McCain Rejects Hagee's Anti-Catholicism, But Dismisses Controversy As An "Attack"
John McCain is now starting to inch away from the support of televangelist John Hagee -- known for his eager anticipation of Armageddon, plus his inflammatory comments against the Catholic Church and other groups -- now that the press has noticed the problem here.
"We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics," McCain told the Associated Press. "I sent two of my children to Catholic school. I categorically reject and repudiate any statement that was made that was anti-Catholic, both in intent and nature."
McCain said he was responding to yesterday's criticism from Nancy Pelosi, describing Pelosi's censure of Hagee's views and McCain's association with Hagee as an "attack."
However, it still sounds like McCain accepts Hagee's endorsement but rejects his views only insofar as they might be anti-Catholic.
Double standard: However, Obama needs to reject and denounce Farrakhan's support AS A WHOLE because of Farrakhan's alleged anti-Judaistic views (as opposed to anti-Semitic; two different meanings, people).
PARSEPARSEPARSEPARSE
Disgusting, really. Or is it because Farrakhan is a scary black man? I think that's probably a little closer to the truth, but Americans hate to think of themselves as racist, no doubt. Even though they are/we are.
March 7, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic."
If? If? You mean there's a question about whether they are or not? I think it's pretty clear they are. You wonder whether McCain has even bothered to look at those comments.
This is one of those non-apology apologies. Forget about the difference between "reject" and "denounce." This doesn't come close to either.
March 7, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would that be a Ken Starr-like attack...?
C'mon, I know you are Hillary are trading words like a ventriloquist and their dummy, why not accuse them of being Ken Starr?
March 7, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Pelosi said was hardly an attack. I think we've succeeded in raising the issue to the point that Tim Russert will be forced to ask him if he rejects and denounces at this point.
Here's the Pelosi post:
As Nico Pitney reports, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), a Catholic, denounced televangelist John Hagee during a blogger conference call today, saying that Hagee's harangues against the Catholic Church (among other things) are "outside the circle of civilized debate in our democracy."
When a blogger on the call asked about Hagee, Pelosi rejected him out of hand and seemed convinced that "it won't be long" before McCain rejected Hagee too.
It had to be pointed out to her that McCain, in fact, had sought out Hagee's endorsement. She seemed genuinely surprised by that, said that she "certainly" thinks that McCain should reject it, and then added "I can't imagine that he wouldn't reject it."
March 7, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I like Hagee but not anything that comes out of his mouth."
March 7, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's because bigotry is ok. As long as you don't say it out loud.
March 7, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. The longer that McCain goes before dropping this guy like a hot rock, the more damage that will be done. Indeed, this may signal the first cracks in the Republican coalition. Part of Reagan's big strategy was to bring working class Catholics out of the democratic party (partly based on the abortion issue, partly based on the racism that is only too common among many of my fellow Catholics) and into the Republican tent. The problem, of course, is that we Catholics have never really been comfortable with the WASPs who run the GOP. It does not take much to push us right back out and back into the arms of the Democratic party. I would be delighted for my fellow Catholics who have fallen for Reagan's siren song to be forced to look at their new bedfellows and ask whether they really feel comfortable in that bed.
March 7, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about "the veneration of Mary is counter to what the Bible teaches?" (from Conservapedia > Mary > Protestant View of Mary)
I would think that would be offensive to Catholics. Would McCain repudiate such a statement? Oh, I wish someone would ask him.
March 7, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm...
In the youtube video that was up yesterday on this guy Hagee clearly says that he is condemning the "false cult system that originated with Genesis 10." It seems to me he is calling Judaism a false cult too. He is portrayed as a support of Israel, but he really wants it to be created again so it and all its people can destroyed.
I haven't heard a lot of Jews complaining about that statement. He repeats the same ideas in other sicko videos that are floating about on youtube.
March 7, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
could you post the youtube link? thanks.
March 9, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well of course McCain accepts Hagee's endorsement. He sought it out, fer Cry-yi-yi. What's more, he desperately needs it, because the batshit crazy Immenetizing-The-Eschaton crowd actually represents a significant Republican voting bloc that he can ill afford to jettison. I think he'd sooner have his picture taken in a bathroom with Larry Craig on one side and Jimmy Carter on the other than say anything that would jeopardize that.
And his actual statement is artistry itself. It's not that the batshit crazies don't know that the rest of us think that they are, well, batshit crazy - they know, but they just don't care, because they'll be laughing cheerfully watching us infidels roasting on a spit while ol' Beelzebub marinates us with his urine and sticks a pitchfork up our patoots.
In the meantime, they are nothing if not pragmatic - after all, they'll even tolerate the Jews (rhymes with "Ewwwwwww") until Jesus gets his act together for the Big Finale.
So I can't imagine that McCain's statement would be offensive to them at all - what they hear is the classic sports weenie apology of "If anyone is so lame as to be offended, well, golly, I'm sorry about that". Meanwhile, they'll pretend that McCain is on their side, as long as he continues to pledge that he'll be willing to kick-start the apocalypse.
I mean, it's not like they are gonna vote for Obama (a colored boy AND a Muslim) or Hillary (a member of the subservient sex AND a lesbian)...
March 7, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
But not the stuff he said about hurricane Katrina and how gays were responsible for the destruction of New Orleans. Or the wacky-scary end-times hoo-hah.
Just the anti Catholic rants.
McCain has found his albatross if the Dems can figure out how to use it.
March 7, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Bleau: Hilarious, and all true.
jeffgee: Hagee should be McCain's albatross, but the problem lies in that second part of your last sentence - "if the Dems can figure out how to use it." Not holding my breath.
March 7, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hagee should be repudiated not only for his comments about Catholics, but also for his comments about Jews (he's every bit the anti-semite Farrakhan is), gays, and hurricaine Katrina. I'd be willing to bet that the guy also hates blacks.
How can anybody who pretends to be a rational human being accept the endorsement of this raving, irrational lunatic. I guess that tells you everything you need to know about the power of the rightwing-nut evangelical Christian element of the the repugnican party that McCain is afraid to fully disassociate himself from this loon.
PS--And Kay Bailey Hutchinson should be driven out of Washington on a rail for trying to excuse this guy on the basis that he's done some good things. Yeah right. I'm sure even Farrakhan has done some good things for his community, but if Obama or one of his surrogates dared to point that out, the press, the Repugnicans, and HRC would certainly pillory him for it.
March 7, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama on Farrakhan from Wapo:
I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," Obama said in the statement. "I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree."
March 8, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can someone please put this on a teleprompter in front of a prominent Democrat:
So, Senator, how about you tell us which views of Hagee's you endorse and which you repudiate. You sought out his endorsement and appeared onstage with him, so I presume there's something he stands for that you agree with? Or was are you just a standard-issue corrupt Republican who will pander to anyone for support, whether or not you agree with anything they say?
March 7, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Redshift, I rather like this idea, but I fear that it would just give McCain a platform to whip out his own devotion to the Sweet Baby Jayzus and make a little ecumenical hay.
I figure he would work up something along the lines of "I certainly respect and honor all of the disparate religious traditions in the United States, and would never dream of telling others how to practice theirs. While Pastor Hagee and I have differing views of Scripture, and while I of course deplore any statements that might be construed as endorsing hatred or bigotry, I nonetheless would like to assure all believers that I am a big, big fan of the big J and his daddy, Yahweh. Now everyone, on three: Yyyaaaaayyyy, Jesus!"
That sort of approach didn't seem to do Romney any harm, even though (at the time) he was a member of a sect that felt that holds views that many find rather objectionable...
March 7, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
He needs to repudiate the man and his endorsement, not just his comments.
March 7, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Catholic Priests are increasingly focusing on abortion, I think. If so, Clinton and especially (pro- partial-birth abortion) Obama will have trouble generating enthusiasm with Catholics.
Pro-life, pro-poor, comfortable with good gov't Catholics don't have an easy fit in either party.
Most working class folk aren't so happy with the idea of surrender in Iraq, even if they want it over.
March 7, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
March 8, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the role of McCain's favorite (former) Democrat, Joe Lieberman, in l'affair Hagee? Lieberman spoke to the inner circle of Hagee's Christian Zionist group in Washington last summer and compared him to Moses. Lieberman represents a state that is over 40% Catholic (twice the precentage as in Arizona) but somehow his embrace of the bigot Hagee has attracted little attention outside of liberal blogs; indeed, the story wasn't covered at all in the Hartford Courant or other Connecticut newspapers. Lieberman drew about 55% of the Catholic vote to defeat Ned Lamont in '06 -- does he take their support for granted?
March 7, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand how the Left can expect McCain to denounce McCain for seeking Hagee's support without explaining the expent of Hagee's influence.
Hagee spoke at the 2007 AIPAC Conference and his speech was greeted with wild applause.
Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, McCain and almost every other member of Congress attends the AIPAC Conference.
Hagee has the support of AIPAC, the most powerful Jewish lobby in the country.
When are you going to start knocking AIPAC?
March 8, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has been running around endorsing John McCain. He has said that he is going to have the same foreign and domestic policies as George W. Bush. Yet Hillary has endorsed him, over Senator Obama. That makes Hillary just another traitor to the party. She is just the same as Joe Lieberman, and should be given the same treatment. She should be driven out of the party. She is not a loyal Democrat, any more than Joe Lieberman was.
March 8, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW, I just blogged some additional thoughts on what this means, and how maybe Dems can best exploit the advantage that this should provide.
I mean, you'd think that the fact that the nominee for the Republican candidate for P.O.T.U.S. actively sought the endorsement of a guy who never opens the Book of Revelations without a bottle of lotion and a box of tissues close by would give Dems some sort of advantage, right?
Right?
March 8, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton respects her opponents and recognizes their strengths and weaknesses. This is how to be a uniter, not a divider. Clinton has spoken highly of Obama on occassion on some issues, by your logic this would mean that she endorses him.
Are you eight years old that you are so literal minded?
March 8, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with John Hagee's anti-catholicism, but I agree with his pro-Israel stance. Having said that it is interesting to note that most historical protestant commentaries on the Bible have been just as anti-catholic (if not more so) as John Hagee. I know where he got his ideas. I've listened to John Hagee many times and he has a tendancy to spout words without thinking about the message he is sending.
Rather than listening to people like John Hagee, Christians would be better off reading and responding to the actual words of the Bible itself. Not only would they be more Christian, they would be more politically correct. Not that I believe in political correctness!
March 9, 2008 7:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has thrown "personal attacks" at Obama, tried to demean and dimenish him in non-policy matters and even touted McCain as superior to Obama. In her "anything goes" attempt at the nomination she has crossed the line in a way that harms the Democratic Party and gives fuel to the GOP for November. This is not decent or smart. It only shows that she will do anything to prevail. I am ashamed that she is a member of my Party. She is behaving like a Rove, a Delay, a Boehner, a McConnell, etc. Everyday this continues, she is turning more and more people off to politics.
March 9, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this blog (TPM) dedicated in part to covering up the connection between Obama and Brezhinski? Why does no one ever talk about that? And why is Obama the darling of the corporate media? Surely, if he were really the "candidate for change" the corporations would not love him so much. As for myself, I am not taken in by any of this, and if there are any progressives on this list (as opposed to Democrats, who are simply Republicans with fewer teeth and more tongue), they will be wondering the same things as I am.
Hagee, as someone pointed out, is AIPAC's darling. Everyone kisses up to the same backside of the same demon, and then they all go play their separate little designated roles, like sock puppets being manipulated by an octopus. Hillary is AIPAC's top recipient of $$$ - and also Big Pharma's (surprise?). Obama sought to make it clear to Olmert and the other criminals who love Hillary so much that he would be just as slavish to them as she if only they would grant him their grace a little bit. This is disgusting.
March 12, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink