When McCain Lost the Election

From Political Wire:

Suspending Campaign Doomed McCain

A post-election assessment by Wilson Research Strategies concludes that though Barack Obama "leveraged a Democratic advantage on the economy throughout the campaign," it wasn't until John McCain's "ill-fated efforts to 'lead' on the bailout that he truly lost control of the issue."

My own political analysis at the time wasn't quite that well-developed or intelligently expressed, but it was one of the few occasions during the campaign that my instincts were good.

I sent a brief email to Liam the day McCain suspended his campaign:

Subject: McCain Is Nuts

And I think he just lost the election.

Two days earlier, as the stock market collapsed, McCain had delivered his infamous remark that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong."

By then suspending his campaign, he not only seemed lost in dealing with the economic crisis, he also called into question his own leadership skills. Rather than appearing presidential, he seemed erratic and confused.

The impression was even more pronounced when compared with Obama's cool-headedness.

I haven't seen any post-election analysis that mentions The Letterman Factor, but one wonders how much impact David Letterman had when he tore McCain to shreds on national television that night. He immediately understood the lack-of-leadership implications of McCain's stunt, and he slammed the candidate brutally before millions of viewers.

"You don't quit.

You don't suspend your campaign. This doesn't smell right. This isn't the way a tested hero behaves. I think someone's putting something in his metamucil.

What are you going to do if you're elected and things get tough? Suspend being president? We've got a guy like that now!"

The one factor ignored in the Wilson Research Strategies report is how well Obama turned McCain's stunt against him. He brilliantly suggested that McCain couldn't do two things at once - a crippling charge against a man who wants to lead the country in a time of crisis. And by refusing to cancel the first debate that was scheduled two days later, as McCain foolishly suggested, Obama looked confident and strong while his opponent seemed desperate.

Obviously, there were many reasons why McCain lost the election - the pick of Sarah Palin being another major element. But I do think the week of September 22-26, 2008 was the pivotal point in the election, when the nation turned away from McCain as a possible leader. Amazingly, it had nothing to do with his opponent; it was a purely self-inflicted wound.

There are several other interesting chunks of information in the WRS report, which is presented as an easy-to-follow slideshow.

The Noble Campaign

This morning on Meet the Press, Jon Meacham, Editor of Newsweek, said that John McCain had run "a noble campaign."

I was - how shall I say? - a little surprised by the comment.

"And we should mark that," he continued. "It could've been a lot worse."

Meacham's got a point. The McCain campaign tried to portray Obama as Un-American, Un-Patriotic, an Appeaser, a Marxist, a Socialist, a Muslim, a Terrorist, etc.

They didn't quite get to Pedophile, Serial Killer, or Drug Lord. (Though several surrogates, including Rudy Giuliani, did hint at Obama as a possible drug dealer.)

And it wasn't outside groups making the accusations this time, as with the Swift Boaters in 2004. It was the McCain campaign itself.

But Meacham's not the only normally reasonable person pushing the "McCain ran a noble campaign" meme. I've seen two other Liberal or centrist pundits jump on the bandwagon this week. And, sadly, in all three cases, neither the host nor any of the other guests ever bothered to question this assertion or ask for more explanantion.

Just before the election, Mark Shields, the "Liberal" commentator on the The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, said, "The most admirable thing John McCain did was not to play the race card in this campaign. And for that, he should be -- he deserves some credit."

So, Mr. Shields, was it just some good-natured joshing of Barack Obama and his policies that led to the toxic atmosphere at those Sarah Palin rallies?

This week, the U.S. Secret Service revealed that Palin's rallies "provoked a spike in death threats against the future president."

The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks.

Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: "Why would they try to make people hate us?"

Congressman John Lewis, who was almost beaten to death by racists when he was a Freedom Rider in 1961, said that McCain and Palin were "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" and "hostility in our political discourse," and mentioned the hateful tone of George Wallace back in the 1960s.

And Stratfor, private intelligence analysts, issued a report this week on security threats against Obama by white supremacists: "Two plots to assassinate Obama were broken up during the campaign season, and several more remain under investigation. . . . We would expect federal authorities to uncover many more plots to attack the president that have been hatched by white supremacist ideologues."

"Muslim," for one, was always the race card. I still don't believe that 23% of the people in Texas really thought Obama was a Muslim. That's just the terminology they used in public instead of calling him a Dirty N-$#$%&%$.

And there were numerous openly racist remarks and brochures sent out by McCain campaigners at the local level.

My guess is that Meacham and Shields and other commentators are praising McCain for not bringing up Rev. Jeremiah Wright in the campaign. Somehow, this made McCain "noble" and proved he didn't play the race card. What else could it be?

Ironically, I think Rev. Wright would've been more of a legitimate issue to bring up than William Ayers, or Obama being a Marxist. The latter two issues simply didn't have any substance behind them. There were still a few pockets of doubt about Wright, however, despite Obama's powerful and moving speech on racism in Philadelphia when the issue came up during the primaries. Did Barack ever fully explain why he stayed in the church as long as he did, or which part of Wright's belief system he shared? I don't think Wright would have been a very effective or worthwhile topic for the McCain campaign to raise, but I don't think it would've been racist to ask some questions.

So, did McCain run a "noble campaign" in the end?

I offer a story. . .

My aunt, an Obama supporter, lives in Odessa, Texas, heart of George W. Bush country, and a place where I'm sure that more than 23% of the people said they thought Obama was a "Muslim." A nurse comes to my aunt's house every few days to check on her. During the campaign, she showed up wearing a McCain button. Nothing surprising about that in Odessa, Texas.

When the nurse came to visit a couple of days after the election, my aunt asked her if she had voted. "Yes," she said, "Mother and I went down and waited for a long time and we finally got in. We voted for all the local races, but we didn't vote for president."

Surprised, my aunt asked her why.

"Well, we were getting all those emails about Obama, saying he was a Muslim and a Marxist and everything. . . . But I just didn't think he was.

Mother and I would see those people on TV . . . and we just didn't think we were like them. We don't want to be like them."

The Danger of Sarah Palin

I'm going to try this again.

The latest issue of The New Yorker features a good article by Connie Bruck, "Odd Man Out," about Chuck Hagel, the Republican Senator from Nebraska.

While Democrats may know Hagel for his opposition to the war in Iraq, and for accompanying Barack Obama on a trip to Baghdad in July, they may not realize that he's still very close friends with John McCain and served as Co-Chair of McCain's presidential campaign in 2000. It must be especially galling, then, for McCain to read what his friend has to say about the woman he chose as his running mate.

Hagel may be the only senior Republican elected official who has publicly criticized McCain’s choice of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. “I don’t believe she’s qualified to be President of the United States,” Hagel told me. “The first judgment a potential President makes is who their running mate is—and I don’t think John made a very good selection.”

For Hagel, almost as disturbing as Palin’s lack of experience is her willingness—in disparaging remarks about Joe Biden’s long Senate career, for example—to belittle the notion that experience is important. “There’s no question, she knows her market,” Hagel said. “She knows her audience, and she’s going right after them. And I’ll tell you why that’s dangerous. It’s dangerous because you don’t want to define down the standards in any institution, ever, in life. You want to always strive to define standards up. If you start defining standards down—‘Well, I don’t have a big education, I don’t have experience’—yes, there’s a point to be made that not all the smartest people come out of Yale or Harvard. But to intentionally define down in some kind of wild populism, that those things don’t count in a complicated, dangerous world—that’s dangerous in itself.

The Result of the McCain-Palin Negative Attack Campaign

From today's New York Times article, "Obama Appeal Rises in Poll; No Gains for McCain Ticket."

In the last month, Obama's Favorable rating among Independents has gone from 34% to 51%, +17 points. Biden went from 31% to 47%, +16.

In the same time period, McCain's Favorable rating among Independents went from 42% to 39%, -3 points. Palin's rating went from 42% to 38%, -4 points.

McCain's Unfavorable rating went up an astounding 20 points, from 24% to 44%. Palin's Unfavorable rating jumped 14 points, from 19% to 33%.



Click on the image for a closer view.

Across the board, Obama and Biden made significant gains, whereas McCain and, especially Palin, went down, down, down.

The nasty attacks by McCain and Palin may have pleased the right-wing extremist Republican base, but there aren't enough of them to win an election without moderate Republicans and Independents.

What a bizarre campaign McCain has run. In a year when he absolutely had to court Independents, he seems only to have pandered to a dwindling extremist base.

McCain Stunt Level Alert System

From Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com.

I would say we're at ORANGE right now. Maybe peaking into RED.

Biden Wins the VP Debate (and More)

It seems boring and obvious to say that Joe Biden won the VP debate, but the vast majority of the media and political pundits have been so focused on the Sarah Palin Sideshow ("Wow, she can string together nouns and verbs!") that the real story from last night needs to be repeated so that it can escape the NoiseDome: Joe Biden easily won last night's debate, especially in the eyes of the only people who really matter at this point: Independents and Undecided Voters.

Media Research did real-time polling of Independents on issues that matter most to them. Here are some of the results from Biden Won Independents in VP Debate:

Who won the debate?
Biden 69%
Palin 31%

Washington Bailout Reaction
Biden 62%
Palin 38%

VP Responsibilities
Biden 72%
Palin 28%

Taxes
Biden 72%
Palin 28%

An instant CBS poll of Undecided voters on who won the debate:

Biden 46%
Palin 21%
Tie 33%

The over-emphasis on Ms. Governor Sideshow not freaking out on stage neglects the fact that Biden had to walk a tightrope last night in how he dealt with his opponent, and he handled the situation very, very well.

Some comments from Joe Klein (certainly not a raging liberal) at Time:

The fact that Palin made it through the debate without running off the stage shouting, "I can't do this!" should not obscure the fact that there was only one person tonight whom anyone with any sense—even John McCain, I imagine—would trust as President. Biden's performance was strong and, happily, gimmick free. He used no gotcha soundbites, no consultant-driven silliness—a fact driven home by the lameness of Palin's snark lines like, "Say it ain't so, Joe" and—pace, Gipper—"There you go again, talking about the past."

She had that folksy thing down—although I did notice, watching the squiggly lines down at the bottom of the CNN screen, that when she tried to get cutesy with her folksiness, it didn't work.

What she did show was some folksy charm and some energy—qualities that might get her selected for Dancing With the Stars, if not Jeopardy.

Joe Biden, by contrast, demonstrated a real knowledge of the issues in question. . . . He was genuinely moving when he talked about being a single parent after the death of his wife (he almost began to weep, but held it together); in fact, that moment was more real than anything Palin said all night. He also closed with a devastating point: McCain was, sure enough, a maverick on some things, but not on any of the issues that really mattered in this election—and he listed those issues, and where McCain stood on them, to great effect.

Drama Queen John McCain's poll numbers have been steadily slipping, both nationally and in several key swing states. His campaign, and many pundits, think that Gov. Sideshow's performance last night will stop the bleeding.

Because she didn't totally screw up.

But she still looked completely outmatched - and unprepared to be Vice President of the United States of America.

Republicans were so happy last night that Gov. Sideshow had done okay. And I'm sure the "base" was pleased.

But I'd bet money that at least a few undecided and Independent voters woke up this morning and - in the cold, sober light of day - realized that Sideshow actually didn't do that well last night. And when they think about a future that could be one of the most challenging and insecure times in the history of our country, the idea of McCain and Palin running the country could and should scare them to death.

The bottom line: John "Drama Queen" McCain and Sarah "Sideshow" Palin simply aren't presidential.

It's rather stunning, really. In one of the shakiest times since most of us have been alive, the Republican Party has chosen TWO people for the ticket who fail the simplest test of all - at least seeming like they have what it takes to be president of the country. Over the last two weeks, in the midst of an economic crisis, McCain has behaved like a fading prima donna gone off her meds. Or some boozer trying to hijack a school bus full of kids so he gets on the evening news. "Erratic" doesn't even begin to cover it. For God's sake, take the keys away from this guy before he gets behind the wheel.

And no matter how much Palin exceeded expectations last night, she seemed absolutely vacuous and immature next to her Democratic opponent.

Biden, on the other hand, seemed as presidential as Obama. It's a solid ticket in a time of crisis.

Joe Biden won the debate. And much more.

Campaign Update #357

Obama returns from his trip to Europe. McCain complains about media bias. Serious issues, handled in a serious manner.

Seriously.

Obama's Got Pander!

Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee for President last Tuesday.

The very next day, as if to prove that he could pander with the best/worst of them . . . . well . . . .

Jon Stewart on Obama, McClain and Hillary Clinton pandering their little hearts out at the annual conference of AIPAC, the leading pro-Israel lobbying group in the United States.

The Obama Nomination

I didn't vote for Obama in the primaries. He wasn't even my second choice among the candidates. But I have to admit that I started getting a little choked up Tuesday night after he finally gained enough delegates to become the nominee of the Democratic Party.

It's been a strange campaign so far. On one hand, I've been appalled by the outright racism expressed by a number of Democratic voters. Watching news clips of scary-looking people saying they would never vote for a black man shouldn't have surprised me, I guess, but it did. And it saddened me deeply. This was supposed to be the party that cared about people of color. It didn't help that the Clinton campaign engaged in race-baiting once it became evident they had a battle on their hands, which certainly contributed to the openly racist remarks flowing so easily towards the end of the primaries in places like West Virginia and Kentucky (and in one frightening woman from New York City screeching nasty remarks about Obama at the DNC Committee vote on Florida and Michigan).

Then, suddenly, after a seemingly endless campaign, an African-American man was standing before me as the Democratic nominee for president. How extraordinary! It was one of those beautiful but rare moments when the America I believe in and long for was able to blossom forth.

His speech last Tuesday night was one of the best of the campaign. "America, this is our moment. This is our time." That was riveting. Here it is if you didn't see it earlier.



The General Election

Obama should be able to defeat McCain in November. But I'm concerned about the way he lost control of the media narrative in the last part of the primaries.

After running such an impressive and well-planned campaign through the end of February, Obama's team was out-campaigned by Hillary Clinton more often than not the rest of the way. The constant battering by the Clinton camp seemed to knock Obama out of his game plan. While his team certainly reacts more quickly to a single attack than Kerry did with the Swiftboaters in 2004, they seem to have trouble with a constant barrage of potentially damaging statements or issues and struggled to maintain momentum after Ohio and Texas.

On the other hand, left to himself, I don't think John McCain could campaign his way out of a paper bag, and his team doesn't seem half as talented or creative as the Clintons. One theory says that if Barack Obama can defeat the Clintons, who many people consider some of the most brilliant politicians of the last 40 years, then he can defeat McCain. I agree with that up to a point. But what if - and I'm thinking of the evidence we have from this campaign - the Clintons actually weren't as brilliant as we made them out to be for so long? Or that they were operating like a once-great heavyweight champion who's now just a flabby, arrogant prima donna long past his prime, and who says stupid things because he's been hit in the head too many times? Then, Obama struggling until the very last primary in June doesn't look so positive.

Luckily, it looks like McCain is going to approach Obama the same way Clinton did - with disdain and disbelief that this young kid thinks it's his turn to be president instead of me, me, me, me me. You'd think McCain and his advisers would've watched the Democratic primaries and realized the mistake in underestimating Barack Obama.

Mark Halperin, at The Page, lists the ways in which John McCain underestimates Obama:

1. The astonishing enthusiasm that Obama inspires in his supporters — and how much it contrasts with the respect, but not passion, McCain enjoys from his own backers. (And the size of Obama’s crowds…)

2. The “Major League vs Little League” difference between Obama’s infrastructure and his own.

3. The inherent difficulty/sensitivity of running against two figures at once. McCain will have to 1) explicitly criticize a sitting Republican president before Republican audiences and 2) prevent the historic event of electing the nation’s first African-American president that many in the country (and the media) desire.

4. The ever-present danger on the trail that he might evoke Bob Dole with a Bob Dole-like misstep (fall off a stage, sound like a Washington fossil, seem angry and out of touch).

5. How little most Americans care about foreign policy (beyond the Iraq War) when the economy is in the tank.

6. How many voters (even Republican stalwarts) dread the idea of a virtual third Bush term.

7. How many members of the media dread the idea of covering a virtual third Bush term (and how much they buy Obama’s argument that McCain is an extension of Bush-Cheney).

8. The extent to which McCain’s lack of an economic message could make Obama (who also is challenged in adequately addressing the economy) seem like Bob Rubin, Bill Clinton, and Lou Dobbs all rolled into one.

9. That many of his party’s wiseguys and wisegals see polling data suggesting his chances of winning are no more than 30% (and how much it infects their cable TV appearances).

10. That in modern America, perception is often reality and style often beats substance.

11. That age is only a number unless it’s a really high number — then it’s a liability.

12. How old he looks when he is acting “presidential” on the stump – and how incongruous it makes his message of change appear.

13. How powerful debates might be when the allegedly inexperienced Obama of allegedly questionable judgment goes toe-to-toe with McCain, even on national security, and is therefore deemed of sufficient strength and stature to be president by many.

14. How valuable Obama makes voters feel (”we are the change we have been waiting for”) – while McCain’s campaign instructs and lectures voters.

15. How forcefully Obama will now move to the center as a mainstream, optimistic candidate celebrating both change and America’s greatness.

(I would add another: 16. A winning smile like Obama's connects with voters more than McCain's snide, arrogant little laugh that sounds like Beavis from Beavis and Butthead.)

Running mates will probably be important for both sides, as each candidate tries to bring together various elements of their respective parties and win some of the crucial swing states.

But I'll take a look at those in the future.

Accepting a Unity Ticket

Whatever my reservations about a compromise/unity ticket in the past, I think it's clear by now that both Obama and Clinton need to be considered on a ticket.

I had a sudden revelation while listening to some of the candidates pander talk about the gas tax this weekend:

From Talking Points Memo Election Central:

George Stephanopoulos asked her a direct question: Could she name a single economist who agrees with her support for the gas tax holiday?

Hillary sidestepped the question, and tried to use the complete dearth of expert support for the idea to her advantage, pointing to it as proof that she's on the side of ordinary folks against "elite opinion" -- a phrase she used twice.

From The New Republic's blog, The Stump - Hillary vs. Pointy Heads:

"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists," Clinton said... We've been, for the last seven years, seeing a tremendous amount of government power and elite opinion basically behind policies that haven't worked well for the middle class and hard-working Americans."

Anti-intellectualism, success in obscure rural areas--when exactly did Hillary become Mike Huckabee?

And from The Plank, "How To Beat Gas Tax Demagoguery":

The Clinton and McCain campaign have defended their plan to suspend the federal gasoline tax in strikingly similar terms.

John McCain, when asked about New York Times columnist Tom Friedman's opposition to the tax suspension, replied:

"I understand in New York City that you don't really drive a long way most of the time," McCain said. "But -- and then maybe you're chauffeured."

The common thread here is anti-intellectual, populist demagoguery.

A flash of understanding! In addition to the gas-tax pandering, consider the following:

1) Hillary wants to "obliterate Iran." John McCain wants to "bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran."

2) They both voted to invade Iraq and supported the war long after most Americans wanted us to withdraw our troops.

3) Hillary made it clear that only she and McCain have passed the "Commander-in-Chief threshold."

4) Hillary is already running a Republican-Karl-Rove style campaign. She wouldn't even have to change her current strategies.

5) Hillary and McCain are said to genuinely like each other. And both are said to genuinely dislike Obama.

6) After 15 years of railing against Richard Scaife for coordinating the "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her and Bill, Hillary reconciled with the conservative hit man in order to win the Pennsylvania primary. Think of the possibilities of a Clinton-Scaife team in taking on Obama!

7) The Clintons already have ample experience ramming Republican policies down our throats: See NAFTA, The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, The Telecommunications Act of 1996, and efforts to privatize government, the military, etc. Bill has been called "The best Republican president since Eisenhower." Now Hillary won't have to worry about that being a joke.

8) Hillary Clinton's chief strategist (until recently) Mark Penn is CEO of the DC-based PR firm Burson-Marsteller (Blackwater's PR firm!). Charlie Black, John McCain's top adviser, is chairman of BKSH, Burson-Marsteller's lobbying firm. Imagine the savings on lobbyists and campaign advisers!

9) The Clintons and Joe Lieberman are all part of the Democratic Leadership Council gang, whose objective was always to turn Democrats into Republicans Lite. Lieberman finally ditched the Democratic Party and is currently campaigning hard for McCain. Now, he and Hillary and Bill could all be together again as one big happy family!

10) By joining McCain, Hillary and Bill won't have to hide their race-baiting anymore, which has to be stressful, trying to keep so many Liberals from figuring out what they're doing. She's already locking up reactionary beer-drinking, gun-toting bowlers. Now she can really tell those intellectual arugula-eating, latte-drinking Obama-loving elites to kiss her white, "working-class" ass.

McCain-Clinton 2008!

McCain's Bus Trip Down Memory Lane

I have a feeling we haven't seen the last of the McCain/Grampa Simpson connection.

Sunday Morning Cartoon

From Weyant's World, in The Hill.

McCain's Unusual Strategy to Court the Catholic Vote

In an appeal to Catholic voters across the nation, John McCain flew down to San Antonio, Texas on Wednesday to publicly receive the endorsement of Evangelical mega-church pastor John Hagee. In addition to many other bigoted comments over the years, it turns out that Hagee has a particular soft spot for the "Great Whore," "apostate church," and "false cult system" that is the Roman Catholic Church.

Glenn Greenwald, at Salon.com:

One of this week's hysterical press scandals was that Minister Louis Farrakhan praised Barack Obama's candidacy even though Obama had previously denounced numerous Farrakhan remarks and the Obama campaign did nothing to seek out the Farrakhan praise. Nonetheless, Tim Russert demanded that Obama jump through multiple hoops to prove that he has no connection to -- and, in fact, "rejects" -- the ideas espoused by Farrakhan deemed to be radical and hateful.

Yesterday, though, the equally fringe, radical and hateful (at least) Rev. John Hagee -- a white evangelical who is the pastor of a sprawling "mega-church" in Texas -- enthusiastically endorsed John McCain. Did McCain have to jump through the same hoops which Russert and others set up for Obama and "denounce" Hagee's extremism and "reject" his support? No; quite the opposite. McCain said he was "very honored" to receive this endorsement and, when asked about some of Hagee's more twisted views, responded: "all I can tell you is that I am very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support."

Enter Bill Donohoe, of the Catholic League, who issued a statement yesterday, entitled "McCain Embraces Bigot" (I guess it takes one to know one):

“There are plenty of staunch evangelical leaders who are pro-Israel, but are not anti-Catholic. John Hagee is not one of them. Indeed, for the past few decades, he has waged an unrelenting war against the Catholic Church. For example, he likes calling it ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.’ To hear the bigot in his own words, click here. Note: he isn’t talking about the Buddhists.

“In Hagee’s latest book, Jerusalem Countdown, he calls Hitler a Catholic who murdered Jews while the Catholic Church did nothing. ‘The sell-out of Catholicism to Hitler began not with the people but with the Vatican itself,’ he writes. . . .

“Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. McCain should follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee.”

John McCain responded:

“Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee’s views, which I obviously do not.”

And, later in the day:

McCain was pressed on the issue Friday morning in Round Rock, Texas. Hagee "supports what I stand for and believe in," McCain said.

"When he endorses me, that does not mean that I endorse everything that he stands for and believes in," McCain said. "I don't have to agree with everyone who endorses my campaign."

He added that he was "proud" of Hagee's spiritual leadership of his congregation at the 17,000-member Cornerstone Church.

The Democratic National Committee, via Executive Director Tom McMahon, then asked:

So which Hagee positions does John McCain endorse? His position that Hurricane Katrina was punishment from God because "New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." Or his position that "all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews." [NPR Fresh Air, 9/18/06] Or his "slave sale" where he announced that participants should "make plans to come and go home with a slave." [San Antonio Express-News 3/7/96]

"As a Catholic, I am personally offended by John McCain's embrace of such a divisive figure. I join many others in the Catholic community calling on Sen. McCain to immediately distance himself from Hagee and denounce his remarks," said DNC Executive Director Tom McMahon. "As an American, I'm also offended by Hagee's denigration of African Americans, Muslims, women, and LGBT Americans. Hagee's hate speech has no place in public discourse and McCain's embrace of this figure raises serious questions about John McCain's character and his willingness to do anything to win."

The Antichrist, by Lucas Cranach the Elder - 1521. The Pope portrayed as the Antichrist.

The group Catholics United also chimed in:

Catholics United has issued a letter to the John McCain campaign asking him to publicly distance himself from Pastor John Hagee's anti-Catholic rhetoric and reject his endorsement.

On Wednesday, Senator John McCain was “honored” to receive the endorsement of the Evangelical pastor John Hagee. Pastor Hagee is well known for his anti-Catholic rhetoric such as past suggestions that the Catholic Church gave Adolf Hitler inspiration and support for the Holocaust.

Later in the day, Donohoe discussed the issue further in an interview with Glenn Greenwald:

"Hagee is far more powerful than Farrakhan is today. . . . Hagee is a major player. There's no end to his money. He has an empire down there." Regarding the intense 2000 media controversy when then-Gov. George Bush spoke at Bob Jones University, Donohue said:

Why were they so exercised about Bob Jones? This is worse. . . . If someone said to me: who is the biggest anti-Catholic bigot in the evangelical community, I would say: hands down, John Hagee.

Donohue was particularly insistent that McCain's behavior would severely harm his standing with Catholic voters -- the group of voters which Karl Rove maintains is the key group for enabling the GOP to win: "This thing seems to be to be blowing up in his face. McCain has stepped in it big time." And Donohue further vowed:

He's not going to get away with this with the Catholic community. . . . We're going to get this out to the Catholic community and Catholic press around the country. . . . We're going to ride this out and see how far he wants to talk about this.

Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee was just disappointed that Hagee hadn't endorsed him:

I don't know how to speak for Pastor Hagee. He's a friend. I was shocked and disappointed by his decision, but you know what, he has one vote and I'm going to believe that there are a whole lot of people in Texas who will vote their own principles and conscience.

And how are some Evangelicals responding to their offended Catholic brothers and sisters? One blog had this to say:

[Hagee] regularly preaches that the Roman Catholics have caused much suffering in the world through the centuries. But who can rightly deny it? Look at the medieval history of Europe for instance, horrible slaughters of Jews and Protestants who would not bend the knee to the Roman Pope. And to this day, many Catholics think that only Catholics go to heaven, no Protestants allowed, so where do you suppose they got that idea?

And is Donohue protesting donations to McCain from gay Log Cabin Republicans? Is he protesting donations from gambling casinos, from liquor distributors, or from atheistic Catholic-haters? I dare say no, so Donohue should stop being so sensitive and self-righteous. But if he wants to not acknowledge the sometimes horrific behavior of the Roman Catholic church throughout church history, nor the many valid reasons that Protestants think Roman Catholicism is not New Testament Christianity, then Donohue will be one of the few who is that myopic to not see it, acknowledge it, and move on.

The Dallas Morning News Religion Blog covered the story: Catholic League doesn't (heart) McCain's cozying with Hagee. Here's the first readers' comment:

Pastor Hagee is totaly right about the Catholic Church..Hagee saying exactley what God said about this group.....In Revelations chapters 2 & 3 you will find that God says he hates this group of chanting, idle worshipping, with Mary and their Saints. Along with other Apostate religions, like the Binny Hinn's of this world and the Laodicean church age, New Age movement, The Morman and Jehovah Witness cults, pagans, etc.None of these groups are teaching the True word of God..Last chapter in Revelations says...do not add too or take away from his (Gods) words...Period! Jesus is the only way and the only answer for Salvation from an eternal, Burning fire of Hell. There is no other way but one and it is through Jesus Chirst, the Son of God, who shed is blood on Calavry for man's sins...Hagee is telling the turth.

Nice, move Senator McCain. You've managed to piss off Catholics, who make up a sizable portion of your possible voter base; fueled ongoing tension between Protestant Evangelicals and Catholics; and made Obama's rejection and denunciation of Farrakhan look even stronger.

At one point, I was concerned about John McCain being the Republican candidate. But the more I watch this man in the primaries, the more I doubt his skills at running a presidential campaign. He ran out of money last summer and still has a hard time raising cash: $12 million last month, with virtually no competition in the race, compared to $30 million from Hillary Clinton and $50 million for Obama. He can't finish off Mike Huckabee. His supposed "straight-talk" often sounds like he simply hasn't thought about what he's saying - a major disadvantage in a presidential race. ("I don't really know much about the economy.") He continues tying himself to a president with a 20% approval rating, and to a war which 2/3 of Americans want to end. He doesn't seem to have learned anything from Hillary Clinton's failed attacks against Barack Obama and seems content to repeat her mistakes.

If Obama can win the nomination, I'm beginning to look forward to an extended campaign against John McCain. Who knows, Obama might even pick up some of the Catholic vote.

UPDATE: Here's video of some of Hagee's charming thoughts on Catholics:



Meanwhile, right-wing Evangelicals and Catholics battle it out over at Hot Air:

That’s the salient thing about these loud-mouthed, Hagee-hating Catholics: They are all over Hagee for his alleged anti-Catholicism, but it seems the main thing that comes through in your posts is a loathing for Hagee and fundamentalists.

Hagee is a brave and decent man: Sliming him hurts his detractors far more than it does Mr. Hagee.

sanantonian on March 1, 2008 at 1:56 AM

Hagee has called the Catholic Church ‘The Great Whore,’ an ‘apostate church,’ the ‘anti-Christ,’ and a ‘false cult system.’ There is nothing “alleged” about his hatred of Catholics. Actually, he is quite open about his disgust and hatred toward Catholics.

There are plently of decent and rightous Protestant ministers who stand up for Israel and Christian values in this country but do not have contempt for Catholics, and work with us to achieve our common goals, and Hagee is not one of them!

irish_infidel on March 1, 2008 at 2:11 AM

The Catholics win that round.

UPDATE 2: Matthew Yglesias, Associate Editor of Atlantic Monthly:

Initially, John McCain had an admirably straight-talking like on John Hagee -- he was proud to be supported by the anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, "pro-Israel" Christian leader who hopes to see the Middle East plunged into massive war that will result in the end of the world. Now he's getting flip-floppety . . . .

The issue here has to do with the role of extremists in public life. Barack Obama never sought support from Louis Farrakhan, never appeared on stage with Farrakhan, never pronounced himself proud to be backed by Farrakhan, but was nonetheless asked on national television to specifically disavow the man. People don't want to put a political coalition that includes Farrakhan in office.

McCain and his staff actively sought out Hagee's endorsement, he appeared and campaigned with Hagee, he said he was proud to be backed by Hagee. Hagee is, in short, part of McCain's political strategy. Now he tells us he doesn't agree with Hagee about everything. Well, which things? Are we supposed to believe that McCain's not into the bigotry, or the foreign policy aimed at apocalypse, but just likes Hagee because of their shared opposition to gay marriage? Is McCain going to be courting Osama bin Laden's endorsement? It's reminiscent of McCain's on-again, off-again quest for the support of "agents of intolerance" like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. McCain's trying to wink with one eye to a segment of the electorate, wink with his other eye at his fans in the media, and somehow maintain a reputation for straight talk throughout all this.

Like Hope, But Different

Oh man, I do love the internet. There are so many creative people out there.

If you haven't seen this yet, you really should.

If you haven't seen the original "Yes, We Can" video this is riffing on, journey here.

The Republican Debate

"Political experts say that the ten Republican candidates represented all races, creeds, and colors of rich white men." Conan O'Brien

The Republicans held their first presidential debate Thursday night at the Ronald Reagan Library in California. I was curious to know how it went and who conservatives thought had won, so I toured a few right-wing blogs and some other sites. The Democrats are feeling pretty cocky right now and think they might be able to take the White House in 2008, but given their history of running pathetic presidential campaigns (see Gore 2000, Kerry 2004, Dukakis 1988, etc.), voters may want to familiarize themselves with the Republican candidates in case Ron Paul winds up as our next president.

Unlike the Democrats' first debate in South Carolina last week, where no one really stood out or completely blew it, the Republican debate seems to have had some clear winners and losers. It will be interesting to see polling numbers for Republicans in the next couple of weeks. A few surprises may be in store.

The consensus winner of the night was Mitt Romney. He pretty much made a clean sweep of all the blog polls and analytical pieces I read. As one National Review pundit said, he "looked and sounded like a serious presidential candidate." Many others agreed.

The consesus loser on Thursday was "America's Mayor," Rudy Giuliani. If you believe the pundits, his campaign is about to tank over this debate debacle.

Red State: "Rudy Giuliani imploded. . . . Rudy totally and utterly self-destructed tonight. He had many chances to get in good with the core base of Republican voters and ignored every moment."

National Review pundit 1: "[Rudy] lost the debate, beginning with the first question when he seemed nervous and disorganized. At no time did he manage to convey the strength and confidence of America’s mayor."

National Review pundit 2: "Rudy seemed so half-hearted — so unwilling to make an effort, to demonstrate that he actually wants to become president — that I found myself wondering if he’s having second thoughts about running. I can’t tell you who won, but Rudy for darned sure lost."

New York Post: [Rudy] may not be the front-runner much longer. . . . [H]is debate performance was lousy. . . . Rudy did himself harm last night."

When the New York Post rips its favorite mayor, you know things were bad.

Though perhaps not all is lost for Rudy. A Survey USA poll of 317 debate watchers in California thought he did best, giving him 30% of their vote, more than twice as much as the next candidate, Romney, at 12%. The poll doesn't say, however, whether these debate watchers were Republican voters or not, or if they were even registered voters, or if they were even awake during the debate. But it wouldn't be unlikely to see him score well among a poll of the general public.

Ron Paul. Your next President of the United States.

The big surpise of the night: Ron Paul, Libertarian Congressman from the Galveston, Texas district. Paul came in second in all of the blog polls and even forced the pundits to acknowledge his existence, though most did so grudingly. He was supposed to be the crazy old fringe guy, kind of like Mike Gravel is for the Democrats, except that viewers actually responded well to Dr. Paul, who is an M.D. and - according to Wikipedia - has delivered over 4,000 babies. The Wall Street Journal said, "Paul distinguished himself both by presenting a strong antiwar, anti-interventionist platform and by appearing nervous at times." [He distinguished himself by "appearing nervous"?] Now what do the pundits do? Dr. Paul also did very well in the "YouTube Primary," with 11,000 views of his debate performance, 2nd only to Romney's 16,000 views.

Another winner: Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas. While Ron Paul will [sadly?] never be taken seriously as a candidate, Huckabee might have a chance to start swimming with the big boys if Rudy and McCain start to tumble. Yet another National Review pundit (they had a whole damn panel of them), said of Huckabee: "Smart, pleasant, knowledgeable, and straightforward." Mark Halperin at Time gave him a B+, behind only Romney. If nothing else, Huckabee might be getting a look as a possible VP. Rudy, for example, could use some real help in the south and among the social conservatives. Huckabee is a Baptist minister from Arkansas.

Another loser: John McCain. I thought it was interesting that McCain got okay reviews from the pundits, whereas most conservative blog polls had him 4th or 5th, with about 5% of the vote, and comments on some of the blogs were downright vicious towards him. He really is something of a media darling, it seems. If you're a supposed front-runner, and your potential base doesn't seem to like you and thinks you looked like a doddering old fool in the debate, I don't see how that plays out as an "okay" performance.

So, what are the Republicans going to do? Their main front-runner "implodes" in the debate. The second one gets a lukewarm-to-vicious response. The Mormon flip-flopper from the East Coast does really well. The Libertarian from Texas (via Pittsburgh - another Yankee carpetbagger!) scores big. The Baptist minister - Huckabee - might cause some waves. But I don't get the sense that the Repubicans actually have much of a candidate they can support right now. Which is why so many conservatives want Fred Thompson to run, I guess.

Here are some of the numbers and comments I collected:

Drudge - 85,000 votes
Romney 30%
Rudy 20%
Ron Paul 18%
McCain 6%

Little Green Footballs - 4,440 votes
Romney 34.6%
Rudy 23%
Ron Paul 20.7%
Tancredo 6.1%
McCain 5.2%

Hot Air (Michelle Malkin) - 2,000 votes
Romney 54%
Rudy 16%
Ron Paul 10%
Hunter 6%
McCain / Tancredo 4%

Red State -1,300 votes
Who LOST the debate?
Rudy 38%
McCain 17%
Romney 10%

"John McCain won. . . . Mitt Romney shined, he stood out, he did well. Rudy Giuliani imploded. Rudy totally and utterly self-destructed tonight. He had many chances to get in good with the core base of Republican voters and ignored every moment."

National Review Panel
1) Winners: Romney, McCain, and Huckabee
"It was hard to see why Giuliani is a frontrunner. . . . [He] was tired and off balance."

2) Mitt Romney had the best night. Calm, warm, thoughtful, and engaging, he looked and sounded like a serious presidential candidate. John McCain and Giuliani didn’t do themselves any favors.

3)And the winner is: Mitt the Good, the Perfect, the Gosh-Darned Smartest of Them All. He was substantive, concise, and humorous, if somewhat over-educated.
Runner-up goes to Mike Huckabee. Smart, pleasant, knowledgeable, and straightforward, he was the surprise in the Cracker Jack box.
[Rudy] lost the debate, beginning with the first question when he seemed nervous and disorganized. At no time did he manage to convey the strength and confidence of America’s mayor.

4)Among the big three, Giuliani turned in the most problematic performance.

5)Huckabee and Romney did well.

"Rudy seemed so half-hearted — so unwilling to make an effort, to demonstrate that he actually wants to become president — that I found myself wondering if he’s having second thoughts about running. I can’t tell you who won, but Rudy for darned sure lost."

Peggy Noonan
Mitt Romney won
Rudy Giuliani lost
John McCain is still in
And there's "the obscure but intellectually serious Ron Paul."

NY POST (Podhoretz)
Rudy "may not be the front-runner much longer. . . . [H]is debate performance was lousy. . . . Rudy did himself harm last night.

Huckabee "did himself the most good" and was "quietly sensational."

Other Views

MSNBC - 48-51,000 votes
Who stood out from the pack?
Ron Paul 31%
Romney 25%
Rudy 19%
McCain 9%
Huckabee 4%

Who showed the most leadership qualities?
Same order as above

Who was the most convincing candidate?
Same order as above

Who had the most rehearsed answers?
McCain 31%
Romney 25%
Rudy 21%
Ron Paul 5.4%
Brownback 4.6%

Who avoided the questions?
Rudy 34%
McCain 18%
Romney 14%
Brownback 6.4%
T. Thompson 6.3%

Who had the best one-liner?
Ron Paul 26%
Romney 17%
McCain 16%
Rudy 15%
Huckabee 8%

Survey USA Poll - 317 debate watchers in California
Rudy 30%
Not sure 16%
Romney 12%
McCain 11%
Gilmore 8%

Time Magazine (Mark Halperin)
Romney A-
Huckabee B+
Rudy B
Ron Paul B
McCain B-

Daily Kos - 9,200 voters
Zombie Reagan 40%
Ron Paul 24%
Romney 11%
Huckabee 4% (440)
Rudy 4% (377)
McCain 3%