Race-Baiting?

Andrew describes the North Carolina advertisement that John McCain is noisily condemning as a "guilt-by-association racist smear." The ad is definitely an attempt at a guilt-by-association swipe, and it's crude and clumsy and sufficiently substance-free that there may be something to be gained by McCain in condemning it. But I would be very curious to hear Andrew's explanation for what makes the ad "racist." Watch for yourself:

I don't think it's all that hard to imagine the Democratic Party of, say, Pennsylvania launching a similar ad attacking John McCain for his connections to John Hagee or some other noxious religious-right pooh-bah - ties which are far thinner, of course, than Obama's connections to Jeremiah Wright. Would Andrew label that sort of ad a "racist smear"? Presumably not - and yet it seems as though we're embarking on an election season in which any attack ad launched against Obama on what his cheering sections deems illegitimate grounds will get denounced, not just as "freak show" politics-as-usual, which would be fair enough, but as dirty racist politics straight out of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's U.S. of KKK-A. Which is to say, it's going to be a long year.

Comments

Haven't you heard? Not supporting Barack Obama is racist. I'm surprised Andrew hasn't told you that at the editorial meetings.

Posted by Anonymous | April 25, 2008 4:41 PM

Shorter Ross: It's hard out there for a racist.

Posted by DivGuy | April 25, 2008 4:52 PM

If people cannot see that race plays a large part in the Rev. Wright controversy, imagine the following:

A group of people reads his words, attributed to an anonymous author. Then the group watches similar words delivered by a black man speaking in a raised voice. I would bet pounds to the penny that the latter scenario would rile the audience more, and not simply because the visual medium is a 'hotter' medium. People responding to Wright's words are bringing their existing prejudices into play.

Also, and while I cannot guess as to the intent of the ad's authors, to have the picture of Obama with his arm around the white female gubernatorial candidate could be interpreted as a subtle way of stoking prejudices against interracial relations. I'd like to give the ad's creators the benefit of the doubt, but this assumption doesn't require a great stretch of imagination.

Posted by JRD | April 25, 2008 5:13 PM

The question is whether something that will clearly appeal to racist impulses is itself racist. Since there's clearly no overt racism in the ad, it's a matter of intent: you would need to prove that the people making the ad told themselves, "This will stoke racist sentiment against Obama et al." But something can be non-racist in intent and still provoke racist reactions. So the other question is, how clueless do you need to be to be excused for unwittingly stoking racism?

Posted by Bill | April 25, 2008 5:22 PM

McCain is doing the right thing by disassociating his campaign from the Wright affair; the considerable damage done to Obama by Wright himself is quite enough without McCain piling on.

Imagine how the Times, WaPo, et al would react to McCain's pastor uttering anything close to Wright's venomous remarks about America. The leftist media pundits are desperately trying to claim that somehow Obama rose above Wright's black liberation theology through his "historic" address on the subject of race in America. This is, of course, absurd; all McCain has to do is let Obama on his own be hoisted by the Wright petard.

The key to understanding Wright is the black liberation theologian, James Cone, whom Wright avidly follows. Cones writes:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

Obama, who listened to this rot for twenty years is of late trying to avoid the issue using essentially the Rip Van Winkle argument.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | April 25, 2008 5:54 PM

If Rev. Wright were white, everybody would be saying, "Wow, he's way out in left field. Why did Obama pick such a leftist? What does that say about how Obama really feels deep down inside?"

But because Wright isn't white, nice white liberals won't take Wright's ideology seriously. "It's just a black thing. Aren't blacks cute when they pretend to be intellectuals?"

Wright, of course, takes his ideology very, very seriously and cites its scholarly pedigree, its ties to Sandinista thinkers and the like over and over again. But the pundits won't take Wright's ideology seriously because he's black.

For Wright's citations of his intellectual pedigree, see:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080309_obama.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 25, 2008 6:04 PM

"Haven't you heard? Not supporting Barack Obama is racist. I'm surprised Andrew hasn't told you that at the editorial meetings."

Andrew doesn't go to the editorial meetings anymore. Too busy shilling for Obama to do anything else.

Posted by Marc | April 25, 2008 6:15 PM

You'll never see Steve Sailer attack a Repiglican like John McCain for his ties to John Hagee, who is far more extreme (and far more consistently extreme) in his views than Wright is. Make no mistake about it - a black president is the worst nightmare scenario for white supremacists like Steve Sailer, who has already proven his extremist/wackjob credentials with his claimed ability to read the minds of Obama and his wife.

A few snippets out of thousands of hours of public speaking are used to make Wright look like the Big Black Demon of Sailer's fantasies, and the GOP is so desperate in 2008 that we'll all be seeing it over and over again between now and November. One wuld have to be a clueless moron not to see the racism in this approach.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 6:17 PM

This is going to be like that Corker / Ford ad, times 100 billion.

Posted by right | April 25, 2008 6:28 PM

Moe, Larry, Jim, nice try; Hagee is a rabid anti-Catholic preacher who is peripheral to McCain. He cannot be compared to Wright's twenty-year intimate pastoral relation to Obama.

McCain remarked as follows about Hagee:

"We've had a dignified campaign, and I repudiate any comments that are made, including Pastor Hagee's, if they are anti-Catholic or offensive to Catholics,"

You reveal a certain naivety in this comparison of Wright and Hagee. Obama is has sat under the tree Rip Van Winkle like for twenty-years under Obama, while McCain has had a merely passing political encounter with Hagee.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | April 25, 2008 7:25 PM

Two things:

1) There is nothing racist about the ad. No one can has pointed to anything racist about the ad. It depicts a black man saying horrific things.

2) If Republicans intend to win this year (and clearly we can) we'd better start getting some thicker skin. It won't help to explain to voters in nuanced terms why Obama's policies are bad or why his rhetoric doesn't match his substance. This is a political campaign. The North Carolina ad should be the tip of the iceberg of what we are going to put out there. And we really can't worry whether Meredith Viera thinks we are being mean or whether commentators at the Atlantic think there is a racist subtext. And if you think Obama will be any less ruthless you're deluded. The point of a political campaign is not to engage in a productive dialog over the important issues of the day. It is to destroy the opponent. Obama has a history of associating with radicals. That is a good indication that Obama is a radical. The GOP better spend the next 7 months making sure everyone knows that.

Posted by Mark Adams | April 25, 2008 7:26 PM

to have the picture of Obama with his arm around the white female gubernatorial candidate could be interpreted as a subtle way of stoking prejudices against interracial relations.

Is this how it's going to be the next six months? If he had his arm around a black woman what would that mean? That the ad was subtly hinting that Obama can't along with white people? Is in a gang? No matter what you people are going to find a racist subtext.

Posted by Mark Adams | April 25, 2008 7:36 PM

Mark Adams writes: "Is this how it's going to be the next six months? If he had his arm around a black woman what would that mean? That the ad was subtly hinting that Obama can't along with white people? Is in a gang? No matter what you people are going to find a racist subtext."

"You people" has a racist subtext, Mark. You should probably be aware of that.

But of course you didn't mean it that way. Conservatives never do. And there are no racist conservatives. George Allen was railroaded - that's what most con pundits said, and that's what most posters on conservative blogs were saying.

How about Steve Sailer's race obsession, Mark? Does it give you the creeps at all, or do you think it's a normal part of conservative discourse, as Ross apparently does?

Trying to hang Obama with these connections is a reach given the serious problems this country is having right now. But I guess McCain's flip-flops on torture and his warmongering posture towards Iran and his beyond bizarre view that the economy is just fine don't matter next to a few comments made by soime retired clergyman who has no role in Obama's campaign. McCain sought out the endorsement of a fundie wackaloon who says your own Church is the Whore of Babylon and that Katrina was god punishing gays, but I guess you're okay with radicals like that.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 8:05 PM

I guess you're okay with radicals like that.

As has already been explained, if Hagee had been the source of McCain's spiritual formation for the greater part of McCain's adult life then I suppose I would be concerned. . . . although even in that case I would be concerned only insofar as it effected McCain's policies in ways I didn't like, e.g. if he were making foriegn policy decisions about Israel based on Hagee's understanding of Revelation. Wright, on the other hand, espoused a theology that is explicitly political. Black liberation theology is itself a political ideology and it is a racist one at that.

It's funny how much energy you exert trying to find evidence of racism on the right. Yet you totally ignore the racism of the church to which the likely Democratic nominee attends.

Posted by Mark Adams | April 25, 2008 8:29 PM

Trying to hang Obama with these connections is a reach given the serious problems this country is having right now.

Maybe it is a reach. Maybe it's not. I don't really care. What I do care about is winning. My point was that ads like the North Carolina one will be effective and Republicans need to get over their squeamishness about running such ads. You people are going to make non-stop accusations of racism so Republicans need to be prepared to make a clear denial and then ignore the accusations because they have no merit.

Posted by Mark Adams | April 25, 2008 8:38 PM

McCain's connections to Hagee appear to be purely political while Obama's to Wright appear to be almost wholly personal. One can excuse a certain amount of political inorrectness in a candidate's friends and relatives. But when a candidate deliberately seeks out some out-of-the-mainstream loon for political reasons one really must question what the motivation is.

Posted by JonF | April 25, 2008 9:44 PM

Mark Adams writes: "It's funny how much energy you exert trying to find evidence of racism on the right. Yet you totally ignore the racism of the church to which the likely Democratic nominee attends."

Yes I do, because I think the claim that his church is racist is a completely overblown load of crap. And I don't need to expend much energy to find evidence of racism on the right, since it's so very, very easy to find.

Obama's church doesn't exclude whites and doesn't preach black supremacy. There's a complete lack of any evidence in his own public life that he harbors any such racism. Yet if he were running against George Allen in the fall instead of McCain you'd still be voting for Allen - because as you say, you don't care. You're well aware this is a bogus issue - you just want your gang to win. As I understand you from prior discussions that's because the abortion issue is paramount to you, and I'll grant that sets you apart from the total fascists like Fitz and Leavitt.

If the "he hates whitey" campaign seems like a good idea to you so be it. It's going to be used, and I hope it fails, because this country still has a chance to be better than Dumbya Bush and Dickless Cheney think it is.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 25, 2008 10:03 PM

They're trying to campaign against this woman, who happens to be white, so they show her in a picture with Obama, who's unpopular in some circles and happens to be black. And you see racism in it because it plays into black men/white women stereotypes? Then you're saying that it's racist to ever show a picture of a black man with a white woman. I mean, what if she took a picture with Wright himself? Would it be racist to put that picture in an ad? Of course not.

Posted by Asher | April 26, 2008 12:47 AM

Sullivan doesn't support things based on logic or sensibility. I think he has those qualities, but on politics he chooses not not explore them. His emotional reaction is ecstasy at Obama and a desire to "punish" Republicans for "betrayal." So any criticism of Obama is racist to him.

That said I could see a possibility of racism in this particular ad. The only black faces in it are Obama and Wright. It is made clear that these two are "not like us" and shows disdain that this white couple supports them. Now it's saying "they're not like us" in their political extremism, but I could see how it may be playing on "These white people are allying with subversive Negroes, punish them." At least I think that's how it could appeal to some older North Carolinians.

Or to put it another way. If the North Carolina Democratic Party did an ad equating McCain with Hagee it would be different. North Carolina is one of only 2 states where Catholics are not among the top four largest religious denominations. (The other being my birth-state of Arkansas http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA_states.html#Top4)

Anyway an advert about Hagee would only be playing for a small group there. Saying that McCain has allied with an Anti-Catholic, when Catholics in NC are comparatively small and traditionally disliked, is therefore different than saying a white person has allied with a black Radical.

Posted by Thomas R | April 26, 2008 2:09 AM

Why are McCain's ties to Hagee thinner than Obama's ties to Wright? Obama didn't seek Wright's endorsement, Wright was the pastor at his church.

McCain's relation to Hagee is explicitly political.

Posted by joejoejoe | April 26, 2008 5:37 AM

"Why are McCain's ties to Hagee thinner than Obama's ties to Wright?"

TR: Because he barely knows Hagee and it's generally believed he was mostly just hoping to use Hagee to gain support of Evangelicals, At that time many of them were still unhappy McCain beat Huckabee. Even those angry at the connection generally concede that McCain's actual beliefs probably have no influence from Hagee. It was "upsetting", including to me, because it showed he'd accept the support of bigots to get what he wanted and possibly legitimize them.

Obama's known Wright for 20 years and could possibly have been influenced by him. So critics believe Wright's ideas could actually matter in an Obama administration rather than just be legitimized by one. I think that's probably an overreaction, but that's the idea.

Posted by Thomas R | April 26, 2008 6:51 AM

Obama's known Wright for 20 years and could possibly have been influenced by him. So critics believe Wright's ideas could actually matter in an Obama administration rather than just be legitimized by one. I think that's probably an overreaction, but that's the idea.

Yes, that's the "idea" which no one actually believes. It's entirely disingenuous and everyone knows it. The Hannitys of the world want to believe that Obama's actions are to be judged according to a different standard from their own: as if Sean Hannity hasn't associated with plenty of fascist wackjobs throughout his career. It's called a double standard, and very likely a racist one.

Posted by Bill | April 26, 2008 9:36 AM

I'd like to see St John of McCain win NJ and PA with a similar ad run against him highlighting his hypocritical relationship with Hagee.

Also, isn't McCain's 'political' relationship with Hagee more damming in its pandering to extremism? How about plain stupidity?

Posted by TDE | April 26, 2008 9:58 AM

McCain's position is ridiculous and two-faced. Obama actually did associate with Wright and Ayers. I don't think that is a big deal, but it is a legitimate point. Obama did nothing to receive Hamas' "endorsement", and that is no more a legitimate issue than if the KKK endorsed McCain. But McCain takes the "high road" on the former and engages in a ridiculous attack on the latter.

Posted by Pithlord | April 26, 2008 10:44 AM

Also, isn't McCain's 'political' relationship with Hagee more damming in its pandering to extremism?

No it isn't more damning. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. There are people and places that politicians would not associate with but for the fact that these people and places offer access to important voting blocks. Hagee offered McCain access to certain segment of the Evangelical population. There is no reason to believe that any of Hagee's teachings have been adopted by McCain.

Wright on the other hand was Obama's spiritual mentor for more than two decades. There is then, every reason to believe that Obama is sympathetic to, if not in agreement with, Wright's ideology.

Posted by Mark Adams | April 26, 2008 11:13 AM

Yes, that's the "idea" which no one actually believes.

No Bill, lots of us actually believe it. And you haven't offered any reason why we shouldn't.

Obama placed himself under the spiritual leadership of this man for a long time. There is absolutely no reason to think that Obama's policies wouldn't be influenced by Wright.

Posted by Mark Adams | April 26, 2008 11:18 AM

I'm too lazy to watch the ad, but does Ross ever think that anything that couldn't be made by Goebells or doesn't use racial slurs as racist? He seems to have a pretty high threshold anything has to pass before it's racist. After all, he still links to Steve Sailer, which no self-respecting person should do for any reason but mockery.

Posted by Reality Man | April 26, 2008 12:31 PM

Mark Adams again: "No Bill, lots of us actually believe it. And you haven't offered any reason why we shouldn't.

Obama placed himself under the spiritual leadership of this man for a long time. There is absolutely no reason to think that Obama's policies wouldn't be influenced by Wright."

Of course there is - just look at everything Obama has said and everything he has done in his public career. There's no trace of this dreaded, overblown fantasy you and the other Limbaugh-lites are pushing about Wright's so-called "ideology."

On the other hand McCain and Hagee are two peas in a pod when it comes to over-the-top warmongering craziness when it comes to Iran and an insistence that we should attack any country that even looks at Israel funny. McCain has pledged to be "Hamas's worst nightmare," even though Israel is perfectly capable of dealing with Hamas and Hamas is no threat to the US whatsoever. Hagee approves of this sort of lunatic saber-rattling by US politicians. Sane people should look at it and see that one Dumbya has been a national nightmare - a second one would be inexcusable.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 26, 2008 2:03 PM

Mark Adams and Peter Leavitt have it exactly backwards--and they know it.

Obama's connection to Wright has nothing to do with his political aspirations, but with his spiritual ones. Therefore he is irrelevant to the campaign. In fact, until Hillary Clinton's forces tactics forced Wright into the public eye, Obama went out of his way to leave him and his church out of his campaign. Not leveraging Wright to try to get elected means that neither Wright nor the Trinity UCC has any claim on Obama's policies should he get elected.

Meanwhile, McCain has courted Hagee in order to boost his electability among right-wing evangelical voters, and should he win, and should evangelical voters come out for McCain in decisive numbers, then Hagee will want political payback in terms of decisive policy issues. he will have a policy claim on McCain's presidency.

The fact that McCain pursued Hagee for the sake of his presidential campaign (as opposed to Hagee endorsing McCain spontaneously) means that Hagee will be looking for political payback and therefore what he stands for and what he believes is *far* more politically significant than anything Wright believes could ever be to Obama.

Posted by Maxx | April 26, 2008 2:22 PM

Mark Adams and Peter Leavitt have it exactly backwards--and they know it.

You got me Maxx.

Posted by Mark Adams | April 26, 2008 3:11 PM

By the way Maxx, is there any doubt that if McCain had been going to a Christian Reconstructionist church for the last twenty years that Democrats would be saying that that makes him unfit for service? (And they would be right.)

Posted by Mark Adams | April 26, 2008 3:21 PM

It's racist because it cleaves to a double standard. The point is that people are not attacking McCain because of his association with Hagee, but they are attacking Obama for his association with Wright. Hagee is not a news story in the way that Wright is. Why is that I wonder?

Posted by Tom Shone | April 26, 2008 3:27 PM

Obama's connection to Wright has nothing to do with his political aspirations

If you say so.

Posted by Tommy | April 26, 2008 3:36 PM

Tom Shone,

Your question has been answered multiple times in this thread.

Posted by Mark Adams | April 26, 2008 4:06 PM

If I had been advising Obama at the beginning of his career, I would have told him that if he must join a church, it should be some nice, liberal integrated one. But he wasn't, and he didn't. Sometimes even your friends don't do as you would have them do, but they remain your friends. And maybe they do what's best for them.

If neither Wright nor Ayers had ever existed, I'm sure Mark Adams and his ilk would have found other equally insignificant matters to pick at, rather than challenge Obama on real issues, because that's what Republicans do. It's all they know how to do, and, admittedly, there is something to be said for that.

On issues, they would always lose.

Posted by Henderstock | April 26, 2008 4:18 PM

Why do liberals persist in this Hageee endorsement?... Can you imagine all the mad "ministers" who are endorsing Obama?...

One name? Farrakhan...

Now, tying McCain to Hagee makes as much sense as tying Obama to Farrakhan - actually, wait a minute, it makes less sense, unless Hagee organized an Anti-Catholic "Million Men March" and McCain was part of it...

Posted by Catholicus | April 26, 2008 4:51 PM

other equally insignificant matters

More insignificant than whether or not one's world view has been shaped by black liberation theology? I'm not sure such a thing exists.

Posted by Mark Adams | April 26, 2008 6:16 PM

Catholicus says: "Why do liberals persist in this Hageee endorsement?... Can you imagine all the mad "ministers" who are endorsing Obama?...

One name? Farrakhan..."

Obama neither sought nor welcomed Farrakhan's endorsement - and Farrakhan has said he hasn't actually endorsed Obama.

Meanwhile McCain has been kissing the asses of Hagee and Falwell (before his death - I'm not saying McCain is a necrophile, although I think he would stoop to it in order to win) for several years now, flipflopping on his previous stated view of such scumbags as "agents of intolerance."

But then McCain has jettisoned numerous principles in his crusade to appeal to the insane Repiglican base. Add to this his advance age, encroaching senility, and the fact that his wife is a HOMEWRECKING WHORE, and one wonders what the family values party sees in him.

Oh, right, I forgot, the whole "family values" thing was always a crock of shit, and what Repiglicans value is the tax pledge and the promise to murder as many Muslims as possible.

And nothing else, really.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 26, 2008 9:29 PM

I have to say, Mark Adams, that your opinions exemplify everything that is wrong with our politics. Apparently Republicans have so little faith that they can make an affirmative case for their candidate on issues, that they view any tactics appropriate because the justify the ends.

The whole reason we ended up with a complete and utter freaking moron like Bush for a president is because our politics has degenerated into conversations over flag pins, guilt by associations, earth tones, supermarket scanners (Bush 41), and flag factories (Dukakis).

On this ad in particular, the issue of whether it's racist or not can be debated. I'd say that it's probably not. But that it is trying to feed into the whole "a guy named Barack Hussein Obama couldn't possibly be one of us - an American" is without doubt.

And the irony is, if you were to describe Obama's "raise yourself by your bootstraps" story - son of an immigrant, raised by a single mother and grandparents, who achieves what he has through his own merits and hard work - that would normally be the quintessential American narrative. But because he's a black guy with a foreign sounding name Republicans will attack him in such a way as to try and appeal to the worst of us.

Posted by mbuchel | April 26, 2008 10:48 PM

Henderstock wrote, "If neither Wright nor Ayers had ever existed, I'm sure Mark Adams and his ilk would have found other equally insignificant matters to pick at, rather than challenge Obama on real issues, because that's what Republicans do."

I agree with you (and others) that for people who have already chosen their candidate or their party, small matters might become significant political weapons. And I agree with you, for the most part, that Obama's association with Rev. Wright is a more or less insignificant question. What I don't understand is your statement that "that's what Republicans do."

"Republicans," however defined, may in fact focus on less substantial questions, if they are politically-minded (as opposed to policy-minded). But if you think that Republicans are the only ones, or the primary ones, who campaign this way...then I guess I think that's just factually, and demonstrably, wrong. Sniping at one another over arguably insignificant matters, as opposed to questions of policy, is largely what Clinton and Obama have been doing for the last six months. Focusing on small, insubstantial questions at the expense of weighty policy matters, is what *politicians* (and the people who follow them) do. There is absolutely no Republican monopoly on this one. And to assert that there is, is *just* as problematic as picking a candidate and then attacking him or her on whatever (insignificant) grounds can be found.

Posted by Miri | April 27, 2008 12:16 AM

Miri says: ""Republicans," however defined, may in fact focus on less substantial questions, if they are politically-minded (as opposed to policy-minded). But if you think that Republicans are the only ones, or the primary ones, who campaign this way...then I guess I think that's just factually, and demonstrably, wrong. Sniping at one another over arguably insignificant matters, as opposed to questions of policy, is largely what Clinton and Obama have been doing for the last six months. Focusing on small, insubstantial questions at the expense of weighty policy matters, is what *politicians* (and the people who follow them) do. There is absolutely no Republican monopoly on this one. And to assert that there is, is *just* as problematic as picking a candidate and then attacking him or her on whatever (insignificant) grounds can be found."

Of course Repiglicans don't have a monopoly on such tactics, but they damn well have been the "primary" purveyors of such bullshit.

Flag-burning, gay marriage, Willie Horton, "too French," "fuzzy math," and so on and so forth ad nauseam.

No one, by the way, made any assertion that Repiglicans had a monopoly on campaign fluff. You've just set up a straw man here. It's always been one of Dumbya's favorite tactics.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 1:17 AM

It's worth remembering here that this is the NC GOP, an organization that hasn't exactly earned the benefit fo the doubt when it comes to crypto-racist campaigning. These guys were behind Jesse Helms and the "White Hands" ad, after all.

Posted by Zeke | April 27, 2008 4:57 AM

"Yes, that's the "idea" which no one actually believes." Bill

TR: I think there's evidence on this thread that someone actually believes it. I'm not sure how many people believe it or how much they believe it, but mild versions of it I think are believed.

This should not be taken to mean I believe it or that what "believe it" means is universally agreed on. What some "believe" about it is that it shows Obama sympathizes with hatred of America or Zionists without actually believing it. I don't think I even believe that, except that I think Obama has an academic kind of mind where he can "see the other guys side of it" no matter what that guy's side is. I think even his "bitter speech" was really based on an attempt at empathy and a desire to understand why people would believe things that must seem crazy to him. (And by "things" I don't mean religion as such, I mean conservative to Fundamentalist Christianity as practiced by whites, which is what I think he meant)

On his side McCain was helped, in a way, because his seeking of Hagee's endorsement was such an obvious effort at political pandering. It's like how he's suddenly a Baptist. It's a double-edged sword though. The Hagee issue hurts him because it makes him look like a phony. I don't think any reasonable person think it means he's a Fundamentalist Christian who hates the Catholic Church. He's had much too long a history of bland non-specific Protestantism to really make that image make sense.

Posted by Thomas R | April 27, 2008 6:48 AM

Imagine how the Times, WaPo, et al would react to McCain's pastor uttering anything close to Wright's venomous remarks about America.
I don't recall those leftist pundits uttering a word about Parsley, McCain's 'spiritual advisor.' The latter's statements _should_ have been considered as or more inflammatory than Wright's rhetoric, but nary a peep from all those media outlets that Kool-aid Leavitt loves to crow about. Spare me.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | April 27, 2008 9:00 AM

Sullivan doesn't support things based on logic or sensibility. I think he has those qualities, but on politics he chooses not not explore them. His emotional reaction is ecstasy at Obama and a desire to "punish" Republicans for "betrayal." So any criticism of Obama is racist to him.

Republican tribalism got Bush elected. The same (unfortunately) may happen for McCain. When politics has been so dominated by emotion over reason for the last two elections, moreso than usual, it seems disingenuous to condemn the man when the tables are turned on your party.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | April 27, 2008 9:14 AM

ML&J:

One would have to be a clueless moron to believe that "you'll never see Steve Sailer attack a [Republican] etc."

But then, we already knew that about you, didn't we?

Your homework assignment, grasshopper: go to Steve Sailer's blog. Do a search on "McCain." Read and learn.

I mean, you're like some sort of right-wing rube who can't tell the difference between Geraldine Ferraro and Zhou Enlai.

Posted by steve burton | April 27, 2008 6:51 PM

steve burton coughs up a hairball: "ML&J:

One would have to be a clueless moron to believe that "you'll never see Steve Sailer attack a [Republican] etc."

But then, we already knew that about you, didn't we?

Your homework assignment, grasshopper: go to Steve Sailer's blog. Do a search on "McCain." Read and learn."

Hey, stupid, you left out the end of the sentence, which was sort of important. Here's the whole sentence: "You'll never see Steve Sailer attack a Repiglican like John McCain for his ties to John Hagee, who is far more extreme (and far more consistently extreme) in his views than Wright is."

Now Sailer DID write a piece two years ago where he essentially said that Hagee was a treasonous piece of shit, but he somehow hasn't connected that to McCain yet because IT'S THE ONLY PIECE ON HIS BLOG THAT MENTIONS HAGEE. Meanwhile he goes on and on about Obama and Wright and gives us a puff piece about how McCain has an IQ of 133 - or at least he did before he entered his second childhood and needed to be handled by ventriloquist Joe Liebushman.

Steve Sailer will be supporting McCain by being a racist agitator between now and the election - because that's what he does. He's a professional racist conservative hack, and a black president would probably drive him to suicide.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 27, 2008 8:32 PM

Remember the Huckabee clip where he said that if he were black and had gone through what Rev. Wright had, he might have even more of a "chip on his shoulder" than Wright does?

This NC ad is racist by omission. It plays on the fact that NC whites do not understand what Gov. Huckabee understood--that black people have legitimate grievances. To immediately declare everyone holding such grievances completely not just outside our political discourse, but so far outside that anyone associating with a black person upset about America is also outside our discourse, is massively, massively racist.

Not to mention that the "God Damn America" line was not meant to be literal, but an attempt to portray how our enemies and victims might see us. It was a flawed sermon, but so far as I can tell, Wright's intentions weren't as bad as people portray.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 27, 2008 9:36 PM

"it seems disingenuous to condemn the man when the tables are turned on your party." EpicureanQuaker

TR: I didn't vote for Bush in 2004 and I don't normally consider myself a Republican. I vote Republican out of disdain for the Democratic Party as much as anything. The GOP is a bit too jingoist for me, It's traditionally supportive of horrific abuse if it services the interests of the US. That's true even of Republicans I greatly respect like Eisenhower. It also has too many elements that lean toward libertarianism or Social Darwinism, both things I reject. As of late it's abandoned prudence and frugality. I'm not sure if it's even conserving much of anything.

I supported Bush in 2000 because I thought "compassionate conservatism" sounded interesting. I assumed it meant an end to denigrating the poor or aiding abusive regimes. Perhaps more on the road to reforms that make the poor more able to help themselves. What I remember of his statements this seemed a plausible interpretation. The overthrow of the Taliban, Danforth's efforts in Southern Sudan, and AIDS funding seemed to justify some of that. However Abu Gharaib and massive deficits made me sour on the whole thing.

Anyway that explains my support in 2000, but it doesn't explain Sullivan's. I think his support of Bush in 2000 was also irrational and hard to understand. I was voting for Bush, to an extent, because he was not libertarian. I do not like libertarianism, which personally strikes me as a mostly North American form of lunacy. Sullivan essentially is some kind of libertarian. Bush even of 2000 was clearly for the drug war and against same-sex marriage. I don't understand what he ever saw in him or entirely understand the logic behind his love of Obama. And I've been reading his blog, off and on, for a couple years now. If his endorsement is not based on irrationalist emotional concerns, and BTW it's not necessarily bad to have those, than I don't understand what it could be based on. You tell me?

Posted by Thomas R | April 28, 2008 6:18 AM

Also in 2000 I was 23. I was a fairly smart 23, but still if I had it to do over again I probably would've stuck with McCain. (I was going back and forth during the primaries) Although to be honest in a contest between Bush and Gore I'm not sure what I've done different. Maybe vote Third Party, but I'm not sure what that'd have accomplished.

Posted by Thomas R | April 28, 2008 6:23 AM

But I would be very curious to hear Andrew's explanation for what makes the ad "racist."

I think the argument goes something like this:

Premise 1: Barack Obama is black.
Conclusion: Therefore, criticizing Barack Obama is racist. QED.

Seems pretty solid to me...

Posted by The Deuce | April 28, 2008 10:33 AM