Except in landslide elections, all viable U.S. presidential candidates need support and votes of people on the fringes whose embarrassing views the candidates not share. Obama, if he is going to win, is going to need the votes of the Howard Zinn/Naomi Klein/truthout.org fans (whose views I *hope* Obama does not share, Bill Ayers notwithstanding). And McCain is going to need the support of conservative evangelicals who believe in the devil and creationism, and favor school prayer. Both groups creep me out, and I wouldn't be happy being in a coalition with either one -- but what are you going to do?
McCain is right to emphasize the differences with Jeremiah Wright, BTW. Hagee was not his pastor, he did not attend Hagee's church. McCain did not consider him a mentor or spiritual advisor of any kind, did not title his books after Hagee's sermons, did not intend for Hagee to introduce him at his announcement, etc.
It's a given that both Obama and McCain are going to have supporters who I consider crazy -- that's unavoidable. But in my mind, Obama's long-term, close relationship with Wright is quite different than merely having fringe supporters.
I love the fact that this new youtube.com era of politics is making it much more difficult to seek the support of lunatics with a following. Good! Guys like Hagee a poison for the body politic. His lunatic theories gain credibility when mainstream politicians stand next to him with compliments.
I love the fact that this new youtube.com era of politics is making it much more difficult to seek the support of lunatics with a following.
Moreso even than that - I think it's making it harder to be a lunatic, PERIOD. The more exposure stupid, offensive, and hateful views get, the more social ridicule their adherents are exposed to and the less currency they have.
American religion will be a lot healthier without the Hagees of the world holding prominent positions within it.
Uh, Slocum? Rex? McCain actively sought Hagee's endorsement. End of story. Trying to make Obama's 'problem' worse just makes you look like complete partisan wingnuts.
I love the fact that this new youtube.com era of politics is making it much more difficult to seek the support of lunatics with a following.
Moreso even than that - I think it's making it harder to be a lunatic, PERIOD. The more exposure stupid, offensive, and hateful views get, the more social ridicule their adherents are exposed to and the less currency they have.
Maybe. But generally, improved communications have been helpful to those on the fringes, at least early in their development. The printing press helped marginal Christians go from the regular flareups of heresy that characterized the Middle Ages to the Reformation. Circulation of cassette and video tapes has famously helped drive radical Islamic groups from Khomeini's to Al Qaeda.
The Internet has allowed any number of minority hobbies and interests go from "I'm the only one I know in my town" to international communities (ranging from things as innocuous as speaking Klingon or Elvish to those as depraved as hate groups and online kiddie-porn rings). YouTube and its like may make it harder to fly under the radar, but it also makes it easier to seek out and reach the like-minded. It's probably too early to tell which effect will dominate.
Btw, just for the record, I think it's disgusting that either of the two men had to be 'repudiated' by the respective candidates. Religion is what religion is, and this gotcha! stuff has gotten waaaaay out of hand.
Slocum hits the nail on the head I think, at least in the fact that the problem with democracy is that you can't get to anywhere near 50% of the electorate without including some unworthy group in your coalition.
Oh, and it took McCain 3 months to "reject and denounce" Hagee, when most of us informed voters knew he was a nutjob the day he endorsed.
McCain actively sought Hagee's endorsement. End of story. Trying to make Obama's 'problem' worse just makes you look like complete partisan wingnuts.
No, trying to pretend that McCain-Hagee and Obama-Wright relationships are similar is what makes one look like a partisan hack. McCain's relationship with Hagee was short-term and purely political. Obama's relationship with Wright was long-term, deeply personal, and clearly influenced his world-view ('The Audacity of Hope').
For myself, I'm a small-l libertarian and really don't know who I'm going to vote for. If my state isn't in play, I'll probably vote for neither major candidate. All things being equal, McCain-Feingold would be enough for me to rule out a vote for McCain, but...well, I'm going to have to hold my nose no matter who I vote for. If I do vote for McCain, it'll be a strategic vote for gridlock more than anything else.
You can say that all you want, Slocum. The fact of the matter is that his endorsement was sought - in spite of the fact that he had some very controversial opinions. So McCain has just as much responsibility as Obama.
The _only_ way you can attempt to paint Obama as worse than McCain is to somehow posit that McCain wasn't aware of Hagee's views. Burden of proof goes to you. Given your 'knowledge' of what automakers intended, and the way you backed it up, I won't be surprised if you don't respond.
...you can't get to anywhere near 50% of the electorate without including some unworthy group
Agreed. For me voting is mostly about choosing the side who's fringe elements scare me less. For quite a while now I've been more frightened of the evangelical right than the anti-globalization left. At some point that might change for me (and McCain has a better shot at doing it than most Republican candidates), but I'll probably still go with the devil I know better.
I voted for the first Bush, but became disillusioned when the religious right put the thumbscrews on him (e.g. banning doctors at government hospitals from even mentioning abortion.)
The _only_ way you can attempt to paint Obama as worse than McCain is to somehow posit that McCain wasn't aware of Hagee's views.
I likewise expect Obama to seek the support of those on the farther left who might otherwise vote for the Green Party -- he obviously doesn't want to have happen to him what happened to Gore with Nader in 2000. He'll be aware of their views and seek their support and votes anyway. What I'll be watching is to what extent, in seeking their support, he takes up their causes.
It's not that I don't count Hagee against McCain -- I do. But nothing like I would if McCain had been a active member of Hagee's church for 20 years, had raised his children in that nutty, toxic environment, had identified Hagee as a spiritual mentor, had invited him to introduce McCain at his campaign launch event, etc. In fact, I have a hard time imagining circumstances where I could vote for somebody with that kind of background (just as I could not imagine voting for Huckabee).
Slocum, I have a hard time believing you would ever vote for a Democratic candidate, period.
You seem to have this notion that if you repeat something enough times it constitutes a valid argument. No. If I become aware that my neighbor down the street has been involved in an armed robbery, I am just as culpable if I don't report the fact. And I am no more or less culpable if I don't contact the police for six months or for three years. That is not my standard, of course(otherwise it would be just as arbitrary as yours); that is what the law says.
Why don't you try giving an argument as to why the length of time matters, rather than repeating that it does too? Other than the obvious one that Obama is a Democrat and McCain is a Republican.
You seem to have this notion that if you repeat something enough times it constitutes a valid argument. No. If I become aware that my neighbor down the street has been involved in an armed robbery, I am just as culpable if I don't report the fact. And I am no more or less culpable if I don't contact the police for six months or for three years.
For that analogy to have any degree of corrolary, your neighbor would need to be involving him or herself in armed robbery somewhat regularly, and you would need to not only be aware of it, but taking your family to have dinner with that person three or four times a month.
On the other hand, the fact that your are seriously attempting to compare repugnant political views to the legal definition of reporting armed robbery is a good sign that the shark has already left Makeup and is entering the set.
Judging by the way they each handled their respective pastorgates, McCain's OODA loop is way, way shorter than Obama's.
That's actually important to me in a president.
As a combat aviator, McCain obviously knows what an OODA loop is. Obama doesn't. And it hurts him.
No, nor should it have.
Except in landslide elections, all viable U.S. presidential candidates need support and votes of people on the fringes whose embarrassing views the candidates not share. Obama, if he is going to win, is going to need the votes of the Howard Zinn/Naomi Klein/truthout.org fans (whose views I *hope* Obama does not share, Bill Ayers notwithstanding). And McCain is going to need the support of conservative evangelicals who believe in the devil and creationism, and favor school prayer. Both groups creep me out, and I wouldn't be happy being in a coalition with either one -- but what are you going to do?
McCain is right to emphasize the differences with Jeremiah Wright, BTW. Hagee was not his pastor, he did not attend Hagee's church. McCain did not consider him a mentor or spiritual advisor of any kind, did not title his books after Hagee's sermons, did not intend for Hagee to introduce him at his announcement, etc.
It's a given that both Obama and McCain are going to have supporters who I consider crazy -- that's unavoidable. But in my mind, Obama's long-term, close relationship with Wright is quite different than merely having fringe supporters.
I love the fact that this new youtube.com era of politics is making it much more difficult to seek the support of lunatics with a following. Good! Guys like Hagee a poison for the body politic. His lunatic theories gain credibility when mainstream politicians stand next to him with compliments.
I love the fact that this new youtube.com era of politics is making it much more difficult to seek the support of lunatics with a following.
Moreso even than that - I think it's making it harder to be a lunatic, PERIOD. The more exposure stupid, offensive, and hateful views get, the more social ridicule their adherents are exposed to and the less currency they have.
American religion will be a lot healthier without the Hagees of the world holding prominent positions within it.
Notice how the media makes it appear that Hagee was McCain's pastor--but he wasn't. Whereas Wright actually *was* Obama's pastor.
Uh, Slocum? Rex? McCain actively sought Hagee's endorsement. End of story. Trying to make Obama's 'problem' worse just makes you look like complete partisan wingnuts.
Maybe. But generally, improved communications have been helpful to those on the fringes, at least early in their development. The printing press helped marginal Christians go from the regular flareups of heresy that characterized the Middle Ages to the Reformation. Circulation of cassette and video tapes has famously helped drive radical Islamic groups from Khomeini's to Al Qaeda.
The Internet has allowed any number of minority hobbies and interests go from "I'm the only one I know in my town" to international communities (ranging from things as innocuous as speaking Klingon or Elvish to those as depraved as hate groups and online kiddie-porn rings). YouTube and its like may make it harder to fly under the radar, but it also makes it easier to seek out and reach the like-minded. It's probably too early to tell which effect will dominate.
"That didn't take long"
It took three months.
Btw, just for the record, I think it's disgusting that either of the two men had to be 'repudiated' by the respective candidates. Religion is what religion is, and this gotcha! stuff has gotten waaaaay out of hand.
Slocum hits the nail on the head I think, at least in the fact that the problem with democracy is that you can't get to anywhere near 50% of the electorate without including some unworthy group in your coalition.
Oh, and it took McCain 3 months to "reject and denounce" Hagee, when most of us informed voters knew he was a nutjob the day he endorsed.
Notice how the media makes it appear that Hagee was McCain's pastor--but he wasn't. Whereas Wright actually *was* Obama's pastor.
Yep, I find this endlessly frustrating, even as a Democrat.
McCain actively sought Hagee's endorsement. End of story. Trying to make Obama's 'problem' worse just makes you look like complete partisan wingnuts.
No, trying to pretend that McCain-Hagee and Obama-Wright relationships are similar is what makes one look like a partisan hack. McCain's relationship with Hagee was short-term and purely political. Obama's relationship with Wright was long-term, deeply personal, and clearly influenced his world-view ('The Audacity of Hope').
For myself, I'm a small-l libertarian and really don't know who I'm going to vote for. If my state isn't in play, I'll probably vote for neither major candidate. All things being equal, McCain-Feingold would be enough for me to rule out a vote for McCain, but...well, I'm going to have to hold my nose no matter who I vote for. If I do vote for McCain, it'll be a strategic vote for gridlock more than anything else.
You can say that all you want, Slocum. The fact of the matter is that his endorsement was sought - in spite of the fact that he had some very controversial opinions. So McCain has just as much responsibility as Obama.
The _only_ way you can attempt to paint Obama as worse than McCain is to somehow posit that McCain wasn't aware of Hagee's views. Burden of proof goes to you. Given your 'knowledge' of what automakers intended, and the way you backed it up, I won't be surprised if you don't respond.
...you can't get to anywhere near 50% of the electorate without including some unworthy group
Agreed. For me voting is mostly about choosing the side who's fringe elements scare me less. For quite a while now I've been more frightened of the evangelical right than the anti-globalization left. At some point that might change for me (and McCain has a better shot at doing it than most Republican candidates), but I'll probably still go with the devil I know better.
I voted for the first Bush, but became disillusioned when the religious right put the thumbscrews on him (e.g. banning doctors at government hospitals from even mentioning abortion.)
The _only_ way you can attempt to paint Obama as worse than McCain is to somehow posit that McCain wasn't aware of Hagee's views.
I likewise expect Obama to seek the support of those on the farther left who might otherwise vote for the Green Party -- he obviously doesn't want to have happen to him what happened to Gore with Nader in 2000. He'll be aware of their views and seek their support and votes anyway. What I'll be watching is to what extent, in seeking their support, he takes up their causes.
It's not that I don't count Hagee against McCain -- I do. But nothing like I would if McCain had been a active member of Hagee's church for 20 years, had raised his children in that nutty, toxic environment, had identified Hagee as a spiritual mentor, had invited him to introduce McCain at his campaign launch event, etc. In fact, I have a hard time imagining circumstances where I could vote for somebody with that kind of background (just as I could not imagine voting for Huckabee).
Slocum, I have a hard time believing you would ever vote for a Democratic candidate, period.
You seem to have this notion that if you repeat something enough times it constitutes a valid argument. No. If I become aware that my neighbor down the street has been involved in an armed robbery, I am just as culpable if I don't report the fact. And I am no more or less culpable if I don't contact the police for six months or for three years. That is not my standard, of course(otherwise it would be just as arbitrary as yours); that is what the law says.
Why don't you try giving an argument as to why the length of time matters, rather than repeating that it does too? Other than the obvious one that Obama is a Democrat and McCain is a Republican.
You seem to have this notion that if you repeat something enough times it constitutes a valid argument. No. If I become aware that my neighbor down the street has been involved in an armed robbery, I am just as culpable if I don't report the fact. And I am no more or less culpable if I don't contact the police for six months or for three years.
For that analogy to have any degree of corrolary, your neighbor would need to be involving him or herself in armed robbery somewhat regularly, and you would need to not only be aware of it, but taking your family to have dinner with that person three or four times a month.
On the other hand, the fact that your are seriously attempting to compare repugnant political views to the legal definition of reporting armed robbery is a good sign that the shark has already left Makeup and is entering the set.