A closer look at McCain’s ‘spiritual guide’

At a certain point, a couple of months ago, news outlets decided that Barack Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright was the single most important facet of this year’s presidential campaign, at least so far. How could a presidential hopeful have a relationship with an intemperate pastor? Who’s said nutty things? What does it say about Obama’s judgment that it took him a while to denounce Wright personally?

And then there’s John McCain, who is also associated with a motley crew of radical religious zealots, and who has largely been given a pass by the media. We’ve talked about McCain cozying up to Jerry Falwell (even after Falwell blamed 9/11 on Americans), and we’ve talked about McCain befriending John Hagee (even after Hagee called the Catholic Church a “great whore” and a “false cult system”), but Rod Parsley probably hasn’t generated the kind of attention he should.

Consider, for example, this new clip put together by Brave New Films and Mother Jones.

You’ll notice, of course, that despite Parsley’s record of sheer lunacy, McCain nevertheless said he was “honored” to have Parsley’s support. Indeed, McCain — who recently denounced Obama for some of his associations, and demanded that Obama “apologize” for people he knows — called Parsley “one of the truly great leaders in America,” “a moral compass,” and a “spiritual guide.”

Rod Parsley is, by most decent standards, something of a religious fanatic. And yet, McCain not only treats him as some kind of hero, McCain also reached out for his political support, and has refused to distance himself from either Parsley or Parsley’s record of insane rhetoric.

I’m still reluctant to play the guilt-by-association game — Colbert labeled it “collateral friendage” this week — but I’m looking for some sense of fairness here. And I can’t find any.

Maybe, you’re thinking, the problem is that Parsley wants the United States to destroy Islam, and because there’s so much anti-Muslim bigotry out there, McCain thinks he can get away with his relationship without paying a political price. That may be. But let’s not forget that the extent of Parsley’s hate goes well beyond one religious minority.

Parsley has written several books outlining his fundamentalist religious outlook, including the 2005 Silent No More. In this work, Parsley decries the “spiritual desperation” of the United States, and he blasts away at the usual suspects: activist judges, civil libertarians who advocate the separation of church and state, the homosexual “culture” (“homosexuals are anything but happy and carefree”), the “abortion industry,” and the crass and profane entertainment industry.

Best of all, his rhetoric frequently includes what sounds like appeals to violence, telling his followers, “I came to incite a riot! Man your battle stations. Ready your weapons.” (One wants to assume he’s speaking metaphorically, but it’s not entirely clear.)

Indeed, the new video clip is great at highlighting Parsley’s unhinged attitude towards Muslims, but my friends at Right Wing Watch put together their own video with some more of this clown’s greatest hits.

Earlier this week, Tim Russert said the media would pay more attention to McCain’s radical preacher allies “if there was video.” Well, guess what, Tim, you’re in luck. All you have to do now is put it on the air.

Post Script: I realize the obvious response from Republicans is that the Wright situation matters far more, because Obama was a member of Wright’s Christian congregation. McCain belongs to a church, but Falwell, Parsley, and Hagee were never McCain’s pastor.

I’ve never found this compelling. McCain sought out the support of crazy people, whom most decent people would find pretty offensive — at least as offensive as Wright. He knew, or at least should have known, about their insane worldviews, but nevertheless cozied up to them, asked for their support, campaigned with them, publicly praised them, and refused to denounce them.

No, he never sat in their pews. But how does that make it better? If Obama sought out Louis Farrakhan, campaigned with him, praised him, capitalized on his endorsement, and then hesitated to denounce him, would the media give him a pass? Would Dems be able to argue that it doesn’t matter because Obama was never a member of Farrakhan’s house of worship?

If Obama sought out Louis Farrakhan, campaigned with him, praised him, capitalized on his endorsement, and then hesitated to denounce him, would the media give him a pass? — CB

Short answer: no way! Obama was never Farrakhan’s parishioner and he was *still* forced to deny (in one of the debates, I think it was), denounce, renounce, whatever… every crazy thing that Farrakhan has ever said. Reminded me of some of the communist party meetings I heard of.

  • Dear god. And this maniac has McCain’s ear?

    Of course neither Russert nor his fellows will ever air any of this. They don’t dare apply actual standards to their work.

  • And, well, Wright actually preached NON-violence. Some of it was stupid and some of his non-religious stuff is in fact crazy (the AIDS thing). But, the racial stuff, honestly, to me? Not at all a big deal. I live in a city. My kids attend public schools and as white kids are in the minority. We love it here. BUT it sure does give us a front row seat to racism (the usual kind) and I can promise everyone that there’s plenty for Wright to still be angry about…even if his methods of addressing the issue leave something to be desired.

    These other people? They’re hatemongers and they aren’t (it sure sounds like) terribly identified with non-violence.

    My “favorite” Hagee is linked in some thread here somewhere. He explains how abortions are given in public schools while aspirin requires parental permission. Then there’s a ton of gay-bashing and general hatred of well, most people not like him. Mostly makes me wonder what Hagee’s secret life looks like.

  • I’m pretty sure what Timmeh meant was he would talk about McBush’s crazy preacher problem if there was a video of that man screaming “God Damn America!!!”

  • As it has been pointed out by many, the biggest difference between Wright and the lunatics that support St. John is that they are white and are given a pass by our dear, impartial corporate media. Angry screaming African-American men are scary. Angry, screaming white guys are “nice’ or from that Disney era of “good” godly people.

  • McCain himself is hardly a Bible thumping fundamentalist. But, Fundamentalists make up a much of the GOP. In fact, the religious right doesn’t trust him. So, he’s just seeking the endorsement of these nutjobs in order to get “street cred” with the Fundi wing of the party.

  • For most people, their church provides them with a spiritual community of shared values. You may notice that most mainstream churches are NOT named after the minister. I have belonged to churches where I do not agree with all, and in some cases most, of what the minister had to say. Obama has every right, or should I say Wright, to remain a member of a church, even if the pastor is occaisionally afflicted with fits of impassioned, misguided rhetoric. The idea that someone should leave their spiritual home becuase they disagree with the minister is simply wrong and ill-informed. You leave a spiritual community when that COMMUNITY no longer meets your needs. Its about time for the press to take a deeper look at what constitutes a church. The current meme concerning Rev Wright and Obama shows a deeply flawed understanding about the relationship between the worshiper and their spiritual community.

  • Racer X:”I’m pretty sure what Timmeh meant was he would talk about McBush’s crazy preacher problem if there was a video of that man screaming “God Damn America!!!”

    Naw, he’d still be (non-scary) white, so that still wouldn’t make it onto the TeeVee.

    Perhaps if he yelled that while in full minstrel garb, complete with black-face, as he was strangling a bald eagle, it might get a mention.

    But after that day’s news cycle, it would be “old news.”

  • Also, as Kevin pointed out, there’s a foreign policy component here. Al Jazeera has made Parsley’s anti-Muslim comments available to the Arab world, where many people fervently believe that the US not only wants to attack terrorists, but to wipe out Islam and all Muslims. Do you think Israel would get nervous if a US presidential candidate were to welcome the support of some neo-Nazi? Why isn’t McCain sensitive enough to realize that Muslims may have their own “sensitivities”?

  • The Mother Jones video is interesting but it pales in comparison to the misrepresentation of Wright by endlessly looping “GD America.” The narratives are totally different, anyway. Obama’s issue was about personal character; McCain’s is political character. Voters pick characters in a drama, not the best applicant for bureaucratic leadership. Cynics expect their politicians to pander (though they’re more likely to rebuff it when their livelihood and not personal issues are at stake!).

    That said, Obama has an advantage over Clinton in that he is running a “spiritual” rather than secular campaign; he speaks the language of the pulpit. If the Dems were to confront McCain on his pandering to the religious right it evens up the score – one Hagee for one Wright – in voters’ minds. But it will highlight to a lot of people how McCain is essentially running a hawkish, secular campaign, and that puts Obama ahead, because like Bill Clinton he is so strong at communicating in both spiritual and wonkish terms at the same time. Making this an issue will hurt McCain’s relationship with his conservative base because it will make him seem inauthentic. And as Rove would advise, attack a candidate’s perceived strengths. He’s right about that one.

  • If you want to beat them guys, then you need to stop grappling with their agenda “inside the box”—and explore the weaknesses of their invincibility “outside the box.”

    Hagee and Parsley are both powermongers; they gain their power through hate, through fear, and through the brazen assumption that everyone’s too stupid to challenge their power. But—that power is their weakness, and the demented method of relativity they use is the key to their undoing.

    First, define their microcosm. Stop concentrating on all the groups that they want to get rid of, and define what their ideal group is projected to be. define that core group and its agenda to not tolerate anything contrary to that group—and you define Hagee and Parsley as wanting to do away with about 95% of America

    Then, apply this 5% solution to the media, asking Russert and all the rest if they really, truly believe that guys like Hagee and Parsley will let them continue to live and perform in the world like they do today. There can only be one answer—no. They will not. The MSM will be as much a target as everyone else that doesn’t fit the Hagee/Parsley mold. Paint visions of detention centers, interrogation facilities, and—eventually—extermination camps.

    THAT is what these “men of god” want—and they do not give a damn how they get it.

    Again—identify not only the Parsleys and the Hagees as the Christo-jihadist, master-race culture fanatics that they are, but identify in great detail the extremist worldview that they hold near and dear.

    You do that—and tie McPhony to it—and the dumpy little man from Arizona will be lucky to get 50 electoral votes in November. He won’t even be able to beat Ho Chi Minh—and that guy’s been dead for about 40 years….

  • I might be wrong, but I think the Haggee & Parsley videos are a case of “that dog won’t hunt”…

    I think that the voters who would find those videos disturbing enough to make a difference in their vote are already going to vote for the Dem candidate. The hard right, whose votes we aren’t going to get anyway, won’t find those videos at all disturbing.

    The relevant question is whether undecided moderates / independents would be swayed by the videos if the MSM gave them a lot of air play. It doesn’t have to be a game-breaker … it would be sufficient if the videos carried enough weight with those folks to be “one of the 5 factors that ultimately turned me off on McCain”. At this point, I wouldn’t bet much money on that being the case.

    As for my personal view, I think that Parsley and Haggee are at least a hundred to a thousand times as dangerous to America and the world than is Jeremiah Wright.

  • The comparisons between McCain/Hagee and Obama/Wright are ultimately futile. For a variety of reasons mentioned in previous remarks, the media will never pay any real attention to McCain/Hagee. It is useless to complain about it.

    The press wants a cliche’ to spoon feed duh people on duh teevee.

    1) Oooh, look at the angry black man. You better make sure your guns are all loaded.

    2) Heavens to Betsy. That man said something bad about Amerikuh! Let’s lynch him.

    If you want to ensure the McCain is defeated, you have to create another compelling cliche’ that brings him down. And his pandering to white televangelists isn’t going to do it.

    Moving on . . . I think the best bet for a negative narrative about McCain is that he’s an old geezer who has pretty much lost whatever mind he once had, but I’m open to other suggestions.

  • i agree with WaryTale — america is only offended by self-incrimination. this dog won’t hunt.

  • Seeing some of the speculation here, I do think there’s a chance to use this to a progressive advantage.

    An organized campaign to link McCain to the crazy people I think will be marginally effective. A lot of people who support Republicans are looking for reasons NOT to vote Democratic in this day and age. You can do some damage.

    However the bigger effect of this is to bring these people to the forefront in the media and people’s awareness. McCain will hem and haw and escape with some campaign scars and a bit weakened – but you weaken the Republican brand even more and bring the crazies to the forefront – and just like Wright, I bet past a certain point they’ll eat it up.

    So the larger effect is not so much McCain, but the fact you can tie these folks to the Republican party.

    And meanwhile, McCain you can tie to Bush. MUCH easier.

  • WaryTale said:
    I might be wrong, but I think the Haggee & Parsley videos are a case of “that dog won’t hunt”…

    I think that the voters who would find those videos disturbing enough to make a difference in their vote are already going to vote for the Dem candidate.

    I agree. Informed voters may know that Haggee and Parsley are bigotted hate-mongers, but that’s not where their support comes from. Two months ago, when the Wright story first broke, there were letters to the ed in my local paper raising the Haggee issue, and someone wrote a letter defending Haggee. She claimed he never said anything bad about Catholics on his tv show. He raises money for Israel. (She of course had no clue the money goes to fund illeagal West Bank settlements.) These guys behave in front of their core supporters, and their core supporters won’t question them. Their core supporters wouldn’t be core supporters if they valued critical thought. They’ve been trained not to think. They believe what they’re told to believe. And they vote.

    One unfortunate fact about democracy is that the person who don’t bother to use his brain has just as much power in the voting booth as the deepest thinker around.

  • McCain is a “religious” panderer. He was raised Episcopalian and was most likely baptised or “christened” by sprinkling with water as an infant. He now claims to be a Baptist. To be a real Baptist and eligible for membership in a Baptist church one has to be immersed under the baptismal water, when one is old enough to make the choice, so called “believer’s baptism.” This is a real biggy in most Baptist churches. Those baptized as infants are required to be rebaptised in the approved way. Has McCain ever……..or is his present claim to be a Baptist and his seeking of endorsements from prominent megachurch preachers simply a way to curry favor with the religious right and assure their votes in November?

  • I wonder how Parsley plans on destroying Islam? There are Muslims in many countries in the world, including the USA. Aren’t Americans free to practice, or not, the faith of their choice? Or are we throwing out the constitution? Oops, bushie already did that.

    Nope, Parsley’s just another pandering, fear-mongering, violence-encouraging, megalomaniac.

    Rev. Wright NEVER EVER advocated violence, only reform for unjust systems. He just says it in ways many of us are not used to hearing, which turns off some people who might agree with him were he speaking in more measured tones.

  • I’m not sure it wouldn’t hunt. Obviously it wouldn’t work on the people that flock to their churches and give them their money. BUT, there are plenty of people out there (hey mom the republican, I’m talking about you) who get all their news from non-cable TV, their friends (many of whom hold crazy ideas) and the occasional glance at a headline. And her daughter too, I guess, but since I’m a lefty liberal, she takes what I have to say with a big grain of salt.

    But if she saw as much of these guys as she did of Wright? I think that might do something. She’s 85 and horrified when her friends make racist remarks — their remarks are one of the things that has convinced her that racism is alive and well in this country. She switched to vote for Obama in the primary, figuring at least she could stand him as president. I think that the media portrayal of McCain is going to be very important to low-info voters — there’s only so much *I* can do, but if I say it and she actually hears about it on her national news — then she might think about it.

  • I’ve got a lot to say on this one, enough that I’ll probably break it into a couple of posts. But the vagaries and dangers of the Religious Right are a long-time interest of mine, and I hope what I say is worth the time plowing through my long-windedness.

    First, as I’ve said about Hagee, the MSM is not going to go after this on their own, for a lot of reasons — none of which have to do with the conspiracy theories that get tossed around here. (Which may be valid, if exaggerated, in other contexts.)

    The first reason is that reporters, in general, are as ‘secular’ as are most of the commentators here. They don’t pay attention to the religious right in general. They certainly don’t pay enough attention to know the differences between Parsley, Schuller, Benny Hinn, Robertson, Swaggart, or Hagee — unless it is brought to their attention. They aren’t going out and trying to find a story there, they aren’t going to actually listen to a tv evangelist, they aren’t going to do the heavy research to differentiate between them. (And I’ll admit I’ve never actually heard Parsley myself — though I hope to remedy this this weekend.)

    The second reason is that most papers and networks seem to treat religion the way they do sexual matters. Again, unless it becomes a major story, they won’t, for example, ‘out’ a closeted gay, or reveal an affair. Look at the Governor of Florida. He’s gay, pretty open about it, and I assume most reporters who cover him know it — hell, he brings his lover to state affairs. But unless an opponent — and a serious one — makes an issue of it, or it becomes relevant to another story, they aren’t going to mention it. And, as it happens, the constituents who know don’t care and — because Crist is generally looked on, correctly, as a ‘good guy’ — the reporters aren’t going to out him to those who would be bothered by it. Or look at Larry Craig. He outed himself twenty years ago when he went on tv to deny that he was involved in that page story when, until he said it, nobody had ever suggested he was. And there have been blog stories about him, and his t-room cruising for years — yes, even though I’ve always been open about my own sexuality it is something I too have done many, many times. But it wasn’t a ‘story’ for the MSM until he got busted — and rightly so. It was nobody’s business unless it interfered with his public life. The same with the heterosexual affairs that suddenly make the news. They aren’t news unless something else makes them news.

    The same with religion. It’s viewed as a personal matter until something — or someone — else makes it public. Oh, if you’ve got a headline hunter like Robertson or Falwell they’ll feature them, but the far more dangerous Parsley stays below the radar. (And the possibly even more dangerous Doug Coe — Hillary’s Hagee — prefers to remain invisible.)

    And, finally, Parsley is a lot more important and ‘respectable’ than Hagee, and weilds quite a bit of power. He’s a big target but if he isn’t nailed solidly, he’ll fight back. A reporter needs a LOT of ammunition to fight him. (As I’ll discuss in the next post, he might be the person most responsible for the re-election of Bush.) It’s available, but a reporter and an editor needs a lot of motivation to gather it. And that’s where we come in.

    As I’ve said before, if we want Hagee and Parsley to become issues — and we should because the more you look, the scarier their ideas are — we have to make it an issue. Not in the blogs. We have to start running ads — and I’ve suggested that print ads are better than tv ads on this one — challenging McCain on Hagee and on Parsley. That makes it an issue that the papers and networks HAVE to deal with, and there are enough good reporters out there that they’ll find the facts and bring them out. (Again, compare it to a sexual matter like the Fosella case — or Roger Clemens. Once it got into the news, everything came out.)

    A slight side note. Too many of us seem to think that all a newspaper or tv network is is an editorial page or a panel discussion, and confuse ‘pundits’ and reporters. No, the pundits, the Russerts and Matthews’ won’t ‘break the story.’ That simply is not their job. (Keith might, but Keith is an exception. Yes, he’s a commentator, but he also DOES see himself as a reporter — in the Murrow image.) But there are plenty of reporters out there who would, again, if they had a reason to.

    And why it is important that we give them that reason will be in the next comment.

  • “Pick up your weapons” …”Lock and load”…”I’m here to start a riot”

    This guy is calling explicitly for a religious war against non-believers. He admits that openly and a war not just against Islam but against secularists. Isn’t this the type of rhetoric that inspired the terrorism of Timothy McVeigh? Yet McCain endorses his message? Says that he should be listened to?

    I don’t think I ever heard Obama say he endorsed Wright’s message.

  • Agree with much of the above. Are there are any groups out there taking contributions to fund print or tv ads?

    And BTW, McCain knew damn well who Hagee was when he endorsed him. They’ve crossed paths before. In the Jewish Journal (4-4-08), McCain is said to have told a correspondent, via phone, that Hagee can influence millions of votes (true or not, apparently McCain believes it).

    A lot of McCain defenders plea: yea, but McCain didn’t go to Hagee’s church for 20 years bla bla bla. Two points. First, whatever relation Obama has is irrelevant. If Obama’s relation is stronger is irrelevant; it does not excuse or even bear on the implications of McCain’s ties. And as far as those ties, my Second point is that McCain’s ties are political. Wright will cost Obama votes, McCain will deliver votes for McCain (in a close election, perhaps the winning votes). Who will be politically indebted? McCain. Watch out for the politician who owes a debt…

    Another interesting tidbit. Moyers did a piece on CUFI (some christian pro-israel group). In it there is video of McCain sayin “it’s hard to do the lord’s work in the city of Satan”. WTF does that mean? McCain thinks he’s doing the lords work as a Senator? McCain thinks America’s capital is “the city of Satan”?! It reminds me of G.D. America….

    There could be grave foreign policy penalties for McCain’s praise and approval of Parsley. I’ve now seen the first article in a Muslim online-paper on this topic. The Pakistan Daily Times, Saturday May 10, has a brief article about McCain and Parsley. This sh!t is going to explode one day, and it won’t be in the US press, it’s going to be in Muslim press. And McCain is supposed to be the foreign policy expert…

  • Comments are closed.