May 23, 2008

Thank God for Hitler

...or at least that's the message Sen. John McCain's pal Rev. John Hagee believes.

Hagee thinks that Hitler was Heaven sent, that God put Hitler on earth, caused him to try to exterminate the Jews, thus driving them to Israel so that everything would fit together and make Hagee's vision of the apocalypse all make sense. To the extent that he's been of use in Hagee's full-tilt swindle of hundreds of thousands of religious dupes, Hitler been berry berry good to Hagee's bank account.

In one of his many, shall we say, creative, interpretations of the Bible, Hagee drones that some obscure passage proves that God herself sent none other than that nutty Austrian, Adolf Hitler to "hunt" the Jews and get them to create the state of Israel.

And of course, as in all his bizarre preaching, this fits neatly into Hagee's brand of doomsday Christianity, serving to back up his warped vision of the Apocalypse/Rapture. This requires he and his many followers to be nearly maniacal supporters of Israel and nuclear war with Iran.

Not out of Christian kindness and the belief that all religions should get along. Nooooooo. It's so the Jews can play their little part in the grand Apocalypse, thus helping these "christians" to get sucked up into Heaven like so many plastic canisters at a celestial bank drive-up.

Of course, they don't believe the Jews themselves will make it, as they don't believe that Judaism is a valid religion, and they're certainly not getting into Heaven, unless of course they all convert at the last second. Jews who don't convert to Christianity will roast in Hell along with the rest of us in Hagee's view.

But he exhorts us to support those nice Jews, even if it means we have to engage in nuclear war with Iran. Frankly, he doesn't care what happens to anyone or any nation, as long as it all fits his particular idea of what is called for in his version of the "last days."

Think this little slice of insanity will be played every two minutes for three or four solid days as was Rev. Wright's inflammatory remarks? Don't count on it.

But at least old Sen. John "Get off my lawn!" McCain had the sense to FINALLY throw Hagee under the proverbial bus.

Of course merely referring to Catholicism as "the Great Whore" isn't enough to have McCain reject you. No. McCain was cool with that. It's been known now for months that Hagee has made such statements. Good old "maverick" McCain still hung tough with "agent of intolerance" Hagee after that was well known, no problem there.

But apparently linking God and Hitler was offensive enough to get McCain to do something, even if he was clearly pissed and annoyed at having to do so, enough to take a cheap shot at Obama, who had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Then Hagee pulled the old, "You can't fire me, I quit." gambit and "un-endorsed" McCain almost simultaneously.

Sen. McCain had courted Hagee assiduously for months, even making a special trip to appear next to and proudly and heartily accept Hagee's ringing endorsement.

And his courtship of Mr Hagee is also well documented. Addressing his Christians United for Israel Church last year, he thanked the pastor for his "spiritual guidance to politicians like me", saying that "it's hard to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan". That would be Washington DC, of course.


But true to form, when finally forced to disavow this lunatic, McCain only got nasty and surly and tried to take a slap at Obama by saying that he didn't attend Hagee's church for 20 years, as Obama had Wright's.

No, but Obama never called Wright his "spiritual guide" either. Nor did he make a huge effort to get and enthusiastically accept Wright's endorsement for political purposes.

This of course, is only the start of the obvious lies and distorted non-sense that will likely make up nearly the entirety of McCain's campaign. After all, what's he going to argue? The war? The economy? Health care? HA! Nope, low, nasty, ad hominem cheap shots while avoiding the issue at hand will be the order of the day.

In Obama's remarks about McCain's affinity for whack-job preachers, Obama said it would be ridiculous to try to suggest that McCain shared Hagee's bizaro world views. For those who might not recognize it, that's a politician being honest and honorable.

But McCain by contrast, couldn't resist taking cheap shots at Obama and continuing to desperately try to tie Obama to Wright in the old "Hey! Look over there!" tactic so popular with the right every time they get exposed. (it only took them what, 6 years to almost stop blaming Clinton for their every failure.)

Frankly, between Obama being guilty of simply appreciating and enjoying the community of an entire church who's preacher said some controversial things a handful of times out of literally thousands of sermons, and McCain purposely, actively, seeking out someone's explicit endorsement for political purposes, (while apparently attending no church whatsoever regularly) is an argument McCain shouldn't want to start.

Obama didn't seek out Wright's endorsement. As a matter of fact, he distanced himself from Wright from the beginning of the campaign. Obama never sought to use Wright as some sort of political feather in his cap, courting those who were close adherants of Wright, but McCain certainly endorsed a nut-job like Hagee by actively seeking to be associated with him and his followers for political purposes.

For all the hot air over Wright, McCain clearly loses the battle of the preachers.

And McCain has still another lovely preacher who wholeheartedly endorses him, Rev. Rod Parsley.

McCain calls Rev. Parsley "one of the truly great leaders of America, a moral compass and spiritual guide."

But Rev. Rod has some, er, peculiar views as well.

Reluctantly, McCain finally had to cut old Rev. Rod loose as well, but again, not until several weeks had passed where this guy's reckless, insane, and hateful ideas were known.

Then there's the completely over-blown mean-spirited tantrum McCain threw in response to Obama merely questioning why a war-hero like himself wouldn't support a G.I. Bill. (Which passed the Senate with the help of Republicans by a veto-proof 75-22 margin.)

Where was McCain? Too busy out doing fund-raisers in California. He skipped out on the vote, such a maverick that he couldn't even be there to cast his "nay" vote.

Obama wondered aloud why McCain wouldn't help support the troops with this much needed measure, which extends to current vets much of the benefits which were given to WWII era vets, such as a college education after 3 years of military service.

"I respect Sen. John McCain's service to our country," Obama said on the Senate floor this morning. "He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue."


McCain flew into a rage at the mere thought that this whipper-snapper would dare question him on ANYTHING, and, rather than answering for his truly bizarre stance against the G.I. Bill or explaining why he opposes it, resorted to truly ugly personal attacks on Obama, suggesting that because Obama didn't serve in uniform, he therefore has absolutely zero right to wonder why McCain the war hero refuses to support the G.I. Bill that Obama and nearly every other Senator supports.

A blogger on the Houston Chronicle site laid out McCain's nasty tantrum of a response and added his own dead-on comments:
"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of. Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim."

First of all Sen. McCain, how do you know the difference between running for president and serving as president? Have you been president before? Then, talk about cheap shots, McCain makes the usual Republican slam that Democrats are anti-military. Same old, same old.

More from the press release:


"I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did."

Let’s beat that dead horse again, John. If you didn’t serve in the military, you can’t comment on military matters. Yawn. By the way, I don’t recall Sen. McCain making those same remarks about those in the Bush administration who were so gung-ho about going to war in Iraq. Maybe I missed something.

McCain then went on to describe the differences in benefits proposed by Sen. Webb and those he would prefer. In a nutshell, McCain would not like to see the benefits be so "generous" as to lessen the re-enlistment of our soldiers, what he calls "retention." I don’t know about you, but I don’t think it is possible to be too generous to the men and women who have served so valiantly in Iraq. They deserve everything they get, and more.

Sen. Lindsay Graham, who played his usual Charlie McCarthy to McCain’s Edgar Bergen, said the same thing about the bill hurting re-enlistment rates. Don’t these vets know we have many more wars to fight, how dare they want to leave the military and go to college. How selfish can they be (sarcasm intended).

McCain’s press release closed with this:


"Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election."

No Senator, I believe the election the country would regret would be yours.


I would only add that McCain trying to attack Obama for "taking easy advantage" of the issue and "taking the politically easy route" and dismisses Obama's support for a G.I.Bill as "convenient campaign pledge".

Really?

This from a guy who proposed a "gas tax holiday" that was so irresponsible and costly that there was not one economist in the country who supported it? Scolding Obama for supposedly making a "convenient campaign pledge"?

McCain does exhibit a sense of humor, though all too often it reveals his truly mean streak. But recently I thought he was pretty funny when a late-night talk show host asked him if he knew what his Secret Service code name was. McCain replied, "Probably "Jerk"."

I think by the end of this campaign, the entire country might end up referring to him that way.

5 Comments:

At 5/23/2008 10:47 PM, Blogger nicodemus said...

Of course it is popular to support benefits for veterans... Just like it is popular to be for apple pie, Mother Mary, helping small children, walking old ladies across the street, "Hope", "Unity", etc. Who could be against it?

Conversely it is political suicide to question how we are going to pay for something, in this case a substantial increase in veteran's benefits or to even question it.

Nobody doubts that our veterans deserve benefits. But how much and to what degree? How are you going to pay for this and all of these earmarks?
I agree with John McCain and with Sen. Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) that Washington has got to scrutinize spending.

The last I heard, the proposal on the table that McCain opposed was to increase the benefits from $9,000 a year college to $22,000. Now yes I know college is expensive and 9 grand is peanuts, 22 more accurate, but still that is more than double and that is real money in a time of huge deficits. Where are you going to draw the line?

I had also heard that McCain favored making it a stipulation where you have to have at least 3-years of service to be eligible. Now 3 years isn't asking too much, really.... And coming from a man who spent 23 years in the Navy, 6 years getting tortured as a POW, I am with McCain on this one.

Here's my idea: let's pass a bill that if somebody joins the service, no matter if they are in the Mideast or if even if they are pushing a broom stateside for 2 years, let's give them cradle-to-the-grave security, UNLIMITED college tuition and lifetime medical and a FREE house, of their choice for life. all expense paid by the fed govt + full pension of... oh how about $250,000 a year, for life. (I pulled that figure out of my arse, but hey, let's think big. Our vets deserve it)

Now how do you like this budget proposal? And oh by the way, if you don't support my bill, you are a cold hearted cheap bastard who doesn't support our veterans.

 
At 5/23/2008 11:16 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Not sure of your facts Nico.

I do know that the bill that Obama and 74 other senators of both parties support requires 3 years service, so it appears you're a little off in suggesting that it's only McCain's version that does.

Secondly, it's also fact that the difference between the bill introduced by Sen. Jim Webb, the one that just passed, calls for something like a 3.5 percent increase in pay, while the McCain/Bush version calls for a 3.2 percent increase. I'm not solid on the numbers, but I do know that the difference is just that small.

Also, how do address the rationale put forward by the few who opposed this measure that somehow it's too generous to these soldiers who have risked it all in service of the right wing's misbegotten schemes?

That somehow if we give the vets something close to what they deserve, that then they won't re-up and stay for longer hitches?

For a party of blow-hards that freely used the troops to hide behind and try to score cheap political points for years and years, and who accused the Dems of "not supporting the troops", the gang that is spending BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of dollars every week, with five times that in hidden costs that will stretch on for decades, that now McCain and Bush are suddenly concerned about a billion dollars when it comes to spending it on the troops they claim to respect so highly?

How can they find literally billions of dollars for their defense contractor cronies, yet suddenly become bean counters when it comes to giving the troops the same benefits that were given the veterans of WWII?

I really look forward to hearing this argument from McCain, or you, or anyone.

 
At 5/24/2008 1:47 AM, Blogger tiz said...

Nico:

Are you serious? How do we get labeled with shit like "elitist" when people like you write condescending shit like that? I don't see why people who essentially put their lives on hold 2-3 years for their country shouldn't be entitled to 4 years of college. I love how money is always scarce to conservatives. Unless Ted Stevens needs a bridge or you need to (over) pay for an optional war. Then that's OK. Surely there's something less important to axe in the name of fiscal conservatism.

The GOP wants the carrot on the stick (money for college) but not enough to actually put very many people *through* college. That way they re-up and/or go home and work some shit job and have kids who are more likely to end up chasing the same carrot with the same results.

I've read Senator McCain's book and admire his service and what he had to deal with in captivity. I really do. When I see him do things like oppose a GI bill in the name of being "too generous" I can't help but think 2000 John McCain would hate 2008 John McCain. 1973 John McCain would probably want to kick his ass.

 
At 5/26/2008 7:45 AM, Anonymous tiger woods said...

Nico, I appreciate your comment. I believe what you are saying is that we must put an eye towards fiscal responsibility before promising anything (and everything) to anyone.

Yes, there are needs (mostly 'wants') that we could provide a wide variety of citizens (heck, the Dem's even want to give a loan of benefits to non-citizens) and they all, to some degree, can be justified.

Unfortunately, we need some fiscal responsibility in DC and we are not getting it - from either Party.

And we the taxpayer get the shaft.

 
At 5/26/2008 4:28 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Fiscal responsibility?

It's a matter of priorities Mowen.

You'd give a key to the treasury to any and all defense contractors, as Bush has done to such stellar results, while begrudging a dime spent on your fellow citizens.

To me, that's warped. Things have far too long been skewed towards handing over literally tens of billions of dollars to the already wealthy and corrupt corporations who are all too willing to spread around a few hundred million in campaign cash in exchange for looting the treasury.

I suggest you examine your priorities and stop expecting the country to be "fiscally responsible" by things like cutting funding for Public Broadcasting or birth control education in third world countries and start realizing that for a tiny, miniscule fraction of what your gang has squandered on no-bid contracts and phony "homeland security" contracts and corporate welfare of every kind and description, we could actually be providing our kids with a better education, our elderly with better security and health care, and all the other things you think are such wastes of government money.

We've tried it your way.

Over 80 percent of your fellow Americans thinks it's a disaster.

This isn't greedy people trying to get rich (that's the CEOs and huge stockholders who are getting millions in return for not fulfilling their contracts and every sort of scam imaginable that are getting wealthy beyond even their wildest dreams.)

No, these are people who are in pain, suffering, and living lives of deprivation and need.

Your view of where the trillions should be spent is nothing short of immoral, which is doubly ironic in light of your conspicuous identification with the so-called "Christian Right".

Amazing.

So worried that a few million might be wasted helping people, while not a peep about the literally trillions of dollars in debt this war and the war-profiteering of Republican business interests is plunging our country into.

The economy is crumbling before your eyes, and all you can do is fret that we might spend some money on actual American citizens?

Pathetic. In my humble opinion.

And astonishing when you take into account the fact that YOUR party has made Democrats look like misers when it comes to expanding government and grabbing pork with both hands and their mouth at the same time.

I'm surprised you even have the nerve to admit how you feel.

Keep hope alive.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home