I'm convinced now that Andrew Sullivan's right, and McCain's being slimy by saying that obviously Obama doesn't share the priorities of Hamas, but hey, the terrorists say they like him. So ... what does McCain want people to conclude from that set of facts? Eh? I think Rev. Wright is fair game, because Obama chose to associate himself closely with the man for 20 years. I think Rod Parsley and John Hagee, while having nowhere near the influence on McCain that Wright putatively had on Obama, are fair game, because McCain welcomed their endorsements, even though he almost certainly doesn't share most of their priorities. But Obama neither welcomed Hamas's endorsement, nor sought it out. What if the KKK said McCain was their man in '08 -- what would McCain say if Obama brought that up, and said in the same breath that obviously Sen. McCain is not a Klucker-lover, but still...?
OK, yes, McCain's being slimy
Saturday May 10, 2008
Categories: Republicans
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
But if Senator McCain w a n t e d to repudiate the endorsement of Hagee or Parsley or whichever cult leader endorsed him, surely he could? just as surely as he w o u l d were the KKK, e.g., being so iconically and mediatically evil, to endorse him: he might wish to God they had kept their bloody opinions to themselves, and wish likewise that the media and every other politician, even every other political opponent, would keep silence, but he w o u l d repudiate their act and not try to play it off as if it is beneath his political dignity to notice.
So I think it is fair to provisionally conclude that Senator McCain is of the opinion that Hagee--if that is the person in question--is not so evil as the Klan, e.g., that he has, perhaps, something, at least, positive going for him. If Mr Sullivan and R. D. want to characterize the articulation of that provisional conclusion by a political opponent of Senator McCain's as 'slime', tant pis pour moi. Perhaps the Arizona senator h a s repudiated Hagee's and Parsley's extremist views at some point; I don't know: someone who cannot bring himself to cast a vote in the public assembly against torture isn't worth the effort required to keep up with all of his opinions and activities.
It's fair for him to say "You'll never hear that Hamas is endorsing me," but going beyond that is a bit slimy.
However, McCain's campaign very deftly switched the debate from McCain's statement to calling Obama out for his ageist response to McCain's statement. That should be a warning to Obama that he's got to get into playoff mode STAT if he wants to stand a chance in November.
Yes, yes, I realise that reasonable people cannot legitimately distinguish between 'infanticide' (more precisely, what that word represents in the specific political context here) and 'torture' (more precisely, what that word represents in the specific political context here), and 'the relationship between Senator Obama and Rev Wright' and 'the relationship between Senator McCain and Rev Hagee'. Alas for us, and for our Republic.
I believe we all know the difference here. I think we all know why McCain asked for and recieved Hagees endorsement. He needs the votes. But trying to compare Wright and Black Liberation Theology over the years to Hagee and others as equal relationships to the candidates is just silly. But its certainly fair to critize Amnesty John for it.
Infantacide has only one meaning. It is the killing of a child after it is born. Killing a child. Attempting to indicate abortion is infanticade is simply not true. Nor attempting to say it means something else used in a "political" context, it does not.
I don't agree with abortion, but if its discussed, it has to discussed be using honest language.
I'd also be very, very careful talking about McCain in anything relating to torture. He has credibility that most of his critics don't in this area. Coming back and having a Professor tell me what was wrong and how it really was in the war was hard to take from a man that never left the country.
Perhaps folks should keep up with things more.
If the KKK endorsed McCain, even against his wishes, that would tell us something about McCain, at least in relation to the other candidates. Like it or not, it would tell us that the KKK likes his policies and promises more than Obama's or Clinton's. Would it be "fair" to bring that up? Of course, but that would give McCain a chance to reject the endorsement and score points off it, if he didn't do anything to attract it in the first place.
Obama could score major points if he used this opportunity to turn those awesome rhetorical abilities I keep hearing about against Hamas, letting people know that his opposition to Iraq doesn't mean he's soft on Islamic jihadism. Will he? It's a ripe fruit just waiting for picking; if he doesn't pick it, people can't be blamed for wondering why.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.