Bill Donohue, Catholic League president, is not one of my favorite people. To say the least, he is offensive in his style of communication. The Reverend, as I'm sure you realize by now, never condones offensive styles of communication.
Donohue's job, a tough one I admit, is to defend the Catholic Church from all attacks. Especially tough when you take into consideration the indefensible nature of, you know, molesting young boys and then covering it up.
However, here's a question from old wild-eyed Bill that registers 9.9 on the Richter scale of rectitude…..
“If Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama were fighting over the support of Louis Farrakhan, we’d say they’re nuts. So what are we to conclude about McCain’s embrace of Hagee, and Huckabee’s lament for not getting the bigot’s endorsement?
Link
Let's say that when Barack Obama was being thoroughly "vetted" by Pumpkin Head Timmy Russert the other night in Cleveland, that Obama had responded to Russert's Farrakhan baited question by saying he was "pleased" to have received Louis Farrakhan's endorsement. "Pleased."
Let's say Obama had answered in the identical way that John McCain answered a similar question about John Hagee's endorsement of him. Obama would have said, "All I can tell you, Tim, is I'm proud to have Louis Farrakhan's support." Link
And then suppose Hillary would have responded to Obama and Russert by saying, "Tim, all I can tell you is I'm surprised and disappointed to have not received Pastor Farrakhan's support." Link
There would, literally, be no end to the scorn heaped on not only the two candidates, but the entire Democratic Party.
The media, and here's where I disagree with Donohue's words, would not have said Hillary and Obama were "nuts". The media would have said the two Democratic candidates, based on their being pleased and disappointed respectively, were anti-American extremists who would destroy Israel and all the Jews, if elected. The media would have said that the Democratic candidates were, in fact, supporters and defenders of the Islamic terrorists, and their being "pleased" and "disappointed" respectively about Farrakhan's endorsement, would be their proof. The teevee media would have run "breaking news" segments endlessly on Farrakhan, the Holocaust, Islamic extremists, etc., interspersed with a looped audio piece of Hillary and Obama's words.
Given such a hypothetical, there would be a movement, led by the media and the criminal Bush White House, to disqualify both Democratic candidates as unfit to lead the nation. Emergency national polls would be taken. Hands would be wrung by all the usual Knee Padders. Spineless corporate Democrats would join with the entire amoral Republican contingent in Congress to pass a resolution denouncing and rejecting not only Louis Farrakhan, but anyone who was "pleased" to receive Farrakhan's endorsement or "disappointed" to have not received it.
Two months, at least, of in-depth blanket coverage of this national crisis would be the result.
That's what would happen if Democratic presidential candidates would have accepted and been "pleased" about receiving a name-brand bigot's endorsement, or "disappointed" they had not received it.
I searched ABC, MSNBC, CNN, CBS and FOX News sites. CBS and FOX are the only ones even dealing with the McCain/Hagee story, other than in a cursory way.
Most of the mainsteam media is silent on the McCain/Huckabee/Hagee endorsement stuff, however CBS parses like Bill Clinton caught in a room full of hookers…..
"The question is whether Pastor Hagee's view on the Catholic Church constitutes "a position" or a view that the presumptive Republican nominee has to address head on." Link
Think about that sentence. Then imagine this…"The question is whether Louis Farrakhan's view of Israel constitutes 'a position' or a view that the presumptive Democratic nominee has to address head on."
Not one "journalist" anywhere would write such a thing should the tables be reversed.
The question is….why not?
