but is a good short summary of just how extreme Hagee is in his religious nuttery, and McCain is happily accepting his endorsement with open arms.

If it’s between McJesus and Obamessiah, I may have to resort to writing in my vote for someone else in protest. If even 15% of us voted third party, that would be a huge statement that many of us are not happy, and do not like the way the country is going and we want real change and not just some pretty words and empty promises.

It’s pathetic that with all the intelligent and capable politicians that we end up with these two. And I am not the only one who feels this way. If we keep up with this trend of wooing the religious right and electing people who can only do things with the help of their imaginary friend who talks to them, out country will indeed one day become The United Church of America.


evolveintobirds said...

I sympathize with your frustration. I'm a Libertarian but I know that a strong third party vote isn't going to solve the problem of having to choose between the lesser of two evils. The third party vote would be so spread out that it would just leave the kooks on either side of the two party system deciding the results. I have Anarchist leanings and it's always a struggle for me between refusing to participate in a system I detest or voting my conscience or the least of two evils.

I used to be a McCain supporter...his right-wing ass kissing is pretty uncharacteristic of him (at least in yesteryear). Disappointing.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Well, I'm staying in the McJesus camp, provided he picks a qualified vice president.

The Obamessiah is running on pure feeling-- he along with Comrade Reid and Comrade Pelosi will dismantle our military, have the State take over several large sectors of our private economy, and magically "hope" everything will work out through a "faith in a better tomorrow."

There's a billboard off the Eisenhower expressway by Charles Schwab that says "No hard feelings, but I only invest in hard facts." That's generally the way I think about security and economic issues. McJesus right now appears much more realistic about what America can accomplish and what it cannot.

Stardust said...

I was surprised so see what they had to say about Obama at the Black Agenda Report - the journal of African American political thought and action site:

Holding Barack Obama Accountable

The presidential campaign of Barack Obama has become a media parade on its way to a coronation. Journalists and leading Democrats have done shockingly little to pin Obama down, to hold him specifically responsible for anything beyond his slogans of “yes we can” and “change we can believe in”. Prominent Black Democrats, many ministers and the traditional Black leadership class are doing less than anybody to hold Obama accountable, peddling instead a supposed racial obligation among African Americans to support this second coming of Joshua and his campaign as “the movement” itself. What would holding Barack Obama accountable on war and peace, on social security, health care and other issues look like, and is it possible to hold a political “rock star” accountable at all?

jhbowden...I know you will say I am a pessimist, but we are in for another bleak four years with either one of these asshats.

Hope McCain doesn't pick the Huckster for his running mate because the Republicans might just win again once they start pulling out shit on Obama that they are just waiting eagerly to bring up. Once the "starstruckness" wears off, people are going to be really disappointed. Unless they are like "true believers" and will never allow themselves to see the truth about their Obama delusion.

Tommy said...

Yeah, sure Jason, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are going to dismantle the military if Obama or Clinton wins. Whatever you're smoking, care to share some of it with me?

The military industrial complex is not going away regardless of which party occupies the White House. And politicians from both parties have military contractors in their districts and they crave bringing home the bacon so that there constituents have jobs. Everybody feeds from the trough Jason.

That being said, we spend way too much on our military. When you consider the terrorist threat, it is assymetrical in nature. Spending more and more on the military is like bulking up on steroids to ward off pneumonia.

Personally, I am leaning towards support Obama. I am not captivated by him and I don't see him as a savior. However, given the damage George Bush has done to our reputation abroad, I believe someone like Obama is precisely the face we need to be projecting to the world in the coming years. At any rate, the Republican Party is too in thrall to the Religious Right, and they need to be kept away from the levers of power.

Jason H. Bowden said...


I don't observe any disagreement. You just admitted your side wants to cut the military. You just admitted being respected by Muslim theocrats, Eurotrash, and Chi-coms matters more to your kind than your own personal safety. You only worry if Comrade Obama, Comrade Pelosi, and Comrade Reid have the courage of their suicidal Leninist convictions, or if they will wuss out and commit the multicultural Sin of choosing sides, that is, our own.

When I hear people like Bill Richardson talk about scrapping the F-22 and the Seawolf submarine, I just simply cringe. We are clearly not the same country that produced MacArthur and Patton. The baby-boomers teach that suicide as a military power is the greatest exercise of moral power. As John, not Vladimir preached, "all you need is love."

Loving our Neighbor has never stopped a jihadist or a dictator from making war. Many SecProgs have a habit of criticizing Christianity while embracing its most naive interpretation. Recognizing that all human beings have value, including our enemies, is not an imperative to accommodate the ambitions of our enemies.

BTW, the armies of Grant and Eisenhower liberated more human beings than bullshit organizations like Amnesty International ever will. Standing for Liberty and Democracy *is* moral authority, whether Raul Castro, Hugo Chavez, or the rest of Obama's socialist friends like us or not.

Stardust said...

Holy crap...that was a wild rant! I had to re-read through the comments and haven't seen anyone say the extreme things you threw out there.

We have had Democratic presidents in the past and none of those drastic things you describe have ever happened.

Typical fear-mongering rhetoric from the republicans.

If McCain takes the helm, what is he going to do to get us out of this mess? There will be status quo. McJeebus will not save us.

Tommy said...

It really saddens me to see an obviously bright young man being reduced to spouting knee-jerk hyperbole rather than engaging in thoughtful discussion. I have noticed Jason that you have a regrettable habit of taking peoples remarks and then making fanciful extrapolations that have no basis in reality.

As an atheist, there are fewer things in the world I despise more than Islamic fundamentalism. The sight of a woman wearing a hijab is repugnant to me. Not being able to freely express one's opinion without fear of being murdered is a vile offense.

The question is, how best to fight such a movement? Do you use a wrecking ball or a surgical scalpel? I for one favor a surgical scalpel. Eliminate the worst elements while recognizing that one lacks the power to control how the Muslim world is going to turn out. The problem with the neocon side is their hubris. They fail to recognize that there are limits to what we can achieve militarily. And I can tell you this Jason, Russia, China, and Venezuela are positively giddy that we are bleeding ourselves in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

Don't ya just love it when the repugs use the old "the dems are soft on defense" thing? It gets very old after awhile, but they still harp on it. Of course its not true, but they use that line along with the old "the dems are going to take the guns away from us" routine.

Hell, the right-wing media last election had the gall to say that the dems were going to take away religious freedom. Its all a bunch of lies that, sadly, some of their constitutents fall for.

Jason H. Bowden said...

Tommy, greg--

My interpretation of Tommy's comments is entirely fair.

1) Like Obama, Tommy stated we spend too much on security. That *logically* implies that you want to either reduce our manpower, or want to axe the expensive weapons systems we need to retain our technological superiority. I would like to know what *specific* cuts progressives would like to make, but progressives don't have anything precise in mind, just a vague feeling that America is somehow a big bully.

This claim is especially astonishing given we only spend about 4% of our GDP on the military while fighting two wars, compared to 6% under Reagan, 10% during Vietnam, 14% during Korea, and over 40% during WWII.

2) Tommy says he wants America to be respected again, in the sense of having a better reputation. Well, we *already* have the respect of Stephen Harper, Ehud Olmert, Nicolas Sarkozy, Gordon Brown, Felipe Calderon, and Angela Merkel. I can only infer from this that the left wants to suck up to people like Ahmadinejad and Castro as promised by Barack Hussein Obama, and restore our reputation with dictators by promising we won't overthrow dictatorships in the future.

Yeah, the Democrats are totally soft on defense.

I know you guys don't like evil people, but there is a difference between not liking someone and not supporting someone. For example, we can dislike someone and support them, like Saddam in the 80s. We can also not support someone and still like them, such as the way the anti-war loons threw the UK to the fascist wolves in the 40s.

Stardust said...

But Jason, like I said in an above post, Iraq is welcoming Ahmadinejad with open arms in "brotherly love". Did you miss the news today? And all this happening with the Bush administration in "control" of things. Yeah...ok. It's all the dems fault somehow.

And what is McJeebus going to do to save us again? Have tea parties with our enemies?

tina FCD said...

Hmm..very interesting dialog going on here. I'm learning a lot.