Bring It On!

By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply

You’re winking a lot…got something in your eye? You should have a doctor look into that.

Personally, I wouldn’t have either Hagee or Wright as my Pastor but McCain is right: Obama didn’t just seek Wright’s support for his campaign, he heard him preach, liked what he heard so much he joined his Church, had him unite Michelle and him in marriage, baptize his children, sat in his Church for 20 years listening to Wright blast whites and America, supported Wright and his Church with actually quite a lot of money over the years and made Wright a personal and official political adviser on his campaign.

McCain has nothing like this relationship with Hagee because he has done nothing like any of that with Hagee.

As for me, I think Wright is by far the more odious of the two but, as I say, I wouldn’t have a personal relationship with either.

Also, he’s right. Not only does he not steer the group that put out the ad, he cannot. It is illegal for him to because of, oddly enough, his own BCFA (McCain-Feingold law). So he is literally powerless to direct what ads they do or do not produce…beyond telling them in no uncertain terms that he, McCain, does not approve of that particular ad or of ads of that sort. I don’t know what you think McCain should or even could do other than what he has done in that regard. That’s literally like Kerry supporters condemning Bush for the Swiftboat thing even after Bush condemned all 527 groups. It was like Kerry supporters wanted Bush to swoop in with federal swat teams and take the Swiftboaters out with extreme prejudice or something. He literally could do nothing more than he had done but, you know, sometimes, I guess, presidents and presidential candidates just should be dictators, operate the full machinery of the government against the free speech rights of Americans, jailing them for expressing their political opinions regardless of whether the actual law and constitution actually permit said candidate to shut down said Americans’ free speech rights.

It’s like liberals WANT a dictator to shut down the speech rights of Americans whose opinions they don’t like.

You’d have loved John Adams’s Seditious Libel act…

Unless, of course, it was YOU that was jailed for your opinion…

And I guarantee it would have been liberals that were imprisoned for the last eight years of BusHitlerian derogation against the Bush administration.

So no. You cannot hold McCain responsible for the ad. I mean, you CAN, it is physically possible for you to do so, but to do so lacks all logic and reason.

It would be like holding Obama responsible for Wright’s damning America. How does that go over?

By Paul Watson on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply

Craig,
I think you’ve misread this. I think Papamoka was asking how John McCain’s reference to Obama’s pastor, not attacking the issues the issues but calling Obama’s character suspect by innuendo, fits in with his avowed intention to run a campaign “above the fray”. Because clearly Papamoka thinks that is definitely in the fray rather than above it.

By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 26, 2008 | Reply

Hey, Paul, long time, no chat. Glad to hear from you.

Okay, it’s possible I’ve misread him. It does seem, to me, like a pretty slight dip into the fray, considering that he was responding to a direct question about Hagee, a question that seems to be suggested by the criticism of Obama over Wright, and considering the deceitful attacks by Obama and the DNC upon McCain, taking selective quotes by McCain on the economy during the Bush years out of their larger contexts to make McCain sound like he’s saying something he’s not. Between those two, I think Obama’s and the DNC’s tactics are far more low-ball tactics than trying to distinguish his (McCain’s) relationship to Hagee from Obama’s relationship to Wright.

But it’s pretty clear that Rev. Wright has become an issue in the campaign, regarding what sort of advisers a president Obama might choose and what consequences that might have for the country, not just by partisan bloggers but by the most mainstream of mainstream media on both sides of the pond (I’ve read BBC articles discussing the Obama/Wright relationship). I think that relationship is one of the issues of the campaign and distinguishing that relationship from the McCain/Hagee relationship ought not be seen as low-ball politics, at least in response to specific questions.

Face it, Paul, if McCain had a 20 year membership in and monetary support of a Church marked by white supremecist preaching, had a close personal relationship with that Church’s KKK-member preacher and then made that preacher an official member of his campaign’s advisory staff, do you really think he could credibly argue that pointing out what that 20 year decision might say about McCain’s judgment and suitability for the Oval Office would not be a genuine issue that Papamoka wouldn’t be trumpeting?

Heck…I think that would be a disqualifying issue revealing McCain’s unfitness for the office and I plan to vote for McCain in November.

By Jersey McJones on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply

Great piece.

It just goes to show that it’s probably a good thing the dems are fighting ’til the end, because once the real race starts, well, let’s just say ‘you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.’ Whether it’s Obama or Clinton, whether McCain plays good cop or not, the GOP and Co are going to smear the dem nominee like we’ve never seen before. All the while McCain will be above it all and oblivious as we’ll be told. The Dems should fight themselves out all the way to the convention, make a big show of it, and then get to the campaign. Screw the GOP. Let ‘em wait, the little rat devils.

JMJ

By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply

By the way, it was “is”, that Bill Clinton felt the need to define, not “it”. “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply

Apparently, in his same grand jury testimony, Bill also felt the need to define “alone”, too, as in:

“It depends on how you define alone…”

“There were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were.”

By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply

So, then, apparently, being a liar (even if I were to agree with Michael’s charge) is no bar to being an effective president who was popular enough to be elected twice.

By the way, the LA Times editors seem mildly impressed that, unlike Clinton and Obama, McCain is not pandering on the stump, but telling people hard truths that they don’t want to hear. It may not get him elected but at least people will have heard the truth.

This may be my new favorite quote about John McCain, from the LAT editors no less:

But instead of promising truckloads of aid if he’s elected, McCain talked up his vision of a government that helps more by doing less.

It’s not exactly, “Government is the problem, not the solution” but it’s pretty close.

My hero.

By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply

Oops. That would be Matthew’s charge, not Michael’s charge. Sorry, Matthew.

By Jersey McJones on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply

Craig, while I know moral equivilency is a standard of the Right, I’ll take someone who lies about something insignifcant over the lying GOP rat bastard murderers anyday.

JMJ

By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 27, 2008 | Reply

Of course you will. I guess a Democrat lying under oath on a deposition is, so run of the mill it’s just a dog bites man story, of no more significance than taking out the trash on trash day but hey…tell me something I don’t know already.

And just who, exactly, has John McCain murdered? I’m sure both Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton would love to hear about that. No more than I, though.

By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply

Matthew,

Yes, McCain courted Hagee to get his political support. Compared to this, Obama joined Wrights Church; supported Wright and the Church for 20 years with many thousands of dollars; asked the man to marry Michelle and himself; to baptize his children; sat in his pews for 20 years listening to him preach for 20 years and then, in his book that was inspired by Wrights sermon, spoke of how he, Obama, regularly called Wright in to set him on an even keel or some such thing. Wright was made an official member of his campaign staff.

Again, Matthew, I know your a partisan all hot and bothered to get Obama into the White House and all but you gotta be kidding comparing McCain’s courting of Hagee with Obama and Wright. The relationship is not even in the same galaxy.

And then, after 20 years, Obama has the audacity to say that, had Wright not been retiring, he, Obama, would have left the Church and hope we don’t notice the hypocrisy. Um, yeh, he’d have left the Church if Wright hadn’t been retiring because word of his relationship to Wright as well as the substance of Wright’s preaching and, consequently, Wright had become like plutonium to his, Obama’s, campaign. He, Obama, has the audacity to hope no one thinks to wonder why, if he would have left the Church after 20 years if Wright weren’t retiring, I say to wonder why he, Obama, didn’t leave the Church during the 20 years that Wright was preaching his hate; why he, Obama, subsidized Wright’s hate for 20 years.

The answer is obvious. Prior to word of that relationship becoming generally known and the sentiments of Wright being known, it was politically advantageous for him, Obama, to be a member of this large black Church in Chicago that was so connected to politics in Chicago, Illinois and to the Democratic Party that he, Wright, was asked to take part in Bill Clinton’s big “I have sinned, please forgive me” shindig. He made connections there that helped him. Until Wright became a liability. It was the liability that Wright posed to his, Obama’s, candidacy, not Wright’s theology or politics or hate that would have ultimately driven Obama out of the Church if Wright were not retiring. With that, Obama had had no problems at all for 20 years.

Sorry, Matthew and Obama, but it doesn’t work like that. After 20 years of not just listening but supporting Wright’s preaching, it is useless to suggest that he, Obama, had no clue what sort of preaching went on there at the Church. You seem so aghast at lies, there’s a lie for you to be aghast at.

If you’ve got some actual quotes of what Hagee has said about Catholics, I’ll have a better grasp of what we’re dealing with. I suspect that he hasn’t said that Catholics “are undeserving of God’s love” but that their faith is such that it is not placed securely in the suffering and death of Christ, which, for Evangelical Protestants, is the sine qua non for salvation. That is, in this view, Catholics are taught to seek God’s mercy in Marry, Jesus’ mother but to fear Jesus rather than to seek God’s forgiveness and mercy in Jesus, alone. They are taught to pray to Marry and the saints rather than to God directly through the sanctifying blood of Jesus.

In other words, I suspect that it isn’t that Hagee thinks that Catholics are undeserving of God’s love, no Evangelical Protestant who knows his theology would suggest that anyone is deserving of God’s love. Rather, Evangelicals believe that all are sinners, fallen short of the glory of God, who can be saved in no other way than trusting in the saving sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of the world. My suspicion, though I don’t know enough to say for sure, is that, due to the Roman Catholic teachings mentioned above, Hagee thinks that Catholics have placed their faith in the wrong person (Marry, the saints, the Pope, etc.) rather than in the only person that can save anyone: Jesus. It (probably) isn’t that Hagee sees himself and his flock as any more deserving of God’s love than Catholics; but (probably) that he sees Catholics as having their faith misplaced to such a degree toward those who cannot save anyone.

To this extent, on this theory, Catholics who (mis)place their faith and trust in the Pope are no more saved than the Atheist who looks to science for the answers to the mysteries of life and salvation from worldly threats.

Personally, I look at it differently but, if I’m right about Hagee’s statements, that isn’t about hate; if I’m right — and again, without knowing more about Hagee’s stated position I can’t say for sure — it’s about Hagee’s view of how God’s salvation is secured, nothing more.

As for me, in my view, every person is responsible for his own relationship to God. However, I expect every parishioner to be thoroughly comparing my sermons with their conscience, the Bible’s content and the teaching of my Church and, if I say something they think is contrary to any of those three things, I expect them to challenge me on it and if, after challenging me on it and we sit down and discuss it, we still can’t come to agreement, that either I will be brought before my Church’s council for remonstrance if I’m wrong or, if I’m found to be right in what I said, the individual would have to decide whether to remain in the Church, that is, whether our difference is strong enough that the individual cannot, in good conscience, remain in the Church.

So no, no one but I am responsible for my words but every single member is responsible to his own conscience and to God for deciding whether what I preach is good or bad, right or wrong and, if bad or wrong, for either straightening me out, getting me out of the Church, or finding a Church where the preaching is good and right in their own mind.

But taking Obama’s own words as true, what do we know from Obama’s own words? We know that, during those 20 years, Obama heard things with which he disagreed. He said so in the important speech on race. We know that Obama was so troubled by Wright’s preaching that he removed Wright from the speaking agenda at his presidential coming out party, saying that Wright can get a little rough in his sermons. That is, he was well aware of where Wright could go in his speaking and he didn’t want Wright coming anywhere near a microphone on that important occasion, derailing his campaign before it even got started. We know that Obama, after the blow up, was so troubled by Wright’s hate that he, Obama, said he would quit the Church if Wright were not on the verge of retiring. So by Obama’s own words, assuming we take him at his word, Obama knew way back at the kick-off of his campaign for president that Wright had some troubling sentiments, with which he disagreed strongly enough that he later would say that he would have quit the Church if Wright weren’t leaving.

And, about Wright being someone who, as you say, is telling the truth. If you actually listened to Obama’s race speech, and take him at his word, you know that Wright is not telling the truth as Obama understands the truth. Obama says that he would have quit because, he wants us to believe, some of Wright’s sentiments were so repellent to him that he could not in good conscience remain a member of the same Church with Wright as the pastor.

My question is, if that was the case, in truth, Obama should have left the Church many years ago, not waited until Wright was a political albatros around his neck. I think it quite obvious that Obama’s conscience had nothing to do with saying that he would leave Wright’s Church if Wright were not retiring. It is perfectly clear to me that it was the fact that Wright had become a political albatros around his neck rather than a help to his political career.

You’re right: there is a large difference between courting an endorsement and attending religious service. We just differ as to which we think is the vastly more important for what it says about the candidate. One is political expediency practically meaningless; the other tells you what is in that person’s soul, what he believes at his core. No one remains a member of a Church listening to and financially supporting the crap Wright preaches who does not fundamentally believe that same crap. In my opinion, Obama’s just better at hiding the repellent crap that he believes.

As Rev. Wright said recently: “Obama says what he has to as a politician; I (Wright) say what I have to as a pastor” (or something very close to that). Translation: Obama’s no more a different kind of politician than any other. He says what he has to to get elected, regardless of what he believes.

And why not? Obama’s thrown Wright under the bus; why shouldn’t Wright return the favor?

By Jersey McJones on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply

“I guess a Democrat lying under oath on a deposition is, so run of the mill it’s just a dog bites man story, of no more significance than taking out the trash on trash day but hey…tell me something I don’t know already.”

I asked a great old lawyer about that once. He said something to the effect of ‘well, if was a deposition in Arkansas, so technically, yes, Clinton was guilty of purgury.’ So, technically, yes, you’re right. Congratulations, you win the most trivially correct 1992-2008 award. You must feel quite accomplished.

“And just who, exactly, has John McCain murdered?”

Hillary Clinton and John McCain sent thousands of regular guys and gals to die in the Middle East for a cause so dubious it makes Clinton’s lies look like a five year old fibbing about who ate the last piece of chocolate cake. If you can’t see that then you should take your Bible and burn it now.

JMJ

By Chris Radulich on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply

But instead of promising truckloads of aid if he’s elected, McCain talked up his vision of a government that helps more by doing less.

It’s not exactly, “Government is the problem, not the solution” but it’s pretty close.

My hero.

Sure worked well with Katrina.

Quess that doesn’t apply to Iraq or Bear Sterns.

Or faith based inititives.

But hey I quess getting rid of social security would count. However how would he still justify the social security tax?

Of course that doesn’t apply to the defense contractors or the projects that McCain has brought to his state.

By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply

Jersey,

What I should feel ashamed about being right? Hell, I don’t think so. But more to the point, Bill Clinton is a lawyer and HE knew full well that he was committing perjury when he was committing perjury…hence the “definition of ‘is’ is” bullshit.

But yes, I think I’ve acquired a fairly large amount of legal learning for a layman who’s never studied law formally.

As for Hillary (who, by the way, is a Democrat) and McCain and, by the way, nearly every other Congressperson in office at the time voted to authorize the President to use military force in Iraq. If THAT is what you’re throwing around the word “murder” regarding, it was silly to limit your original comments to members of the GOP. Also, as a legal matter, it’s not murder to, using constitutional authority to authorize the use of military force. “Murder” is a legal term with specific legal meanings that do not apply to either Hillary or McCain or any other Congressperson so I guess no one would be interested in hearing about it after all. My mistake.

Chris,

Was someone defending Bush, a big government favoring kind of guy? I didn’t notice anyone defending Bush’s handling of anything. I certainly wouldn’t point to Bush as a hero of limited government.

Perhaps you could pick up a copy of F. A. Hayek’s The Road to Surfdom and The Constitution of Liberty (both of which could be picked up pretty cheap on the internet in used paperback form) or The Freedom to Choose by Milton Friedman. They lay out the dire consequences posed by collectivism and the centralization of power in big government for individual liberty pretty well. Better than I could, anyway.

Why would anyone want to trust health-care or anything else of importance to the same government that handled Katrina? That’s what I want to know. You can’t imagine that government will always be occupied by omni-competent angels.

By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply

Sorry, the correct title of Friedman’s book is Free to Choose. Brain glitch.

By christopher Radulich on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply

It’s not exactly, “Government is the problem, not the solution” but it’s pretty close.

My hero.

An incredibly stupid statement. The only thing dumber is the fact that we vote these people into power. It’s like appointing a CEO whose is dedicated to making the company lose money and makes no bones about it being his number one priority.

By Jersey McJones on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply

Craig,

“…nearly every other Congressperson in office at the time voted to authorize the President to use military force in Iraq. If THAT is what you’re throwing around the word “murder” regarding, it was silly to limit your original comments to members of the GOP. …”

And that makes it okay, huh? As a big history fan, I am always entertained by the downfall of partisans. They never fail to fail.

JMJ

By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply

Chris,

So I take it there’s no chance you’ll read The Constitution of Liberty then? Too bad. You might have learned something you didn’t know. Oh well…

Okay? Depends on what you mean. I meant that it makes it constitutional and therefore legal. I have no clue what you meant…although it had something to do with my Bible…I thought you were of the “Wall of Separation between Church and State” tribe…Oh well…

Toodles, guys. It’s been real…

By christopher Radulich on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply

Apparently that book is not in the Hillsborough county library system and, no, I am not going to buy it.

By christopher Radulich on Apr 28, 2008 | Reply

Craig

Show me an society or group that does not have a government. Even the Boy scout have are ruling committee, rules and taxes (dues). Certainly religions do. So one could just as well say That religion is the problem, not the solution.

Ps most of these are not democracies, certainly our jobs are not

By rube cretin on Apr 29, 2008 | Reply

“certainly our jobs are not.” yes and a 40 hour job is greatly over rated. need to take a lot of time ruminating and carefully define “enough.” just a thought.

By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 29, 2008 | Reply

Christopher,
My email address is: revcraigh@yahoo.com. Email me your snail-mail address and, if you’re serious about willingness to read them, I’ll mail the two Hayek books to you at my expense — but I will expect you to mail them back to me at your expense when you’ve finished reading them. I don’t have a personal copy of Friedman’s work, unfortunately.

No one is going anarcho-libertarian on you here. Although it sounds like it, no one is advocating no government. That was a bit of poetic license in that quote. Rather, we’re warning that the extension of power into the central government’s hands endangers individual liberty, by the very nature of things — on the whole “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely” theory. I’m with the authors of the Federalist Papers: there’s definitely a need for a strong central government but one of limited scope and diffuse power. As per Friedman, in matters beyond the essential needs to preserve individual liberty, utilities, military protection, etc., that none but a central government can reasonably fulfill, better private enterprise than government at any level. Where private enterprise is not equipped to meet the need, better local government than state government and better state government than federal government.

That’s the essence of what I’m saying.

Per Hayek, there is a place for governmental intrusion on private enterprise to limit and punish fraud, for example and to trust-bust, that is, to assure real competition within markets, and so forth. No one is advocating pure laissez-faire capitalism.

By the way, I’m not adverse to saying that religion is the problem. It certainly is the cause of many problems. On that matter, though a religious person, I prefer a government that keeps its paws off religion and religion that keeps out of government. It is impractical and unconstitutional to insist that religious persons stay out of government (there is that “no religious test” clause in the Constitution, after all) and there are relatively so few non-religious persons in America and the bulk of Americans seem to prefer religious folk in office that rescinding the religious test clause would be impossible, in any case. But I do prefer that religious office holders not be handing out Bibles and sack-cloth and soliciting prayers, for example. That’s way too much like endorsing religion for my taste.

By Independent Mind on Apr 29, 2008 | Reply

It’s been a while since I’ve had a chance to tune in here. I hope y’all have missed me as much as I’ve missed you.

Reverend Wright seems to be doing his best to tank Obama’s campaign, isn’t he? I don’t hold Obama responsible for Reverend Wright’s sermons, but I do wonder how much of Reverend Wright’s sermons lie in Obama’s heart. I’ve been to several churches over the last decade or so, and I have seen and heard things at these churches that I found strange or offensive, so I wouldn’t attend another service. It seems obvious to me that Obama likes Reverend Wright’s sermons, likes the messages he receives from them, and believes, to some degree, in the message, or he wouldn’t have gone to that church for twenty years!

As for McCain, you libs should be happy. You have essentially three Democrats running for President. McCain is a Republican in name only.

By Craig R. Harmon on Apr 30, 2008 | Reply

Welcome back, IM!