Cowardly conservatives are the bane of the Republican Party. Many right-wingers talk tough but don’t live up to their words. That is why the public and even their own Repu party have rejected them. They are war-mongers but don’t really feel the need to join the military themselves. They would rather flame on the internet or right-wing radio/TV than actually take responsibility for their and w/cheney’s infinite failures. When will they have the courage to admit their voluminous tragic errors? They are like alcoholics or hypocrite gay preacher/politicians that never acknowledge their problems. They preach hell-fire and damnation to others but ignore the stud in their own eyes. They can never get any better without the honesty to own up to their destructive weaknesses. Denial, denial, and more denial is the state of the right-wing conservative movement in America today. True and honest conservatives like William F. Buckley and the late Barry Goldwater knew this and tried to warn discredited neo-cons but they rejected the honest assessment and even turned on the founding fathers of their movement. We are viewing the rotting corpse of right-winger wet-dreams and it’s getting ugly. Just a few short years ago they had the world in the palm of their hand with “w” and Cheney as their dictatorial leaders and a right-wing Congress and Supreme Court in lock-step but allowed the infected bile and Rovian paranoia of their cultish movement destroy any possible good will with the majority of Americans or rest of the world. The result: endless war, death, debt, greed and destruction everywhere. What a legacy.

Glenn Greenwald

Some hateful, radical ministers -- white evangelicals -- are acceptable
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."

McCain's sainted supporter, Joe Lieberman, last year spoke to Hagee's group and lavished him with such obsequious praise that Lieberman actually compared Hagee, favorably, to Moses. Why is Louis Farrakhan deemed by our political establishment to be so radioactive as to not be fit for good company -- black candidates are required to repudiate his support even when they haven't sought it and denounce his views even when they've never advocated anything close to those views -- but John Hagee is a perfectly acceptable figure whom mainstream GOP politicians are free to court without any consequences or media objections?

Here is just a small sampling of the belief system of this welcomed McCain supporter:

* All Muslims are programmed to kill and we can thus never negotiate with any of them. From an NPR interview Hagee gave to Terry Gross in 2006:

TG: If you use the Bible as the basis for policy, is there any room for compromise? And if you use the bible as the basis for policy, should Muslims use the Koran as the basis for their policy, and then again, what possible basis is there for compromise at that point?

JH: There is really no room for compromise between radical Islam --

TG: I'm not talking about radical Islam. I'm just talking about Islam in general.

JH: Well Islam in general -- those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews.

* God caused Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans because it had a gay pride parade the week before and was filled with sexual sin. From the same interview:
JH: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.

The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades.

So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the Day of Judgment, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.

* The End Times -- Rapture -- is imminent and the U.S. Government must do what it can to hasten it, which at minimum requires: (a) a war with Iran and (b) undying, absolute support for a unified Israel, including all Occupied Territories (hence, Joe Lieberman's love affair with them). From Christian Palestinian Daoud Kuttab in The New York Times (h/t PZ Meyers):
A small minority of evangelical Christians have entered the Middle East political arena with some of the most un-Christian statements I have ever heard. . . . [Rev.] Hagee, a popular televangelist who leads the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, ratcheted up his rhetoric this year with the publication of his book, "Jerusalem Countdown," in which he argues that a confrontation with Iran is a necessary precondition for Armageddon (which will mean the death of most Jews, in his eyes) and the Second Coming of Christ. In the best-selling book, Hagee insists that the United States must join Israel in a preemptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West.
Hagee believes that "the president's support for Israel fulfills a biblical injunction to protect the Jewish state," which "will play a pivotal role in the second coming." These views are not unrelated to Hagee's support for McCain. Quite the contrary; Hagee cited McCain's so-called "pro-Israel views," his belligerence towards Iran, and his social conservatism as reasons for the endorsement. And in critical contrast to Obama and Farrakhan, McCain actually seems to share some of Hagee's more twisted views, as evidenced by McCain's joyful singing about dropping bombs on Iran.

The GOP has long been given a pass on courting the most warped and twisted religious figures around. George Bush spoke regularly with Pat Robertson -- never once forced to "denounce" or "reject" him. In 2006, Rev. Hagee had a private meeting with uber-White House neocon (and convicted criminal) Elliot Abrams, who just happens to run Middle East policy in the Bush administration, and afterwards, Hagee gushed that he and Abrams (like he and Lieberman) shared similar views towards the Middle East: "we felt we were on the right track."

Watching the media's treatment of Farrakhan and Hagee, is it possible to imagine a more transparent, and grotesque, double standard? In the framework of the Russert-led establishment press, white evangelical Christians are, by definition, entitled to great respect no matter how radical, extreme and hateful their professed views are. These are, after all, religious Christians -- People of Faith -- and, as such, it is wrong, even bigoted, to suggest that they should be repudiated. There is nothing ever radical, hateful or dangerous about the views of white evangelical Christians like Hagee.

Thus, white evangelical Ministers are free to advocate American wars based on Biblical mandates, rant hatefully against Islam, and argue that natural disasters occur because God hates gay people. They are still fit for good company, an important and cherished part of our mainstream American political system. The entire GOP establishment is permitted actively to lavish them with praise and court their support without the slightest backlash or controversy. Both George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sent formal greetings to the 2006 gathering of Hagee's group.

By contrast, black Muslim ministers like Farrakhan, or even black Christian ministers like Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are held with deep suspicion, even contempt. McCain is free to hug and praise the Rev. Hagees of the world, but Obama is required to prove over and over and over and over that he does not share the more extreme views of black Ministers.

How come Tim Russert -- in all the times he sits and chats with Lieberman, McCain and various high Bush officials -- never reads all of the inflammatory, disgusting, crazed "Rapture-is-Coming/ All-Jews-will-Burn/ Kill-All-Muslims/ Hurricanes-are-Punishment-against-Gays" pronouncements from John Hagee and James Dobson and Pat Robertson and demand that John McCain and George Bush and Joe Lieberman "denounce" those views and "reject" their support? What's the difference, exactly?

UPDATE: As emaydon recalls in Comments, McCain supporter Rudy Giuliani, just a few months ago, stood on the same stage and gushed with gratitude over the endorsement by Rev. Pat Robertson of Giuliani's presidential bid.

That's the same Rev. Robertson who, among so many great things, said that Ariel Sharon's stroke was God's punishment for giving up Gaza and the 9/11 attack was divine retribution against America -- America's fault -- for tolerating gays, feminists and the ACLU. But Giuliani was the moderate, respectable candidate who was free to accept Robertson's endorsement, and Russert and his friends never demanded that he "reject" it.

UPDATE II: Although cavorting with the likes of Pat Robertson and John Hagee is perfectly acceptable in Russert World, Russert also demanded, back in January, 2006, that Obama opine on various controversial remarks from the highly influential political philosopher Harry Belafonte (h/t JKP1000):

MR. RUSSERT: I want to talk a little bit about the language people are using in the politics now of 2006, and I refer you to some comments that Harry Belafonte made yesterday. He said that Homeland Security had become the new Gestapo. What do you think of that?

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Belafonte went to Venezuela, as you well know, some time ago and met with the Hugo Chavez, leader of that country, and said some things that obviously were noted in this country and around the world. Let’s listen, and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, January 8, 2006) . . .

MR. RUSSERT: Is it appropriate to call the President of the United States "the greatest terrorist in the world"?

Obama is required to denounce certain people with whom he has no connection while the likes of Bush, McCain, Lieberman and Giuliani are free to associate themselves openly with the most extremist elements around.

UPDATE III: Here is the McCain campaign website proudly promoting a video of Rev. Hagee's reverent introduction of McCain, while McCain and wife Cindy stood proudly by, during the candidate's "No Surrender Tour":


During his remarks, Rev. Hagee denounced those "in Congress who whine about the cost of the war"; said we can't withdraw from Iraq because "Israel will be in greater danger than ever before," pointed out that "Allah [is Ahmadinejad's] God -- not ours"; and raved that McCain "is the leader and the [other candidates] are followers." Rev. Hagee concluded: "Without victory, there is no survival." McCain then went over to him and warmly shook his hand.

I find it hilarious how right-wingers use such tortured and twisted logic to justify their racism and sexism relative to their political candidates. They always claim that it’s not that they don’t want a woman or black as president yet they can’t get them to run. I wonder why? Right-wingers claim Condi Rice and Colin Powell are more qualified than many dem candidates so what’s the problem? Could it be they know a black man or woman would have no chance to get the nomination much less win the general election in their biased party? After all the only way they can get blacks to serve in the Republican party is to “appoint” them because they can’t get elected. If political beliefs were the standard then Clarence Thomas would run for president. He is more right-wing than “w” but he would have no chance in the Republican party of today. Alan Keyes is a good example of the futility of a black conservative in the repu party. The only thing he can win is a right-wing talk show. I can only remember one conservative black (rich Oklahoma football hero, J.C. Watts) that was “elected” in the repu party and he resigned in frustration. Is that a coincidence? I wonder why? Could it be because the repu party is racist or because they don’t represent the interests of average people and minorities? I wonder. If right-wingers really represented minorities they would change their political positions to reflect it but that is not going to happen in the WASP party of big money and materialism that has a history of being anti-civil rights and runs campaigns by demonizing blacks. Reagan started his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. That is the town where the first black civil-rights worker was hung in the sixties. That sent a message to all right-wing racists that he was one of them. The symbolism of that was very clear and the South has gone repu ever since. Bush used Willie Horton to scare whitey in 88 and then paid blacks to stand on the stage and be on camera during political rally’s to give the impression they represent minorities. Every election year most all repu candidates start off by going to Bob Jones University in South Carolina to grovel at the feet of white religious and racist fundamentalists to show their prejudiced leanings. I wonder why a black man or liberal woman would not want to run as a republican presidential candidate. After all one would think the sky’s the limit in the GOP for ambitious minorities. I wonder. When Republican presidential candidates get less than 10% of the black vote in elections one would think they might say to themsleves, "hey, maybe we need to change a little to accomodate the political views of minorities." Instead they always come back with, "we don't need blacks anyway; they'll come around to our viewpoint eventually." Who needs minorities when you have a super-majority of southern bigots. That's the view that has worked for right-wingers in the past and it will probably continue to work for them in the future. I wonder why?

Before John McCain's tour of duty in Vietnam, he married Carol Shepp, a model from Philadelphia. On his 23rd bombing mission over North Vietnam in 1967, McCain was shot down and captured.

After his return to the states when released from prison he was yearning to make the grade of admiral, McCain enrolled in the National War College at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. and underwent physical therapy in order to fly again. The Navy excused his permanent disabilities and reinstated him to flight status, effectively positioning him for promotion.

In his book, The Nightingale's Song, Robert Timberg chronicled McCain's post-Vietnam military assignments and some of his "adulterous" behavior leading to his divorce from Carol and marriage to Cindy Hensley.

Timberg wrote, "in the fall of 1974, McCain was transferred to Jacksonville as the executive officer of Replacement Air Group 174, the long-sought flying billet at last a reality. A few months later, he assumed command of the RAG, which trained pilots and crews for carrier deployments. The assignment was controversial, some calling it favoritism, a sop to the famous son of a famous father and grandfather [both were Navy admirals], since he had not first commanded a squadron, the usual career path."

While Executive Officer and later as Squadron Commander McCain used his authority to arrange frequent flights that allowed him to carouse with subordinates and "engage in extra-marital affairs." Such behavior was a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice rules against adultery and fraternization with subordinates..

Timberg wrote, "Off duty, usually on routine cross-country flights to Yuma and El Centro, John started carousing and running around with women. To make matters worse, some of the women with whom he was linked by rumor were subordinates . . . At the time the rumors were so widespread that, they became part of McCain's persona, impossible not to take note of."

In early 1977, Admiral Jim Holloway, Chief of Naval Operations promoted McCain to captain and transferred him from his command position "to Washington as the number-two man in the Navy's Senate liaison office. It wasn't long before the "fun loving and irreverent" McCain had turned the liaison office into a "late-afternoon gathering spot where senators and staffers, usually from the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, would drop in for a drink and the chance to unwind."

In 1979 at a military reception in Honolulu, McCain met Cindy Hensley, an attractive 25-year-old woman from a very wealthy politically-connected Arizona family. Cindy's father, Jim, founded the Hensley and Company, the nation's third-largest Anheuser-Busch distributor.

McCain described their first meeting, "She was lovely, intelligent and charming, 17 years my junior but poised and confident. I monopolized her attention the entire time, taking care to prevent anyone else from intruding on our conversation. When it came time to leave the party, I persuaded her to join me for drinks at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. By the evening's end, I was in love."

While still married to Carol, McCain began an adulterous relationship with Cindy. He married Cindy in May 1980 -- just a month after dumping Carol and securing a divorce. The newlyweds honeymooned in Hawaii.

McCain followed his young, millionairess wife back to Arizona where her father helped catapult McCain into politics,

Today, Cindy Hensley McCain is chairwoman of Hensley's board of directors. Hensley and Company financial reports show assets worth a minimum of $28 million for the McCains.

He sounds a lot like Clinton don't you think?

What’s a right-winger to do? After almost three decades of right-wing conservative rule in Washington D.C. where are we? Mired in needless wars, economic meltdown, incompetent government management and endless debt, that’s where. Yes, conservatives have pretty much controlled all that has happened in D.C. since Reagan came to town in 1980. With the exception of some fiscal sanity under Clinton and Newt, it has been nothing but borrow and spend adnauseam. China owns us because they are the ones financing all of our spending on wars and tax cuts we can not afford. This will all come crashing down soon enough. Who is responsible? Reagan/Bush created the largest debt in U.S. history. During the first six years of w’s rule he and his right-wing McConnell Congress had free reign to do and spend as they saw fit and anyone that questioned was labeled a traitor. There were no checks and balances and “w” never vetoed any pork barrel spending his Congress sent him. Now that their policies and the resultant debt are really kicking in it will once again be the Democrats responsibility to fix it. I pity the mess the next president will face. It is not surprising that even Republicans reject right-wingers this year. After the last eight years they have been completely discredited. McCain will be the Republican nominee and right-wingers are livid but they have no one to blame but themselves. McCain is pals with Ed Kennedy and Feingold and has never seen a liberal cause he couldn’t embrace so who ever wins in November they will have one common distinction. They will all be to the left of our beloved Mitch “spend tax money for pork and votes” McConnell. I wonder if Right-wingers will mock McCain’s military service the way they did true war hero, John Kerry in 2004? Will they swift-boat him with blatant lies and hold up purple band aids on their fingers laughing at his purple-heart metals? That’s the kind of twisted mindset that passes for patriotic in right-wing circles. It’s going to be an interesting election and right-wing spin will be comical trying to paint McCain as one of them but you can count on one thing. Right-wingers will never vote for a black man or woman for president so a liberal vet will have to do. January 20, 2009 won’t be here any too soon? Bring it on!