• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

John McCain's Psycho Pastor

doug anderson

New member
Let me add this introduction to the Source of this remarkable article. This appears in Solon.com and is titled:

"Psycho Christians and the media"

Why the press gives McCain a pass for consorting with batshit holy men, but condemns Obama to talk-show hell for the same sin.

By Gary Kamiya
.


Salon.com generously encourages emailing, sharing and printing the article. So its showing here is in that spirit for the purpose of discussion and editorial comment. Asher Kelman




Makes Obama's look tame.

May 20, 2008 | John McCain has some seriously screwed-up holy men surrounding him. First, there's the Rev. John Hagee, a hate-monger and certifiable loon who believes that Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment on New Orleans for planning a gay parade, calls Catholicism a "false cult system" that conspired with Hitler to exterminate the Jews, and believes that America's divine duty is to destroy Iran. Then there's the Rev. Rod Parsley, who garnishes his bigoted theology by calling Islam "the greatest religious enemy of our civilization and the world" and saying that Muhammad was "a mouthpiece of a conspiracy of spiritual evil."

These psycho Christians make Robert Mitchum's sociopathic traveling preacher in "The Night of the Hunter" (the guy with "love" tattooed on one hand and "hate" on the other) look like St. Francis of Assisi. They are undiluted bigots who espouse beliefs just as twisted as those promulgated by the Rev. Louis Farrakhan -- and far more toxic and extreme than those held by Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Yet, as many media critics have noted, no major-network interviewer is demanding that McCain denounce Hagee or Parsley, as Tim Russert infamously demanded again and again that Obama do of Farrakhan during a prime-time debate. No cable channel is ranting 24/7 about McCain's failure to disavow these extremist bigots, and speculating that his ties to Hagee and Parsley could cost him the election. Considering that McCain desperately needs Hagee and Parsley to deliver votes in key states like Ohio, this is no small matter.

It's true that neither Hagee nor Parsley was McCain's pastor and personal spiritual advisor, as Wright was for Obama. Obama's personal relationship with Wright raised more legitimate questions than were raised by McCain's actively seeking Hagee's endorsement. But especially during the second, more serious outburst of Wright-hysteria, after Wright went off the reservation at the National Press Club, it was obvious that the story had really shifted to Wright, not Obama. The brouhaha was a media ritual, in which Obama was required to sacrifice an unseemly political ally as a kind of campaign station of the cross. Obama had already given his now-famous speech about race in Philadelphia, and no one seriously believed that he shared Wright's views. In any case, even if Hagee and Parsley had been McCain's pastors, it's hard to imagine that the media would have attacked him as relentlessly as it has attacked Obama over Wright and Farrakhan.

The media's double standard is all about deference to perceived mainstream norms, and tiptoeing around the Christian right. Despite their cartoonish views, the media treats Hagee and Parsley as quasi-mainstream figures, which makes McCain's relationship with them non-newsworthy. The dirty little secret of mainstream American journalism is that it operates within invisible constraints that conform to some imagined Middle American consensus. The issue isn't that journalists share Hagee and Parsley's views so much as that they know that they are widely held, which makes them reluctant to acknowledge how truly outrageous they are. After years of nodding at the whacked-out likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, the media has, to borrow Daniel Patrick Moynihan's famous phrase, defined right-wing religious deviancy down. More or less "orthodox" Christian-right insanity, of the sort espoused by Hagee and Parsley, is familiar and normal, whereas black-church radicalism, with its ties to left-wing liberation theology, is not. In 2000, 45 percent of the population told Gallup they were either born-again or evangelical Christians.

The question of "newsworthiness" is one of the blind spots of conventional journalism. Since right-wing religious leaders have been endorsing conservative Republican candidates for decades (Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell endorsed Ronald Reagan; Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani; a small church in North Carolina kicked out members who voted for John Kerry), when another one does it, it's a dog-bites-man story. Mainstream editors and reporters pose as hard-bitten realists, but they are in fact reluctant to deviate from pack thinking. For the media to suddenly go after McCain on Hagee as hard as it has gone after Obama on Farrakhan and Wright would represent, in their eyes, a "controversial" rejection of the way things have always been done.

This echo-chamber effect, in which a story is a story because it has been a story before, highlights the critical importance of precedent. From the beginning, the media didn't go hard after extreme figures on the religious right because those extreme figures have major constituencies. The taboo against criticizing Christianity also plays a crucial role: Extreme, even demented beliefs are seen as untouchable so long as they are part of what is seen as mainstream evangelical Christianity. Of course this taboo does not extend to criticizing left-wing Christianity, à la Wright. If some public figure said that the earthquake in China was caused by the wrath of Zeus, who was offended because women's rights had reduced the number of compliant virgins available for him to deflower, any politician who consorted with him would be forced to repudiate him. But Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, John Hagee and other such figures have said essentially the same thing and gotten a pass. Afraid of coming across as arrogant elitists who don't understand or respect the faith of "real" Americans, the media has pulled its punches on the Christian right for years.

Patriotism and Islamophobia also contribute to the blank check handed to the religious right. Hagee and Parsley may be barking mad, but they wave the flag and denounce Islam. In the age of George W. Bush, that qualifies them as solidly in the American mainstream.

In fact, the media's failure to subject Hagee and Parsley to the same scrutiny that they have given to Wright and Farrakhan is closely related to its colossal failures in covering Bush's "war on terror." The media failed in the run-up to the war in Iraq in large part because, under the patriotic pressure of 9/11, it followed the wartime norm of swallowing the administration line. Its shortcomings with Hagee and Parsley reflect the same internalized self-censorship.

One could argue that neither McCain nor Obama should be subjected to this "gotcha" game in which the media demands that a candidate prove his character and values by publicly excommunicating a problematic political ally. But the fact is that political news coverage today is driven by sensationalism, and candidates are subjected to simplistic tests, and that's not going to change. So if Obama is forced to answer for Wright's off-the-wall black nationalist Christianity, it's only fair that McCain should be forced to answer for Hagee's even more off-the-wall Christian right looniness as well.

Yet the coverage has been anything but fair -- not just because of the media's fear of going after nutty Christians, but because everything about Obama is unprecedented and therefore "sensational." He's not only the first-ever black presidential front-runner, but the first to confront a loose-cannon black pastor who said, "God damn America." It bleeds! It leads! Tear up the front page! Call in the pundits to opine! By contrast, McCain's mealy-mouthed half-criticisms of Hagee's outrageous statements, and Hagee's transparently disingenuous apology for attacking Catholics, are so familiar as to be sleep-inducing. There's practically nothing that McCain can say or do that can make news the way that Obama does just by walking down the street.

By incessantly attacking Obama as strange and scary, which is certain to be his strategy, McCain will be tapping into this already existing media bias toward sensationalism. His and Bush's outrageous charges that Obama is an "appeaser" are intended to play into this, and much worse is sure to be coming (get ready for a revival of "he's a Muslim" smears from proxies who can be disavowed). Whether the press will be able to find the backbone to reveal the cynical emptiness of those charges, and bring aggressive scrutiny even to the old, familiar, patriotic, war-supporting, flag-waving ethos represented by McCain, may go a long way toward determining who our next president is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dierk Haasis

pro member
It's a copyright infringement: an article by Gary Kamiya [Psycho Christians and the media - Why the press gives McCain a pass for consorting with batshit holy men, but condemns Obama to talk-show hell for the same sin.] published on Salon.com yesterday.

Doug, I am a regular reader of Salon.com as you might have gathered from the odd comment I left there over time, mostly with Greenwald's column but also with Manjoo's and Walsh's as well as on The War Room. I am pointing oward it as often as I can. I am sure all of the writers over there, including Gary Kamiya would like to be cited and cross-referenced.

My personal stance on copyright has always been that authorship recognition is paramount. Wouldn't you agree?
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
A shame

Well, at least Doug left the dateline intact so as to tip us off. And I was a little surprised by "barking mad" - but of course I don't know Doug's "native idiom" (or even mine, God wot).

This is disappointing, to say the least.

But all comers report here to be calibrated.
 

doug anderson

New member
Well, at least Doug left the dateline intact so as to tip us off. And I was a little surprised by "barking mad" - but of course I don't know Doug's "native idiom" (or even mine, God wot).

This is disappointing, to say the least.

But all comers report here to be calibrated.

I made a boo boo by not mentioning that the article is from Salon.Com. My bad.
 

doug anderson

New member
It's a copyright infringement: an article by Gary Kamiya [Psycho Christians and the media - Why the press gives McCain a pass for consorting with batshit holy men, but condemns Obama to talk-show hell for the same sin.] published on Salon.com yesterday.

Doug, I am a regular reader of Salon.com as you might have gathered from the odd comment I left there over time, mostly with Greenwald's column but also with Manjoo's and Walsh's as well as on The War Room. I am pointing oward it as often as I can. I am sure all of the writers over there, including Gary Kamiya would like to be cited and cross-referenced.

My personal stance on copyright has always been that authorship recognition is paramount. Wouldn't you agree?

I agree. When I copied the article I thought I had copied the attribution. My bad.
 

Andrew Rodney

New member
So you're heard the latest about what Hagee has said about the holocaust? Astounding. The mainstream media isn't really talking about it. Of course Keith (Countdown) tonight had it.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
So you're heard the latest about what Hagee has said about the holocaust? Astounding. The mainstream media isn't really talking about it. Of course Keith (Countdown) tonight had it.

Faust had a far better bargain!

This all reminds me about blind nude mice that live underground and are cared for by kind spiders who go to great effort to gather and carry down to their underground lair, piles of corn for the lucky mice!
 

Don Ferguson Jr.

Well-known member
Hagee was not MAC' s personal pastor for 20 years like the racist Anti American Wright .
If the left talk about Hagee Wright will be brought back into the fray and Obama had him as part of his campaign team unlike Hagee who just endorsed Mac and Obama only denounced Wright when he got in trouble.
If the press mention Hagee another pundit reminds all of Wright .Pat Buchanan did it just the other night and made some on the left look like fools for being so naive saying the Wright mess is over :) Hagee will not hurt MAC like Wright will Obama no way.

Obama fell for the bait also as he is not talking about the economy but is now on Mac's turf talking foreign affairs and has been off message for now.
 

Don Ferguson Jr.

Well-known member
I think it's fairly obvious that the mainstream media work for the administration. However, people are not buying it anymore.

Yea thats why the media decided long ago that Obama would be the DEM nominee :)

-"I think most of the press people are in Obama's demographic. ... There have been times when I thought I was literally lost in a fun house." Bill Clinton
 

doug anderson

New member
Hagee was not MAC' s personal pastor for 20 years like the racist Anti American Wright .
If the left talk about Hagee Wright will be brought back into the fray and Obama had him as part of his campaign team unlike Hagee who just endorsed Mac and Obama only denounced Wright when he got in trouble.
If the press mention Hagee another pundit reminds all of Wright .Pat Buchanan did it just the other night and made some on the left look like fools for being so naive saying the Wright mess is over :) Hagee will not hurt MAC like Wright will Obama no way.

Obama fell for the bait also as he is not talking about the economy but is now on Mac's turf talking foreign affairs and has been off message for now.

The sad thing about this is that it's all BS that distracts from the real issues. Again, the media....
 
1. Salon says "far-left" to me.
2. It is far too common for anyone wanting to sound cool to say "in the George W. Bush age" and then say anything they want. Our president has gone to great lengths not to denigrate Islam, so I think the remark (and the whole article) is biased.
3. Since when, and why, is supporting American, western ideals so bad, and conveniently wrapped up in the term "flag-waving"? Politics is politics and always will be.

I agree, there are radicals in Christianity as well as Islam. Thats as obvious as this articles bias.
 

Dierk Haasis

pro member
1. Salon says "far-left" to me.

Why, because they stand for values like freedom of speech [incl. criticising those in power], liberty, critical thinking, rationalism? Or because some Higher Authority [Bill O'Reilly?!] proclaims so?


3. Since when, and why, is supporting American, western ideals so bad, and conveniently wrapped up in the term "flag-waving"? Politics is politics and always will be.

You are aware of the fact that Kamiya [and Greenwald] point out the double standards used by certain circles, like the Beltway elite, self-proclaimed conservatives and mainstream journalist? While it is obviously alright to hammer away on any far-fetched connection between a non-too-bright individual and a Democratic politician, it is clearly blasphemy to point out the shortcomings of those close to Republican politicians.

I agree, there are radicals in Christianity as well as Islam. Thats as obvious as this articles bias.

Not that the article is about Islam vs. Christianity [it really isn't]. Why is it biased? Because it points towards Hagee but not Wright [which, BTW, it does]? And since when is 'unbiased', especially in an op-ed, which Kamiya's article is, the ultimate in journalism?
 
Why biased?

If find the phrase "... but they wave the flag and denounce Islam. In the age of George W. Bush, that qualifies them as solidly in the American mainstream" to be misleading and biased.

George Bush has been more careful than is usual for him when it comes to making comments about Islam.
 
Last edited:

doug anderson

New member
Yea thats why the media decided long ago that Obama would be the DEM nominee :)

-"I think most of the press people are in Obama's demographic. ... There have been times when I thought I was literally lost in a fun house." Bill Clinton


Another thought: during the Vietnam War, media began to turn against the war when it found that it was expeditious to do so.

This will probably happen with the Iraq War. Rats leaving a sinking ship, which should give you some idea of what kind of people network CEO's are.

The war is a complete disaster, begun with a lie, supported by right wing media, and now, they are beginning to slink out the back door. If they can dissociate themselves quickly enough from the Bush /Cheney administration, maybe they'll still have jobs with the new administration comes it.

I ceased to pay any attention to mainstream media a long time ago, except to decode their patterns of deceit.
 

doug anderson

New member
1. Because of articles like this

2. I didn't say that the bashing of Obama/Wright was justified did I? Although I think Wright is a radical, I also recognize the story about his connection to Obama as a political one, and as such, don't bother myself with it.

3. Everyone has a right to their opinion, I don't have to agree and I can express my disagreement, which is what I've done.

I am fed up with people who want to insult our president on a personal level. It shows immaturity and is egotistical. Not my kind of people.

Feel free to crticize and raise issues. I can respond in a constructive manner and would probably agree with you on many things. However, for me, there's no excuse for the continued insults.

I think it is quite appropriate to bash Bush and members of his administration at the personal level. They are criminals, and they have caused incalculable suffering and killed as many as six hundred thousand people over a lie designed to make their cronies rich. I don't think pretensions of civility are in order for moral sociopaths.
 

doug anderson

New member
1. Salon says "far-left" to me.
2. It is far too common for anyone wanting to sound cool to say "in the George W. Bush age" and then say anything they want. Our president has gone to great lengths not to denigrate Islam, so I think the remark (and the whole article) is biased.
3. Since when, and why, is supporting American, western ideals so bad, and conveniently wrapped up in the term "flag-waving"? Politics is politics and always will be.

I agree, there are radicals in Christianity as well as Islam. Thats as obvious as this articles bias.

All you have to do to be called "far left" is tell the truth. Even some republicans have taken to telling the truth, and are horrified by what has happened to their party under Bush/Cheney.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
1. Because of articles like this

2. I didn't say that the bashing of Obama/Wright was justified did I? Although I think Wright is a radical, I also recognize the story about his connection to Obama as a political one, and as such, don't bother myself with it................

I am fed up with people who want to insult our president on a personal level. It shows immaturity and is egotistical. Not my kind of people.

Hi Ed,

It seems to me that the thrust of the article was against the media in general who are in an orgy of adoration for Obama. The main issue here is a criticism of the press not of Obama. I think the author of the article himself, although remarkably erudite is tainted by Obama-juice but 75% of the article has merit. Forget McCain, just consider the pastor!

This is a well written exposé on seriously dangerous "friends" who really want to bring about a final catastrophic war so that the 2cd coming of Jesus can be brought about in our lifetime. Interestingly, there is also, I understand, an analogous Shiite apocalypse which also leads to the return of a revered figure. In all, the machinations towards destruction to get some spiritual event is troubling! That is far more serious than any connection with Presidential candidates.

Asher

Ed, I'll have to re-read the artcle to see how this insults Georg Bush. Yes they love to bash him, but is this article, here, really about the President? I don't see that, as yet.
 
Nah. All you have to do is be able to say "Bush is an idiot" and then you're in.

The press is a business. I assume Fox started the whole Wright commentary and the other networks chimed in because Fox was getting ratings on the story, no?

I'm sure the story was pushed by the Clinton camp as well.

I should probably re-read the article, I think I got tripped up on what I see as bias. Maybe theres something worthwhile reading if I can get past that.

For now, I think I'll bow out of this conversation until I can look at the article in more detail.

Feel free to talk amongst yourselves...
 

Don Ferguson Jr.

Well-known member
If Hillary had played up the Wright story before Iowa she might well could have destroyed Obama .Fox may have said something about it earlier but ABC really started Wright going again in the MSM.
And Keithie Olberman is a fricking loon who faliled at ESPN cause he was a nut .
He maybe has found his place with NBC :)
 
Last edited:

doug anderson

New member
If Hillary had played up the Wright story before Iowa she might well could have destroyed Obama .Fox may have said something about it earlier but ABC really started Wright going again in the MSM.
And Keithie Olberman is a fricking loon who faliled at ESPN cause he was a nut .
He maybe has found his place with NBC :)

The question we have to ask is: is a large portion of the American electorate so stupid that they can't see that this has nothing to do with the coming election?

I guess we'll find out in the fall.
 

Don Ferguson Jr.

Well-known member
The question we have to ask is: is a large portion of the American electorate so stupid that they can't see that this has nothing to do with the coming election?

I guess we'll find out in the fall.

Even if they do turn up something new ,and they will if it exists , the large portion that have drank the Obama Kool-aid will still worship at his feet :)
 

Dierk Haasis

pro member
I've already learned a few things, in part from this thread, which at least gave me an epiphany. I leave out everything on conspiracy theories, bias vs. unbiased, personal feelings, personal worldview, political discussions in general. Let me focus on one phenomenon only:

political spectrum

Many US Americans, and especially their newspapers and TV news, have some very screwed up definitions for political standpoints. For instance 'liberal' has come to mean 'leftist' or 'socialist', completely opposite from the history and philosophy of the liberasl movement.

For a time I thought it is just another instance of calling names, like centre-lefts or leftists call anyone not sharing their views 'fascist'. Or the other way round, everyone's a Communist if he even thinks about how the little man is concerned by a certain policy.

Calling Salon.com 'far-left', that is 'just shy of Stalinism', in all seriousness would be nothing more than silly - if not for the fact that a liberal mind nowadays stands for fringe, socialist ideas - in the parlance of many.

What exactly is far-left then, in the circular FOX'ish reasoning used in this very thread it is what is published by Salon.com. Which in turn is far-left because of the articles it publishes. That includes op-eds like the one starting this thread, the opinion pieces by Joan Walsh, Walter Shapiro [obviously a Communist], Glenn Greenwald's media criticism [well, he is homosexual ...]. It also includes their documentary feature, I guess, where they publish or link to the source material, like DoD papers on how to manipulate the media. Not to forget Farhad Manjoo [d'oh] or Garrison Keillor.

Curiously in Europe 'liberal' is used as a derogatory term against centre-rights and rightists, particularly with the prefix 'neo'. This, by any means, is as wrong as equalling liberal with socialist. Though the underlying philosophical views are probably closer in the European usage.

I don't quite see how Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, Adam Smith, Karl Popper, Margaret Thatcher, Friedrich August von Hayek or Milton Friedman fit into the liberal moniker as used by US Americans.

Bottom line: Any name given to an entity on the grounds of a supposed political agenda is meaningless. Either because it springs from the urge to insult and denigrate another ones positions, or because the moniker used is devoid of meaning per se.

These two reasons seem deeply connected.*






*As a footnote, first political bodies name themselves with a more or less proper term, then the opponents redefine that term as a denunciary term, eventually the term is emptied of all meaning. This seems to happen with every single political term, from liberal through socialist, communist, fascist to conservative.
 

Dierk Haasis

pro member
On the topic of personal insult against political figures.

When I was much younger I thought that it is wrong to take up a politician on simple insults only. I was convinced one has to evaluate their views and propositions on the contentual merits of these very views and propositions. Turns out that isn't possible most of the time because they lack the intellectual capacity, moral integrity [to stay even with their errors] and professional courtesy needed for such debates.

In the best of cases they are concerned only with the well-being of some lobbyists; usually they are only concerned with their own well-being. This might be the reason it is hard to fathom what actually drives Bush Junior or Richard Cheney. I grant they might be idealists ...

I decided long ago to take on politicians and political parties on their own level. Sadly that makes for a lot of name-calling, insulting and four-letter words on my part. It is hard to not use derogatory language when it comes to the emptiness of self-serving ex-Chancellors, pen-pushing accountants and completely delusional functionaries.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
.I decided long ago to take on politicians and political parties on their own level. Sadly that makes for a lot of name-calling, insulting and four-letter words on my part. It is hard to not use derogatory language when it comes to the emptiness of self-serving ex-Chancellors, pen-pushing accountants and completely delusional functionaries.
Franz Kafka would agree with you!

Asher
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Dierk,

Many US Americans, and especially their newspapers and TV news, have some very screwed up definitions for political standpoints. For instance 'liberal' has come to mean 'leftist' or 'socialist', completely opposite from the history and philosophy of the liberasl movement.

And, correspondingly, the term "conservative" is now applied to political outlooks quite opposite from those to which that term was originally applied (and, in my opinion, should still be applied).

What is particularly appalling is the facile way certain politicians feel that mere mention of the term "liberal" is thought to present the entire case against an opponent. A famous political advertising slogan here in Texas was: "John Smith? Too liberal for Texas!" No mention of the opposing candidate's policies on any issue, or why the listener should feel that they are not desirable policies to support. Just, "Too liberal for Texas".

A result of this is that today both political parties feel that the only desirable characteristic of a candidate under that party's banner is that the candidate as fully as imaginable fulfill the extreme of political ideology associated with that party. The Republican Party feels that a desirable candidate is one that is, well, as "Republican" as possible. ("Vote for Harold Republican - he's certifiably to the right of Louis XIV".) The premise is that the electorate is wholly polarized and sensitive only to labels and "iconic" characteristics.

There is a really funny, and sad, extension of this. With your awareness of American politics, you doubtless know that some years ago it became fashionable for Republican politicians to speak of the Democratic Party as "The Democrat Party", the "clever" intimation being that it isn't really "democratic".

This sophomoric gag is perhaps "cute" during political speeches, but it has become so much a part of George W. Bush's "language" (if you can think of him as having one) that even in formal press conferences he will reflexively say, "I look forward to working with the members of the Democrat Party in Congress on this important new legislation".

At least the good news is that, barring a triple assassination, regardless of the outcome at the Democratic Party Convention and the fall General Election, soon we will again have some known language practiced in the White House.

Best regards,

Doug
 
Top