No, McCain is not so much lying when he says he doesn't hold to Hagee's anti-Catholic teachings as he is of being cornered by careless staff work that sought Hagee's endorsement without doing enough background on him.

Remember, McCain has not sat in the pews (or chairs or whatever) of Hagee's church for the past 20 years and then saying, "My goodness, I had no idea!"

He's guilty of pandering and then weaseling.

As long as this is the lens we are perceived through, black people will be angry, and nothing will change. As long as the lens we see white people through paints them all with the same broad brush of endemic racism, they will be resentful and nothing will change. -- independent

As long as black people are angry that is the lens they will be viewed through. It seems every other minority that came to America has made the most of the opportunity. From the Irish to the Vietnamese, they have made their way.

I heard an anecdote on the radio about the speaker sitting next to a black professor on an airplane, and when the question of why other minorities have done better than blacks came up, the professor said, "it's because we're owed". It's a perfect encapsulation of being offended, entitled, and waiting for reward. It's also a perfect recipe for failure. It's much easier to blame someone else for poverty than taking responsibility for enabling bad behavior.

Obama gets dinged for attending a church that accepts absurd explanations for the slight of the day rather than accepting responsibility for actions. McCain may accept endorsements from nutjobs, but he didn't attend their churches. That is an essential distinction.

Is your contention that accepting a political endorsement from someone is the same thing as a profession of faith to that person's religion and that person's views pertaining to religion?

"Yours, maybe?"

I'm an atheist.

"Because Reverend Wright, IIRC, ministers to the sick and dying, has programs that help and feed the poor, and does a lot that helps and builds his community."

If there were the sum of it, we wouldn't be having this exchange.

"If what Reverend Wright does is demented bottom-feeding, I'll take it"

You obviously do.

he should at least be able to write a sarcastic epigram so it makes sense. In your case, Proximity, I'm sure manifold attainments and an amiable temperament make for domestic bliss, no matter how non-sequitorish the conversation gets.

It's only when the NY Times uncovered the fact that Obama was well aware of them and tried to keep his mad preached [sic] locked in the attic, away from the press, that he had to come up with a new story.

The the facts of the NY Times article,and T. Suarez' "poetic" interpretation don't quite jibe.

No, McCain is not so much lying when he says he doesn't hold to Hagee's anti-Catholic teachings as he is of being cornered by careless staff work that sought Hagee's endorsement without doing enough background on him.

Remember, McCain has not sat in the pews (or chairs or whatever) of Hagee's church for the past 20 years and then saying, "My goodness, I had no idea!"

He's guilty of pandering and then weaseling.

Suarez, I'm not sure if you knew this, but you and I can actually go back and see previous comments. Here was your first answer to my question:

Is John McCain equally guilty of "lying and hypocrisy" because he actively sought and obtained John Hagee's endorsement, and later - only when pressed with reports of Hagee's virulent anti-Catholicism, blaming hurricane Katrina on homosexuals, and other insanity - said that he doesn't support Hagee's views on Catholicism?

Ummm, I think that would be a yes.

Looks like it's not just McCain who's guilty of "weaseling." Care to embarrass youself any further?

First you equate instapunk with Rush Limbaugh. That is more than a stretch.

Then you complain the Tim Russert asks Obama to address the comments of Belafonte.

You did what Russert did, only worse.

Is your contention that accepting a political endorsement from someone is the same thing as a profession of faith to that person's religion and that person's views pertaining to religion?

This question is too vague and lacking in context to answer with any meaning. I'll instead ask my own question and provide the context - are you suggesting that the two associations are materially different with regard to the specific relationships of McCain/Hagee and Obama/Wright?

...and I apologize if this has already been explored, but it occurs to me that white Western man has always needed his boogie-men, real or imagined - to justify his less-than-noble rhetoric and activities. And it seems to have been amplified and exaggerated by the Caucasian citizens of the United States. As soon as the Emancipation Proclamation was read, former plantation owners began forming vigilante groups to "take care of the Negro menace". Skip far forward to the days when the shadowy Red menace from the Soviet Union loomed, threatening us with nuclear annihilation. Once that was taken care of, we found the Japanese were suddenly bent on buying up American real estate. Currently, the "Islamic extremists" are banging on the door. In the cyclic nature of these things, I suppose it's about time the "Negro menace" reared its head again. They're beginning to run out of boogie-men. Soon they'll be scared of themselves.

"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad." -James Madison, 4th US president (1751-1836)

We should really add "...or upon our own shores" to then end of President Madison's quote...

The the facts of the NY Times article,and T. Suarez' "poetic" interpretation don't quite jibe.

Okay, Mr. Brilliant, tell me what other possible way a rather straightforward news story can be "interpreted"? The LA Times carries the same story with its own reporting, by the way. Would one be guilty of "poetic interpretation" to see that two big city dailies (no friends of McCain, BTW) report the same facts?

The last refuge of the man who's been damned by his own words: you're misinterpreting it!