McCain's Reverends Right: His Faustian Bargain with Radical Christianity

"So I can understand, I can understand why people are upset about this. I can understand why Americans when viewing these kind of comments, are angry and upset." -John McCain on the interminable Jeremiah Wright controversy (April 27, 2008)

John McCain, the great empathizer, is running low on empathy. Quick to condemn the remarks of Obama's former pastor on behalf of American umbrage, McCain is reticent about his own knee-deep quagmire of offensive associational guilt. While Obama has bitterly terminated his unpopular alliance, John McCain continues to cling indefatigably to his.

All is quiet on the radical Christian front.

McCain has made a deal with the devil-- actually, three devils. Desperate to unify what is left of his ideological shamble of a Republican Party, McCain has allied with three of its most bigoted and hateful "spiritual" personalities: John Hagee, Rod Parsley, and (before his death) Jerry Falwell.

Though Americans take sincere offense at the vile statements of his powerful radical Christian allies, John McCain refuses to renounce them or disassociate himself from these hateful hucksters of hypocrisy.

Many, includingFrank Rich today, have already noted that the mainstream media has effectively ignored this most unholy of political alliances. As a result, it is quite likely that many Americans have yet to hear any of these incendiary statements. The following is a 10 minute synthesis of the greatest scatological hits of McCain's fundamentalist friends (see YouTube for myriad full-length footage):

It's not hard to see the thematic and stylistic similarities between the rhetoric of McCain's trinity-of-intolerance and Wright's well-publicized harangue: both claim government orchestration of black genocide; both point to the moral culpability of Americans in causing their own tragedy on 9/11; both exemplify the outrageous theatricality characteristic of evangelical pulpit-speak; and both fulminate with conspicuous rage. Wright has been condemned for speaking kindly of the Jew-hating Farakhan; Parsley's reference to the Rothschilds as he traces the genealogy of an international banking conspiracy wreaks of Protocols antisemitism.

But Obama established his relationship with Wright long before any of his inflammatory comments were made (and before Obama was made aware of them), while John McCain embraced Fallwell, Hagee, and Parsley with full knowledge of their bigoted reputations after they had argued their positions publicly. McCain sold his maverick soul in a Faustian bargain with those very "agents of intolerance" he once impugned.

The Wright affair will at most have raised questions for voters about Obama's ability to negotiate a scandal. Since his final renunciation of Wright, there can be no remaining doubts over where Obama's loyalties lie.

John McCain might privately disparage his radical Christian friends, but he has offered no indication to voters that he can untangle himself from their influence. McCain, like Bush before him, is deeply imbricated in the radical religious constituency that buttresses his party. As Arianna Huffington put it: the lunatic fringe of the party has hijacked McCain, like Bush before him.

Republican loyalists will hardly find these observations disturbing, since after all, better the devil you know than the angel you don't.

Comments

[liberalloons]

There is no comparison. McCain didn't actively participate in a radical church for twenty years. Obama did.

[ajax2]

Bush's connection to Hagee is only a few short years, but look at the dead bodies it has left behind.

[robeson]

It took only a few years and meetings with messianic Hagee for Bush to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis then claim God told him to do it.

[toby25]

John McCain did not belong to any of these religious preachers congregations for 20 years like Senator "Hope and Change" did in Chicago. Obama actively participated in this church for 2 decades. There is ZERO comparison.

[ajax2]

toby25, "There is ZERO comparison." That's correct. Wright's God has killed no one. But Hagee/Bush's God has killed hundred's of thousands. Zero to half million dead, no comparison. I agree.

[davedave]

england's colonial imperative sent the religious fanatics to america and the criminals to australia.

we got the worse of the deal.......

d

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Personally, I think all the talk about anyone's preachers is just another variety of misdirection to take people's focus off more serious issues. All of these pharisees stink to high heaven (pun intended). However this endless pseudo-controversy is completely meaningless IMHO.

The Republicans always play up to these demagogues in an election year to get out the loony vote. Why should this year be different or any more sinister? ALL three of the candidates, in both parties, have ties to unsavory characters with highly questionable views. Do these associations really mean anything? I highly doubt it.

[fourex]

Ask the tens of thousands who died in Iraq because God told GW to attack them if this messianic cult is meaningless.

[toby25]

Yes, I'm sure Bush went out and kneeled in the White House garden and God told him to bomb Iraq. What made Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards, John Kerry all vote for the Iraq war....maybe God whispered it to them as well...or was it Satan??

[JohnJames]

Ironically, McCain could prove to be worse than Bush in terms of his relationship with the religious right. Bush was viewed by these dangerous fanatics as one of them or at least as someone coming from their cultural milieu. They trusted him and it allowed Bush to avoid giving them too much and Bush/Rove had had many years experience dealing with them before reaching the White House. Not so with McCain. McCain might find that on issue after issue he must continually kowtow to the religious right in order to keep their allegiance and it's apparent there's no reason to hope that the Straight Talker's much vaunted "integrity" will come to the rescue and restrain him.

[truesoccermom]

Finally, we have a journalist who put the Wright controversy in its proper prospective. If you are an Obama supporter please read this OP-Ed and send it to everyone you know who has issues because of Reverand Wright. I've been waiting for someone to write this for a long time (This is an op-ed by Malloby in today's Washington post -- washingtonpost.com:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/04/AR2008050401600.html?hpid=

[MajorKong]

We have crazy preachers too. The difference is, we don't put them in charge of the party like the Republicans do.

[DallasMike]

Thats right.
You put crazy lawyers in charge of your party

[liberalghost]

Mebbe, but they don't declare dog (oops, dyslexia) demands a crusade of death and torture. Lawyers simply bend the law.

Give me a lawyer over a religious wacko any day.

[gomonkeygo]

None of this matters.

These men are white.

Ergo, they can say and do whatever they want. The media can't make an issue out of it without upsetting what they see as their base. Angry white men blaming Jews or Gays or Muslims for the end of the world - whomever for whatever reason - is nothing compared to one angry black man asking why his country has abandoned its principles.

The best aspect of this ugly primary is that it has revealed the still-beating heart of American racism, the festering blackness that once and evidently still divides this country.

Time for a change.

Obama '08!

[canadianlibrarian]

Perhaps you all need reality check.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/32005.html#

Michael Gaynor of the "Conservative Voice" says

Obama: Not Nearly As Smart As Advertised

Unfortunately for Obama (but fortunately for America), Obama was NOT smart enough to distance himself from Jeremiah A. "God damn America" Wright. Jr., before he ran for president.

Unfortunately for Obama (but fortunately for America), Obama was NOT smart enough to "disown" Rev. Wright in his Race in America speech after some of Rev. Wright's hateful and absurd words had been televised nationally.

Unfortunately for Obama (but fortunately for America), Obama was NOT smart enough to refrain from equating "disowning" Rev. Wright with disowning the black community and his white grandmother.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the bulk of the elected delegates had been chosen BEFORE the choosers appreciated that Obama was a typical political opportunist who had tied himself to Rev. Wright and deliberately remained tied to him for twenty years, prayed privately with Rev. Wright just before announcing his presidential candidacy in 2007 and only disinvited him from appearing with him at the announcement because he had been advised that it might be politically dangerous,

Obama's handling of his Rev. Wright "problem" has been a series of mistakes that show that Obama is not up to the job to which he aspires.

[liberalghost]

Wright was closer to being correct than you. News reports have occurred over the last twenty years how the US military conducted tests of biochem agents on unsuspecting American citizens en masse. Wright is wrong about AIDS, but not about the willingness to turn American citizens into test subjects.

If one looks at the treatment of African-Americans, it is easy to see the origins of Wright's emotions.

You're like the guy who kicks his dog every day; then the one day the dog turns and bits *him*, he whines about a "mean dog."

[DallasMike]

Leave it to the Left to inject racism in this converation.

[wayoutleft]

as i read this i am listening to stephanie miller, air america, on the same points. i'm obviously no mccain apologist. i have to briefly express an honest opinion, however, that the attack on mccain through rev hagee is not getting traction with voters and may be very damaging to democrats if it's pursued. i say this because rev wright attacked the COUNTRY with his comments. but there are no clips of hagee emotionally haranguing against the country. failure to identify disloyalty to the country as the lethal element of wright's harangue is a symptom of the notorious democratic cultural tin ear.
i believe if obama had condemned the rhetoric but distilled wright's point of criticism from his tone and language; he could have made it a foreign policy talking point. but dumping wright wholesale under pressure made a negative impression that mccain's fundie associations can't attain.

[fourex]

"... i say this because rev wright attacked the COUNTRY with his comments. but there are no clips of hagee emotionally haranguing against the country..."

This statement by wayout is false. Perhaps deliberately false, a lie.

Rev. Wright attacked U.S. policy through God's teachings. There are many documents that show Robertson, Falwell, Moon, and Hagee attacking the people.
All of the above are or were influential right wing religious leaders.

[fourex]

One wonders why 'wayout' was so wrong on both Wright and Hagee?
Fox viewer?

Beyond Hagee's demonizing of Catholics and Catholicism, pastor Hagee appears radically anti-American to the extent that he hopes and expects, as evidenced by a 2006 Hagee appearance on WHYY's "Fresh Air" radio show and also in Hagee's 2006 best-seller "Jerusalem Countdown", that God will incinerate most Americans now living - with a nuclear strike on America's coastal regions. In 2006 Presidential hopeful John McCain appeared to hold a similar view on possible outcomes of a US war with Iran.

[wayoutleft]

easy fourex... i support barack obama. i support rev wright's basic critique of american foreign policy. i simply suggest that attacking evangelists may be counterproductive tactically- that it may lose votes. i haven't seen an actual televisable video showing a white evangelist saying "god damn america" and talking about deserving 9/11. by "clips" i literally mean broadcast video like we have of wright. maybe there is video of hagee or falwell saying god damn america and that. i just haven't see it.
I AGREE THAT RIGHT WING EVANGELISTS IMPLICITLY CONDEMN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. with guilt theology and teaching acceptance of being poor. and taking poor peoples' money. i just think with the kind of people barack needs to reach, swearing at america BY NAME is a different shock level than even hagee blaming sin for katerina.

[kjakeo]

I NEED, at this point, to hear why, if we have to listen to ramblings about both Obama's and McCain's religious "issues", where's the beef concerning Annie Oakley's 'links' to The Family? Jeff Sharlet's expose on this "cult" comes out May 20th. Lucky for her, eh. But really, I don't get it.

[joesamson]

Actually the media helped to create some of Hagee's warped theology by trying to equate Pius with Hitler in the American mind for much of the last ten years. And even some Catholics pitched into that frenzy. That said, when someone like Hagee takes the ball and runs with it, and adds the Third Temple, and the Rapture, and Armageddon, and the European Anti-Christ tangling with Yeshua, some liberal folk finally gasp in horror, along with Bill Donahue, and others.

And Amen for the wake up call.

And Kudos to two very, very articulate Jews in the Reform trad:

Rabbi Eric Yoffie and Frank Rich, NY Times.

Always will give credit where it's due when folks finally see lunacy up front and personal. Amen and amen. There is a G-d!

[08timefortruth]

Read this transcript from Bill Moyer.....it might clarify things alittle

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05022008/transcript.html

[JohnJames]

Thanks.

[GPM1]

The comparison between Obama/Wright and McCain/Hagee (or Parsley or the deceased Falwell) is so tortured it's ridiculous.

After McCain and his in-laws volitionally attend Hagee/Pars­ley/Falwel­l's church for 20 years, have one of them officiate at his wedding, baptize his children, refer to him as his spiritual mentor, and is so moved by one of their sermons that he writes a book by the same title (or does any ONE of the above), you'll have a leg to stand on.

Until then, though, people who try to make this comparison just look ridiculous. Trust me, the American aren't that stupid.

While there may be parallels between the actions, words and beliefs of Wright/Hag­ee/Parsley­/Falwell, the focus obviously should be on Obama and McCain actions in connection with them.

McCain may well find himself the inadvertent and unintended beneficiary of the Hagee/Pars­ley/Falwel­l crowd but, no matter how hard you try to make the comparison, McCain will never find himself in the shoes of Obama, who for 20 years went out of his way to volitionally embrace Wright, his theology and his connections with the black community - until, of course, there was no longer any benefit to be derived from doing so.

And that, my dear Mr. Halper, is a Faustian bargain you can take to the bank (and possibly even to the White House)!

[PuritanDescendant]

There is NO comparison. That is the entire point. McCain's relations stand or fall on their own. They have nothing to do with Wright. What McCain's defenders do is make one of the oldest fallacies known to man: what you have done is worse, therefore what I have done is OK. That's what you are arguing.

You think that you can excuse McCain because of Wright. You can't. If Hillary is nominated, people are still going to make sure the American public knows who McCain has aligned himself with politically. And that is the crucial difference. McCain's personal association with these men may differ from Obama/Wright, but his association with them has far greater political implications. McCain is courting the far religious right. He is asking for their votes and support. He is taking the Bush/Rove path. In close elections, the religious right pushed Bush over the top. McCain is in the same situation.

[GPM1]

I interpreted the article to be an attempt by OBAMA'S defenders "to make one of the oldest fallacies known to man," i.e., to suggest that what McCain has done is worse and therefore what Obama has done is OK. Ironically, that's exactly what your post indicates.

I would suggest that you're making a lot of assumptions with respect to McCain's relationships that aren't necessary supported by facts.

I don't agree, for example, that McCain has a mutual relationship with them. They're hanging on him because they've got no one else, but I haven't seen any evidence that he's promised them anything. And since his age pretty much guarantees he'd be a one-term president, how could they enforce any promises anyway?

Since I don't think that McCain needs to be excused, then, your assumption that I think that I can excuse McCain because of Wright is erroneous, particularly since I don't think that Obama needs to be excused for his relationship with Wright either. He's free to choose his friends, his pastor, etc., and Wright is equally free to hold his views, regardless of how offensive they are to me.

But choices have consequences and, for me, the consequence of Obama's choice is the perception that he lacks the moral courage to address discrimination when it's practiced by his friends, that he's comfortable in an environment where it is preached, and that he's an apologist for it.

I'm a Quaker descendant, though - perhaps that's why we differ!

[PuritanDescendant]

In short, Obama's relation is of a religious nature, but McCain's is purely political. If find this much more disturbing. This means that McCain is going to push the agenda of these people who get him elected. He's going to continue to repress stem cell research. He's going to nominate justices who will take away a woman's constitutional right to control her own body. He's going to have middle east policy in line with his "base". He's going to be anti-gay. He's going to tie foreign aid to religious beliefs (refusing aid to countries that counsel/provide abortion). McCain is showing his political stripes with his approval of Hagee, Falwell, Parsley, and others, and it's not going to look good when people appreciate what it means.

NO ONE is arguing that McCain should be taken to task simply for fairness to Obama. Moderates and independents are very concerned that McCain is going to give us more of the Bush religious agenda. McCain from his own mouth APPROVES MEN WHO PREACH HATE, and COURTS THEIR VOTES.

[Mooyizz]

and you my friend are an idiot in need of some mental check up if you actually opined all thebull shit you just did

[wayoutleft]

from the extreme left, i have to recognize that hagee's attacks on homosexuals, catholics, et al. just dont inhabit the same "fighting words" terrain as wright's viral video attacks on america. they just don't have that impact among the broad swathe of mid-american voters. many of these voters agree with hagee about gays. how many agree with wright about america? (i'm just trying to be pragmatic here. i agree with wright, although i reject his rhetoric.)

[fourex]

Did it take GW Bush 20 years of Hagee/Robertson teachings before he murdered
hundreds of thousands in the name of God?

[DallasMike]

Did GW declare Jihad?
Did I miss something?

[LouisPWu]

Senator McBombBombIran's preachers want to start genocide. Obama's preacher criticizes the US for its past sins. And the MSM gives McBombBombIran a pass. Oh, and Hillary wants to murder 70 million Iranians. 2/3 of our candidates for President ARE PSYCHOTIC!

[PuritanDescendant]

Parsley calls U.S. Muslims disloyal and includes them when preaching the destruction of Islam. To me it's frightening stuff. The man implies genocide including 7 million Americans. This is the man McCain calls a "great American leader". If I were a Muslim in America, this would frighten me.

[DallasMike]

And you would be the 1st person bit-hing if the United States was hit by a nuke fro Iran.

I would rather see 70 million dead Irainians than 70 million Americans
beacause we let them get a nuke.

[Sciguy]

Cue the organ!

Listen to the organ music during the above YouTube video. At about 7'48", Parlsey says something and tears a page from the bible - and the organ thrums. He says something else and tears out another page - and the organ highlights the move. And so on and so on.

Who says these preachers don't pander to audiences in those huge can't-see-­the-guy-fr­om-here-an­yway auditoriums? They use theatrical sound effects that are straight from old radio plays like Inner Sanctum and Creaking Door - for the same reasons and for the same effects. The vocal intonations of any preacher from MLK to Parsley are to lull and seduce (eek!!) the audience, to make promote the "feel" of the event, to bring applause, and to fill the collection plate.

I'm not trying to demean folks like MLK - they were often inspiring. But - any time anyone uses a pastoral oratory style, especially if they accompany it with organ hints of doom, fer cryin' out loud, the listener is buying the mood. They buy the message later - after they've been completely snowed under.

Don't believe it? Turn on your TV and watch a few commercials. Many have upbeat music preceding the message. Some oldies but goodies: It's the real thing, I'd like to buy the world a Coke, Things go better with Coke. Americans have succumbed to marketing in everything else, why not market gods and politics with pastors and threshold music?

[wmfor]

It's Hollywood. I must say, when I watch the old movies on Turner, I am delighted at the lack of a constant musical score telling the audience what emotion to feel at any given moment. They relied on writing, acting, and directing. Do you know that Hitchcock's "The Birds" has NO musical score? But turn on any recent movie, and the music often drowns out the dialogue, even during intimate scenes. These pastors have learned the technique.

[lewes17266]

It is stagecraft. They are ACTING. These preachers are ACTORS. Pat Robertson and his son and the other healers on that show are ACTING. It is sad to know that so many faithfuls watch them and believe their lies. I have heard Pat Robertson say to his viewers "touch your tv screen for a miracle." His son's affectations are hard to watch. They need blue and pink wigs and black mascara.