Rich: The All-White Elephant in the Room

[RamboLiberal]

BORED by those endless replays of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright? If so, go directly to YouTube, search for “John Hagee Roman Church Hitler,” and be recharged by a fresh jolt of clerical jive.

-----

Mr. McCain says he does not endorse any of Mr. Hagee’s calumnies, any more than Barack Obama endorses Mr. Wright’s. But those who try to give Mr. McCain a pass for his embrace of a problematic preacher have a thin case. It boils down to this: Mr. McCain was not a parishioner for 20 years at Mr. Hagee’s church.

That defense implies, incorrectly, that Mr. McCain was a passive recipient of this bigot’s endorsement. In fact, by his own account, Mr. McCain sought out Mr. Hagee, who is perhaps best known for trying to drum up a pre-emptive “holy war” with Iran. (This preacher’s rantings may tell us more about Mr. McCain’s policy views than Mr. Wright’s tell us about Mr. Obama’s.) Even after Mr. Hagee’s Catholic bashing bubbled up in the mainstream media, Mr. McCain still did not reject and denounce him, as Mr. Obama did an unsolicited endorser, Louis Farrakhan, at the urging of Tim Russert and Hillary Clinton. Mr. McCain instead told George Stephanopoulos two Sundays ago that while he condemns any “anti-anything” remarks by Mr. Hagee, he is still “glad to have his endorsement.”

I wonder if Mr. McCain would have given the same answer had Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted him with the graphic video of the pastor in full “Great Whore” glory. But Mr. McCain didn’t have to fear so rude a transgression. Mr. Hagee’s videos have never had the same circulation on television as Mr. Wright’s. A sonorous white preacher spouting venom just doesn’t have the telegenic zing of a theatrical black man.

Perhaps that’s why virtually no one has rebroadcast the highly relevant prototype for Mr. Wright’s fiery claim that 9/11 was America’s chickens “coming home to roost.” That would be the Sept. 13, 2001, televised exchange between Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, who blamed the attacks on America’s abortionists, feminists, gays and A.C.L.U. lawyers. (Mr. Wright blamed the attacks on America’s foreign policy.) Had that video re-emerged in the frenzied cable-news rotation, Mr. McCain might have been asked to explain why he no longer calls these preachers “agents of intolerance” and chose to cozy up to Mr. Falwell by speaking at his Liberty University in 2006.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/opinion/04rich.html?ref=opinion

[babylonsister]

1. The NYT is finally giving equal time to white preachers? How big of them. nt

[depakid]

7. Not the Times, Frank Rich

It'll be up to the nominee's campaign and the 527's to try to "spread the word" about Hagee, et al.

[theoldman]

2. I know some Republicans that think Hagee is a fine

Christian. These people also think Bush is a great president. This is how I define stupidity.

[glowing]

3. Fair and Balanced.. my ass.

[Doctor_J]

4. Personally I don't think it's racial

it's partisan. If a white left-leaning (or Democratic) cleric had made the controversial statements, and a black winger, the white Dem would be getting pounded while the black Repuke would be left alone.

Just MHO

[Igel]

5. Rich got it backwards.

There's a small problem with seeking the endorsement of loons (let's exclude Wright from this for a minute). Obama and McCain both have done that, going after such endorsements. On the other hand, politics being what it is, seeking the endorsement of loons is just politics--you don't care about the endorsers, you care about the votes they're likely to generate and you say whatever platitudes and mild tokens of hypocrisy and truth-skirting necessary to get the votes. Still, I think it's a small problem as far as they're concerned: If you speak truth to power, when "power" is the voters and those that voters respect, you typically don't get very far in this kind of system (that this is a large problem is also pretty obvious, but it's a systemic problem that individual politicians shouldn't be blamed for).

McCain and Hagee have, as far as I can tell, gotten just a smidgeon more attention than Obama and the preacher he cozied up to when it was convenient--at least I think it was a preacher. Perhaps it's because it was during the "I (heart) Obama" phase of the media coverage, perhaps because Hagee's more vile than the guy Obama chased, perhaps it's for some other reason. I don't particularly care.

* was nailed for speaking at Bob Jones U. McCain was nailed here for saying that Hagee was "a spiritual advisor"--not necessarily his own, by any stretch of the imagination. The ambiguity involved, whether McCain's describing Hagee using his own speech or what others call Hagee, is something we could debate, but won't debate.

Wright's a different kettle of fish. It's not Wright's endorsement of Obama that's at issue. It's Obama's endorsement of Wright. It's what Rich dances around so well that you can claim his silence of the matter defines the topic.

What Obama called Wright isn't debatable. That Obama endorsed him isn't debatable. That Obama said he could no more "disown" him than he could disown the black community isn't debatable.

[Uncle Joe]

6. More crooked straight talk from Mccain combined with more corporate media abandonment

of their sacred duty to inform the American People instead of manipulating them.

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, RamboLiberal.