Back to discussing the actual post and the news coverage of this issue. Take your Obama and McCain bashing and the rest of it elsewhere.

At the time I learned of Hagee’s endorsement, I was astounded that McCain accepted it. The (still “alleged”) anti-Catholic views will surely haunt him a bit in the general election, but the Provoking Armegeddon platform is what really scared me, personally.

I’ll also agree to an extent that Obama’s separation from Wright has somewhat neutralized the relationship’s negative effects. But people are still wondering whether he’s “grown out of” that phase in his life when he listened intently to white-hating, America-bashing rhetoric. As far as I know, he’s still a member of the UCC. That denomination is far, far, far, to the left of the political spectrum, and to this day, defends Wright’s words and beliefs about America, Israel and ‘social justice’ which is usually aimed squarely at white (voters.)

In that, Hillary’s recent rant about Obama not winning over white voters was correct, and surely also applies to white conservative Christian voters as well.

While Obama repeatedly—if gradually—has distanced himself from Wright, ever since uninviting him last year from giving an invocation at the ceremonial announcement of his candidacy for president, McCain repeatedly and actively sought endorsement from Hagee. In fact, Hagee is not the only anti-Catholic in his sights. McCain has been kissing televangelist butt all over the South.

But there is another reason why the comparison is laughable. Obama’s association with Wright—now non-existent—is used largely to break off sectors of Obama’s support, particularly those who had their doubts concerning breaking the race barrier to begin with.

In contrast, McCain sought out Hagee precisely for the opposite reason—any media attack on the pair would only serve to solidify the bigot vote (yes, that includes Catholic-haters) behind McCain.

In the end, hard-core Republicans and Catholics who behave like them are not likely to be dissuaded from voting Republican. Bush carried the “once a week or more” church-attending Catholic vote with the same percentage as he won the church-going Protestant vote—and the hold-outs likely were Hispanic voters. The voting pattern of this group will not change.

But Bush lost the rest of the Catholic vote by nearly the same margin (about 65%-35% split). By going after Hagee, Parsley and the Bob Jones crowd, McCain has made it clear that he does not care to pick up any more Catholic vote than did Bush.

The media is doing him a great favor by going after Obama on Wright. But it’s still early in the campaign. Once HRC is out of the way, McCain will come under the microscope as well. Just this week he has already been nailed for using the weight of his office to support ethically questionable real estate deals. Keating Five will keep coming up because his habits have not changed. What that means is that one-issue Catholics (the obsessively anti-abortion bunch) will remain on his side, while those who have a broader definition of conscience will think twice about supporting him, if they ever support him at all.

In the absence of a radical shift, this make the “Catholic vote” a non-factor. If anything, the main issue will be class warfare, not religion.

Both of which have elements of truth. The media have NOT spent any time at all looking into Hagee’s wish-fullfilment Armegeddon fantasies, which would have us adopt an “Israeli foreign policy right-or-wrong” view that makes Neoconservatism look like a peacenik philosophy.

And the Deacon is right that Catholic voters, and the American public at large, have not been exposed to Obama’s votes in the IL Senate, where he blocked the bill banning what some say amounts to infanticide. The media likely won’t raise it, thinking it’s GOT to be an exaggeration, and McCain surely won’t, because it’s “mean.” I bet the Catholic League will, though.

But in reality, it should read, “[Hagee] has advocated a pre-emptive strike on Iran because it will bring on Armageddon, and thereby fulfill the prophecies of the Book of Revelation.”

Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy! Folks, these people are downright lunatic and utterly dangerous. Do not let their influence anywhere near the White House, by voting for people they endorse. Your vote has moral implications, so vote your heart, and do the right thing for the future of this earth, which is the only one we will ever have.

Here’s statements by the Catholic League about who they are, how they are funded and their purposes.

http://www.catholicleague.org/about.php

And here are the Board of Directors and Board of Advisors:
Board of Directors
Raymond Arroyo
Thomas Brennan
Nunzio Cardone
Ann Corkery
Kathleen Hunt
William Lindner
Robert Lockwood
Marilyn Lundy
Jerome McDougal
Frank Salas
Jodie Thompson, Jr.
Kenneth Whitehead

Rev. Philip Eichner, Chairman
William Donohue, President
Bernadette Brady, Vice President

David Gregory, General Counsel

Board of Advisors
Brent Bozell III
Gerard Bradley
Linda Chavez
Robert Destro
Dinesh D’Souza
Laura Garcia
Robert George
Mary Ann Glendon
Dolores Grier
Alan Keyes
Stephen Krason
Lawrence Kudlow
Thomas Monaghan
Michael Novak
Kate O’Beirne
Thomas Reeves
Patrick Riley
Robert Royal
Ronald Rychlak
Russell Shaw
William Simon, Jr.
Joe Varacalli
Paul Vitz
George Weigel

But when someone clearly distorts Catholic teachings, or misrepresents its history, that is a different matter altogether. Tone matters as well, and Hagee’s tone is nothing but derisive.

The comparision is really ridiculous.

That said, I’m no fan of Hagee, and surely, anyone who demonizes Catholics and endorses a candidate has given the candidate at least a headache and yes, legitimate questions arise as to the why the candidate is embracing such a person.

But taking on a new headache during a campaign is not the same as attending a pastor’s church and embracing the anti-White, black militant rantings of Wright (and doing it in writing.)

And yet, I admit that I hadn’t seen Hagee’s video posted here before I last posted. He denies EVER calling the Catholic Church the “Whore of Babylon” and in fact notes his involvement with a charity for elderly nuns. I have to say, I have up until now accepted the idea that the man is an anti-Catholic bigot, based on the reporting.

Is the man “spinning” now, or does anyone have evidence that he actually HAS condemned the RC Church in the ways alleged? I guess that ought to be at least PART of the reporting, shouldn’t it? (I note that the other video link simply takes the HISTORIC “Roman Church” to task for past anti-Semitism and persecutions. Even popes have done THAT.)

Who[m] does Americans United for Separate of Church and State represent?

They certainly represent me. As a religious person I’m perfectly happy with the Framers’ vision of a secular state with guarantees of freedom of religion within it. I need those protections, including from some of those posting to GR. AU is an organization that tries to keep this country and its constituent regions within that frame.

[…]and who is paying the bills.

Donors.

I’m Catholic and we’re so used to being called the Whore of Babylon, we just let it roll off our backs. My own mother, who was born in rural Kansas, grew up thinking that nuns chopped off their boobs and wore head gear to hide their horns. She also learned at Sunday school that Catholics were storing up guns in their church basements and were waiting for word from the Pope about when to try to take over the US. The first Catholic she ever meet, when they moved to Wichita in the Depression, was the bootlegger next door. ha ha ha Her family about died when she married a Catholic and always treated us strangely. One of my attorney colleagues told me she believed all the stuff about Catholics in the Da Vinci Code because she learned about all of that in Sunday school!!

This Hagee thing is not going to get any traction with any kind of Catholic. It’s not shocking that a Texas mega church guy has strange views about Catholics. We already know lots of folks with strange views about us. Wright, however, was different.

What makes the comparison of Hagee with Wright “laughable on its face”? I have spent a number of hours watching the rotund Mr. Hagee pontificate on a whole range of subjects secular and sacred, and I am appalled that Mr. McCain has tied himself to this man. Hudson’s puff piece unfortunately suggests that his political ideology interfered with his capacity for critical thinking and analysis. Mr. Hagee, Mr. Parsley and several other gentlement whom Mr. McCain has embraced as supporters deserve at least the scrutiny given Obama’s pastor. They aren’t getting it - I wonder why. And I’m would earnestly and truly like to know why such scrutiny is “laughable on its face”.