Election 2008 | John Hagee | John McCain | New Orleans | News | Republican Party | Rod Parsley

John McCain Rejects Hagee, Parsley Endorsements


John McCain on Thursday finally rejected the endorsements of two controversial pastors, John Hagee and Rod Parsley:

"McCain rejected the months-old endorsement of Texas preacher John Hagee after an audio recording surfaced in which the preacher said God sent Adolf Hitler to help Jews reach the promised land. McCain called the comment 'crazy and unacceptable.' He later repudiated the support of Rod Parsley, an Ohio preacher who has sharply criticized Islam and called the religion inherently violent. McCain issued a statement Thursday afternoon announcing his decision about Hagee. 'Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well,' he said. Later, in Stockton, he told reporters: 'I just think that the statement is crazy and unacceptable.' Then in an interview with The Associated Press, McCain said he rejected Parsley's support, too. 'I believe there is no place for that kind of dialogue in America, and I believe that even though he endorsed me, and I didn't endorse him, the fact is that I repudiate such talk, and I reject his endorsement,' McCain told the AP."

The video of Hagee and Parsley's hateful vitriol, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. The problem with Mccain's "disgust and not knowing..." is that he sought out the guys endorsement for over a year. A year that a simple 5 minute google search would have shown all kinds of stuff on him. It didn't just pop up on his doorstep

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 23, 2008 11:00:30 AM

  2. This is just like the Reverend Wright scandal with Obama. They both played to them for years but when it became unsightly they both distanced themselves.

    Posted by: Matt | May 23, 2008 11:17:16 AM


    Posted by: Bosie | May 23, 2008 12:02:02 PM

  4. Obama, has been knocking McCain and complaining nobody better do the same to him all in the same breath. Democrats can be just as sneaky as Republicans. Sometimes some of you guys sound just like the religious right when they talk smack about gays.

    Posted by: liz | May 23, 2008 12:09:23 PM

  5. the big difference between obama and mccain is, mccain did not sit in their pews for a number of years listening to them spout their bs. yes he could have found out the info by simply googling them. but he didnt. he did what all politicans do(both dem & rep), pander to those extreme elements within the party. when they become a liability, they throw them away but nicely though cause we still need your vote. also, the press was forced to deal with obama's preacher, which in turn meant they had to find something of the same caliber to throw at mccain. i am sickened by this whole race and by the bs being thrown at people from the left, the right, the press, etc. this country is heading for a hard fall and WE ARE ALL TO BLAME FOR IT.

    Posted by: jby | May 23, 2008 12:19:54 PM


    Posted by: Brian | May 23, 2008 12:25:44 PM

  7. I'm sorry, but I still find these guys MUCH more offensive than Wright, and I'm white. They're certainly more anti-gay than he is!

    Posted by: kevinvt | May 23, 2008 12:35:51 PM

  8. It comes down to simple political weights and measures that only a simpleton doesn't get. No one's perfect but when you open the baggages of each of the effective nominees and weigh the contents here's what the scales show:

    Was Obama wrong in how long it took him to distance himself from the Farrakhan loving loon Wright? Absolutely.

    Is Obama still wrong for not having acknowledged his failure to distance himself YET from the rabidly homophobic Rev/Sen James Meeks? Absolutely.


    1. Neither Wright nor Meeks are as bad as Hagee and Meeks who are PERMEATED with Evil. They are theocratic thugs who would burn us at the stake if they could. Only Pollyannish fools don't get that and, thus, are as dangerous with their votes as a two-year old with a Colt 45. McSlime had no problem with their preaching poisonous homohate but when he did the political math—adding up the rest of their outrages—suddenly HE got religion about them.

    2. Obama never campaigned for the attempt to ban gay marriage equality in Illinois the way McSlime did in Arizona.

    3. Obama is enthusiastically for civil unions. McSlime says they're too close to marriage and condemns them.

    4. Obama is still unequivocably against amending the US Constitution to ban marriage equality. McCain recently said he is now open to the idea.

    5. Obama has never exploited the homophobic code words "activist judges." It's one of the tenets of McSlime's campaign.

    6. A President Obama could be counted on to appoint pro civil liberties judges to the US Supreme Court. It's guaranteed that a President McSlime would nominate more Troglodytes. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN THIS ELECTION because it will impact EVERY OTHER ISSUE for DECADES!!!

    7. Obama & Iraq = pull out. McSlime & Iraq = stick his war mongering mangy old dick deeper into the Middle East because that's what "Real Men" do and he, like most Repugs, has the bar code of the Military Industrial Complex tattooed on his lily white ass.

    In short: Obama has some serious blemishes but McSlime is riddled with cancer of the conscience that would result in the death of civil liberty for ages.

    Vote Democratic. Vote DEMOCRACY!

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | May 23, 2008 1:11:28 PM

  9. No JBY, the REAL big difference is Wright was Obama's SPIRITUAL advisor, his pastor whereas Hagee and Parsley were pastors who McCain SOUGHT OUT and COURTED to be his POLITICAL advisors.

    But nice try at regurgitating the cut and paste Republican talking point being posted at:

    Tell me, how many "points" did your receive for your "efforts"?

    Too bad we've already been given a heads up about the McCain campaign's troll strategy:


    I'll give you credit though, the "compassion troll" strategy wasn't in the training manual. I guess you came up with that on your own.


    Posted by: Zeke | May 23, 2008 1:22:11 PM

  10. MICHAEL BEDWELL, I am SOOOOO luvin you right now!!!

    Posted by: Zeke | May 23, 2008 1:24:36 PM

  11. CNN

    Is reporting that Obama and Clinton camps in preliminary discussion for her to withdrow from race

    1st concession is she is Obama's VP

    Senator Feinstein says it is a "dream ticket"

    Lets go after the old guy now as a united family

    Yeeeeha and Kumbya

    Obama/ Clinton 08

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 23, 2008 1:27:26 PM

  12. Who cares what all these religious loonies say, everyone sees them as nuts. People are sick and tired of hearing about religion in politics. Let's just try to work together no matter who becomes president. Its time to have discussions about real issues. It doesn't matter who gets in there, neither one is going to change the course of the economy. The democratic controlled congress can't even produce change. Stop the fighting. Jeesh.

    Posted by: z | May 23, 2008 1:33:12 PM

  13. z

    The Dem congress being without a veto proof majority can not do much till bush is out and a dem sits in the white house.

    Michael Bedwell, I concur with zeke. loving you big time right now. :-)

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 23, 2008 1:35:06 PM

  14. CNN? Well then, it must be true...

    Posted by: anon | May 23, 2008 2:17:33 PM

  15. Anon

    preliminary and "FORMAL"

    Cnn might not be the BBC but it is a whole lot better than a lot of US media sources

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 23, 2008 2:24:31 PM

  16. Since the Democrats are set to win 240-245 seats in the House and 53-55 seats in the Senate, Pelosi will have a bigger majority to work with when the 111th Congress convenes. And if Obama wins the presidency, the veto obstacle isn't in play anymore.

    For the first time in a generation, there's a real possibility that the religous-right will be shut out of the political power completely. Lets not squander this golden opportunity by engaging in petty bickering.

    Posted by: John | May 23, 2008 4:05:12 PM

  17. Unless we get a filibuster proof 60+ majority in the Senate, repeal of all or part of DOMA will be next to impossible and other pro-GLBT (ESPECIALLY trans-inclusive) legislation will be in jeopardy.

    Additionally, Obama would have a very hard time getting Supreme Court nominations passed through the Senate.

    Posted by: Zeke | May 23, 2008 4:11:14 PM

  18. zeke do you mean we need a fillibuster proof senate if mccain were to somehow miraciously (spell check) win?

    A dem president doesn't need a veto proof senate as long as he has a majority to pass through what he wants and he passes through a lot of what they want. I would say the blue dog coalition might be touchy depending on how far right they lean

    Posted by: Jimmyboyo | May 23, 2008 4:22:19 PM

  19. If you don't count Lieberman, you need a net gain of 10 seats to reach 60. That is very unlikely.

    The Democrats gained 6 seats last time. And this was at a point when the war's popularity reached rock bottom.

    The Democrats are favored to gain three Senate seats (CO, NM, VA) this time. And they're competitive in about three other races( NH, MN, and perhaps OR). That's only 6 competititve seats up for grabs.

    Posted by: John | May 23, 2008 4:37:12 PM

  20. JIMMYBOYO, no that's not what I meant at all.

    Filibusters have nothing whatsoever to do with vetoes. Filibusters are a delaying tactic that the minority party in the Senate can initiate at any time to stall and kill legislation promoted by the majority party. A cloture vote of 3/4 of the Senate (60 Senators) is required to end a filibuster and call the vote. This is why the Democrats often don't bring legislation to the floor if they know they can't muster 60 votes. It's not always because they are looking for a veto proof majority, it's because they know that the Republicans will filibuster and the Democrats don't have the 60 votes needed to end it and call the vote.

    Regardless of whether or not a Democrat is in the White House, gay rights legislation will be subject to Republican filibusters unless the Dems can get a 60+ filibuster proof majority.

    Even still it would be damned near impossible to get that filibuster proof majority since we have so many DINO's (yellow dog Democrats) like Heath Shuler (NC)and Gene Taylor (MS) and a number of others, who would almost certainly side with the Republicans (as they have in the past) on GLBT issues.

    It is very unlikely we will get to the filibuster proof majority of 60 Senators in the November election but as we've seen in the last couple of years, especially most recently in MS, LA and IL, ANYTHING is possible.

    Posted by: Zeke | May 23, 2008 8:20:05 PM

  21. Sorry guys, I do not trust Obama to run the coutry, period! Feinstein, Pelosi, Clinton, none of them. You can talk of "Vote Democratic. Vote DEMOCRACY" all you want, but at the end of the day all I hear is Maxine Waters calling for the socializing of the oil industry. Can you say Chavez?! I posted the link in an earlier posts, so here we go again. She said, she meant it and it didn't sound very "democratic"! Listen for yourself.


    Posted by: RB | May 25, 2008 6:10:33 PM

  22. "socializing the oil industry."

    You right-wingers are hiliarious. The country is literally falling apart, and you're worried about protecting the multi-billion profits of big oil. Talk about singled-minded devotion to greed. How dare the Democrats take away 10% of "Fat Bastard" Lee Raymond's 400 million dollar annual salary in order to lower gas prices. The horror! The horror!

    Damn you Obama and Hillary!

    Damn you to Hell!

    Gas in "socialized" Venezuela is 14 cents a gallon, BTW.

    Posted by: John | May 25, 2008 6:54:55 PM

  23. John you do know that you are a socialist right? Move over to France for a few years and tell us how you like socialism. Most of the Parisians curse the government and the extremely high taxes. Gas is about $7 a gallon there.
    Democrat=Democracy or Democrat=Socialist? What is it really I ask all you leftists on here? You think the country is "down the tubes" now? Just wait till your wish of socialism gets granted.

    Posted by: Vi Agara | May 26, 2008 10:55:02 AM

  24. Another observation this morning. I see a lot of gay men ready to give up everything free about america by casting their lots with a bunch of lying socialist democrats because they wrongfully believe they support gay rights and marriage. While the more capitalist Republicans (those on the Supreme Court and a Republican governor, who is not going to support an amendment against it) are the ones who granted gay citizens marriage rights. As far as the religious right, they are on both sides of the political fence and all forms hate homosexuality. Black churches are rabidly anti-gay, in all parts of the country, not just the south.

    Posted by: Vi Agara | May 26, 2008 11:02:44 AM

Post a comment


« «Hot Mystery Surfer Saves Man from Drowning, Vanishes« «