Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock


Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict


Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links


Regional News


News Publications

Does the left really want to travel this road?
Posted by: McQ on Friday, March 07, 2008

Matt Yglesais starts a post about John Hagee, who recently endorsed John McCain, like this:
John Hagee has some odd ideas about Jews that, as a Jewish person, make me uncomfortable. Jews, as most people know, have suffered a lot of persecution over the years.
He then goes on to talk about Hagee's anti-semitism and it's possible effect (obviously implying that he will have some influence as it pertains to Israel if John McCain is elected) on foreign policy in the Middle East.

If Obama is the nominee, is this a road the left really wants to travel, given the argument which could be made by the right concerning his church of 20 years, it's links with Louis Farrakhan and the influence it may have on Obama's foreign policy?

Sauce for goose = sauce for gander. I think Obama would come out the loser in this one.
Return to Main Blog Page

Previous Comments to this Post 

The right will probably try to tie Obama to Farakhan no matter what the left does, so I don’t think an attack on McCain’s association will hurt Obama. It’s not like the right will be quiet about Farakhan in any event. If anything, an associate of McCain’s being implicated might make it a wash (though I don’t either will be more than a blip).
Written By: Scott Erb
If the only indication were Farakhan, Erb, you might have an actual point.
As it is, you merely try (without success) to dance around the issue.

And I’ll remind you of this the first time that the left starts making noise about McCain being tied to an aledged anti-semite.

Oh, wait. It already happened. Hey, Willis, you in here?

Oh, wait... it already happened. Any of the Kossacks in here?

Anyone from The Nation in here?

The charges have even been popping up on Craig’s list.

OK, consider yourself reminded.

Written By: Bithead
Bithead, what on earth are you rambling about? You don’t seem to be contradicting anything I said, but you seem to think you are. *eyes rolling*
Written By: Scott Erb
Sauce for goose = sauce for gander. I think Obama would come out the loser in this one
It doesn’t matter. There are points for getting your narrative out first even if false. Especially when people don’t follow the story intensely. When truthful counter accusations are issued, they sound like "No, you are!" reflexive retorts and lose any weight.

Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
You can roll your eyes all you want to, Erb.
Bottom line... there’s a different level of proof required for the left and right, as your responses to other situations involving charges of Anti-Semites prove out.

And, the responses linked in my other comment, for that matter, if we extend the measure to the left as a whole...

Written By: Bithead
Oh yeah the Left had better watch it or McCain’s going to throw them in to the briarpatch. Hagee’s Pro-Israel stance includes favoring the entire destruction of Israel by a Russo-Arab alliance. Not to mention his hatred of Catholics, Mormons, and other insufficiently Chritian Christians. Those are some thorns Bruh Righty; they shore have got this little rabbit scared.
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
Considering the right is already in full speed making up crap about Obama’s church, why not? I love how you guys always go, "Oh, the Democrats don’t want to go down THIS road because then the Republicans might stick a TOE in the mud" when in fact they’re already there, in the slop.
Written By: Oliver Willis
Your honor, we rest.
Written By: Bithead
Obama has already said what he needs to say to show he’s different from Farrakhan. His church’s racist theology is sufficiently different, and sufficently muted, that in comparison with Hagee, it’s nothing. Saying that blacks are better than whites is not nearly so blatant as saying all Catholics, Jews, and assorted others are bound for, and ought to be, in Hell. Nor does Obama’s church hope for the destruction of entire countries, like Hagee wants for Israel.
Written By: kishnevi
URL: http://
Having been raised as a Catholic, I don’t anyone else to tell me you’re all going to hell, I learned that during a Sunday sermon by monsignor Shields years ago.
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Bottom line... there’s a different level of proof required for the left and right,
For you, perhaps, you believe the "right" no matter what they say. I don’t believe either side’s effort at "guilt by association," I consider neither McCain nor Obama anti-semetic. You probably believe the attacks from the "right" because, well, you’ve shown a propensity to treat truth as secondary to your deserve to fight some kind of political jihad.
Written By: Scott Erb
I’m pretty sure John McCain isn’t going to pay much attention to Hagee. Consider his past relations with Dobson and Falwell, which Dobson still uses as an excuse not to support McCain despite his being the obvious choice in this election for a pro-life nearly-single-issue voter. Hagee is more extreme than Dobson or even Falwell.

On the other hand, thinking Jews who don’t accept Jesus as the Messiah are going to end up in hell is not equivalent to anti-Semitism. It’s crazy to suggest that all the early Christians were anti-Semites just because they thought that. It’s crazy to think Jesus was an anti-Semite for thinking that. The New Testament authors were engaging in the same kind of internal self-criticism common throughout ancient Israel’s history in the form of the prophets. Jesus and his followers continued it. The fact that Hagee accepts the Bible as authoritative and thus accepts what they taught about that does not make him anti-Semitic.
Written By: Jeremy Pierce
" all the early Christians were anti-Semites just because they thought that"

"early" Christians? Contemporary Christians don’t believe that accepting Jesus is the only way to heaven anymore?
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Early Christianity was a Jewish sect. The issue that divided the early church was whether or not one had to become Jewish in order to become Christian. After all, the covenant of God was with Israel. Many thought that you had to follow Jewish law, get circumcised and become Jewish first, and then you could believe Jesus to be the Messiah. Paul, looking at the story of Abraham and Isaac, decided that one could be ’justified by faith’ and thus become Christian without becoming Jewish first. Well, to Jews, this was a horrible decision, this let anyone in. And to gentiles, this was great — I mean, who wants to join a religion that requires you get circumsised! So quickly Christianity went from a Jewish sect to a predominately non-Jewish faith.
Written By: Scott Erb
Scott, there’s more to it than that, but my point isn’t about what divided mainstream Christians and Judaizing ones. It’s about the fact that the biblical texts criticize the Jewish leaders pretty seriously, and one of them repeatedly does so under the term "the Jews". Many scholars complain that this is anti-Semitism, which is a crazy view given the reasons I said. The issue you’re raising is a completely different one, one that divided people who both called themselves Christians.

Tim, I said nothing about contemporary Christians, who also believe the same thing and are not anti-Semitic merely for doing so. That in fact is what my argument shows. It shows that merely believing that doesn’t make one anti-Semitic, since people who very obviously weren’t did believe it.
Written By: Jeremy Pierce

Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Vicious Capitalism


Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks