Gary Kamiya is worked up by his belief that John McCain is getting a pass from the press on the subject of, as his headline puts it (with characteristic taste and restraint) “Psycho Christians and the media.”

He argues that the media isn’t being as hard on McCain, who has been endorsed by some kooky religious guys, as they are on Obama, who has a longtime relationship with one. Kamiya writes:

It’s true that neither Hagee nor Parsley was McCain’s pastor and personal spiritual advisor, as Wright was for Obama. Obama’s personal relationship with Wright raised more legitimate questions than were raised by McCain’s actively seeking Hagee’s endorsement. But especially during the second, more serious outburst of Wright-hysteria, after Wright went off the reservation at the National Press Club, it was obvious that the story had really shifted to Wright, not Obama. The brouhaha was a media ritual, in which Obama was required to sacrifice an unseemly political ally as a kind of campaign station of the cross. Obama had already given his now-famous speech about race in Philadelphia, and no one seriously believed that he shared Wright’s views. In any case, even if Hagee and Parsley had been McCain’s pastors, it’s hard to imagine that the media would have attacked him as relentlessly as it has attacked Obama over Wright and Farrakhan.
The media’s double standard is all about deference to perceived mainstream norms, and tiptoeing around the Christian right.

Notice the interesting rhetorical trick: Kamiya acknowledges that Obama’s relationship with Wright, his friend, pastor, and mentor of 20 years, is very different from McCain’s relationship with Hagee or Parsley. These guys aren’t McCain’s father-figure, pastor, co-congregant, or anything else. They’ve merely endorsed his candidacy. (Here, Reagan’s famous distinction between being endorsed and giving an endorsement comes to mind.) But Kamiya argues that, even if McCain did have the same kind of relationship, the press would still have given him a pass. (Because Kamiya obviously is magically empowered to see what is not seen.) And then he proceeds to argue as though his hypothetical represents the actual facts, writing: “So if Obama is forced to answer for Wright’s off-the-wall black nationalist Christianity, it’s only fair that McCain should be forced to answer for Hagee’s even more off-the-wall Christian right looniness as well.” So even though A is not the same as Not-A, Kamiya insists that we proceed as though A = Not-A, which is just loopy.