Aw, Jesus. Here we go.
With the GOP nomination safely under his belt, John McCain has his eyes toward the fall and is continuing to sell his loyalties and political positions faster than Al Gore is selling carbon shares. The latest and most shameless of his liquidations has the man who was savaged by George Bush and Bob Jones’ evangelicals in South Carolina in 2000 welcoming the embrace of megawatt televangelist, Zion tamer, and the leader of Christians United for Israel, San Antonio Uber-minister John Hagee.
McCain remembers all too well that his first bid for the Presidency was thwarted by his naive calls for moderation and tolerance. “Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton on the left or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right,” McCain said campaigning in South Carolina on February 20, 2000. The far right was revolted and revolted, sending their votes to George W. Bush, Carl Rove and his team Atwatered the Arizona Senator with their push polls about illegitimate black babies and the 2000 Straight Talk Express wheezed to a halt in the pit.
Fast forward eight years. McCain’s already made an opportunitstic peace with all the haters. He’s nuzzled with his former arch-nemesis, George Bush, both figuratively and way too literally. He’s had his hug with another arch-nemesis, Jerry Falwell, but that was all a wasted gesture as the deceased Moral Majority firebrand isn’t going to help him this year. No matter. McCain has the nomination now and is deep into the process of getting his pander up in all the places he’s missed in the last eight years.
In proclaiming himself “very honored by Pastor Hagee’s endorsement,” McCain aimed for the fences trying to not only bolster his standing among Christian evangelicals, but endearing himself to the millions of voting American Jews who are rightly uneasy at the nuclear dabblings of an Iranian President who has floated rhetoric that some Jews might find provocative, like recommending that Israel be “wiped off the face of the earth.” 20th Century history suggests that Jews aren’t being alarmist when they consider such statements as more than a little threatening.
Hagee was the first Gentile recipient of the San Antonio B’nai B’rith Council’s “Humanitarian of the Year” award. He has been honored in Houston with “Pastor John C. Hagee Day” by then-Mayor Kathy Whitmire, and been presented the ZOA Service Award by former Texas Governor Mark White, and the ZOA Israel Award by U.N. Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick. He has visited Israel more than 22 times. And he wants to wipe Islam off the face of the earth. His vision is of a final battle between East and West where the scourge of those other infidels will be quashed and Israel and Christianity will bask in the triumph of Christ’s return.
That’s the kind of stuff that’s even a little too incendiary for Chris Wallace’s talking points.
Or so it would seem, but the marquee politicians beating a path to kneel at Hagee’s feet tell another story. Newt Gingrich, Congressman Roy Blount, Texas Governor Rick Perry, South Carolina Governor and Veep fave Mark Sanford, and George W. Bush have all given big love to the big man from San Antone.
Senator Joseph Lieberman went them all one better, saying unabashedly, “I would describe Pastor Hagee with the words the Torah used to describe Moses. He is an ‘Eesh Elo Kim’, a man of God…he has become the leader of a mighty multitude in pursuit of defense of Israel.” Hot-diggity. If Joe Lieberman is so effusive in his praise, you must be on The Almighty’s speed dial.
If he really is doing the Lord’s work, though, why pray tell does he have to be such a playa hata? That’s not just me, the pasty lapsed-Catholic Gentile, wondering that. The Jewish Daily Forward’s Leonard Fein pondered much the same in a recent blog post “Why Do We Fawn Over John Hagee?” Among a handful of positions that reasonable people might see as tending towards the inflammatory, Hagee has said he believes that the Quran mandates Muslims to murder Christians and Jews; that Adolf Hitler was in cahoots with the Catholic Church to exterminate the Jews; that Hurricane Katrina was “the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans”; and that America is doing the Antichrist’s work if it works in any way to give the Palestineans a legitimate address in Jerusalem. Oh, and he’s funny, too: “Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist.” He’ll be here all week. Enjoy the zeal.
But he’s won John McCain’s heart and mind. I thought the fallout from the Terri Schiavo sideshow gave us at least an eight- or ten-year moratorium on fringe religion foolishness. No such luck, I guess. I’m not sure how many in mainstream Judaism have Pastor Hagee’s posters on their walls, but John McCain seems to think it’s plenty, and that he can have them in one tidy little package with all of the extreme religious right. I liked McCain when he made that quote in 2000, but that’s when he was laboring under the delusion that he could win on principles. It only took an old testament Palmetto State shellacking, at the expense of his own good name and that of his daughter, to bring him back around to Jesus.
Oy vey, for lack of a better phrase. Maybe God will swing for Obama this year.
IN THE NEXT ELECTION, WILL THE AMERICAN PUBLIC BE THE LOSERS AGAIN?
Regardless of who wins in the upcoming national elections, Special Interest and Big Money Donors will again be the winners and the American public will be the losers. Why do you think special interest groups and corporate executives contribute large sums of money to the political campaigns of candidates from both major parties? We all know the answer to that question. They want and expect “their politicians” to somehow look out for the interests of the group that provided the money. In America today, we are living under a political system that not only allows, but encourages and condones the legalized bribery of candidates for the presidency and congress. To the Special Interest and Big Money donors, it doesn’t matter who wins the election because they contribute to the campaigns of the candidates of both major parties. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, the Special Interest and Big Money donors are always the winners.
The reality of political life in America today is that politicians are being bribed every day by special interest groups that want them to look out for their interests, which are not necessarily compatable with the best interests of the American people. Money given to candidates for federal office by Political Action Committees, industry lobbyists, labor unions and other special interest groups is nothing more than “legalized bribery.”
As public servants, candidates for federal offices should not be taking money from these organizations to influence the decisions they will make during the course of performing their official duties. If a policeman takes a thousand dollar bribe from a drug dealer to help him out in some way, he would be committing the crime of Bribery. Why then is it legal for a presidential or congressional candidate to take a thousand dollar bribe (I mean campaign contribution) from some special interest group to help them out in some way.
There is another practice that is perfectly legal, but equally as objectionable as receiving money from Political Action Committees and Special Interest Groups. It’s called “Bundling.” Bundling is the practice of pooling together a large number of contributions from individuals (or PACs) in order to maximize the influence of the bundler and the interests they represent. Most often, a bundler is a corporate executive or lobbyist, who raises substantial sums of money for specific candidates with the expectation of getting something in return.
Here’s is an example of how a corporate bundler might operate:
Let’s say the Chairman of a big Wall Street firm invites a candidate to give a 15 or 20 minute speech at a luncheon before a hundred or so of the firm’s top executives. At the end of the speech, the Chairman presents the candidate with a bundle of $2,300 checks from those executives and the candidate walks away with almost a quarter of a million dollar bribe (I mean contribution). Although this practice is perfectly legal, whose interest will the candidate really be looking out for if he’s elected?
Here are some actual figures of Bundled Special Interest money from Wall Street firms (Top Four Donors) flowing into the campaigns of the leading presidential candidates that can be found on the http://www.opensecrects.org/ website:
Senator Clinton: Goldman Sachs: $490,000, Morgan Stanley: $426,000, Citigroup: $353,000, Merrill Lynch: $161,000.
Senator Obama: Goldman Sachs: $474,000, J.P. Morgan: $280,000, Lehman Brothers: $275,000, Morgan Stanley: $190,000.
Senator McCain: Merrill Lynch: $177,000, Citigroup: $161,000, Goldman Sachs: $104,000, J.P. Morgan: $75,000.
No matter how you say it, Special Interest dollars and Bundled Contributions can buy votes, elections and possibly even buy positions within the government. For example: the current Secretary of the Treasury, Henry M. Paulson, Jr. was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs before he became the 74th Secretary of the Treasury on June 19, 2006. Did the large bundled contributions from Goldman Sachs have something to do with it?
I will support any legislation that defines the receipt of any special interest money by candidates for federal office as Bribery and therefore illegal. I will also support the continued reporting by the Federal Election Commission of the names of the employers of people making donations of $200 or more. This way, the American voters can see where the candidates’ money is actually coming from, including those organizations that are bundling their contributions to candidates with the hopes of getting something in return.
Our elected officials should be more concerned about doing what is in the best interest of the American people, rather than doing what is in the best interests of their big money and special interest donors. Eliminating special interest money will be an important first step.
By John Wallace
Candidate for Congress
NY’s 20th Congressional District
http://www.freedomcandidate.com