The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

[sauronsfinger]

And it clearly implies that the Saddleback Church and Rick Warren had taken security precautions to make sure the questions were not heard my McCain. McCain not hearing the questions and the announcement of security provisions to insure that result are two very different things.

When you take time to announce the ground rules - and one of those rules is to insure fairness - you darn well better make sure you have it right. Otherwise the integrity of the entire event is then called into question just the way it now is.
------------------------------

NBC Nightly News just reported that McCain was in his car for at least half of the time Obama was on stage being questioned.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Question for all:
How do you get back to something that you have not yet discussed?

From the transcript of Saturday night: again i apologize for the use of all capital letters but that is the way it is formatted.

Rick Warren Q OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE TO GO LONGER ON THAT ONE. DEFINE MARRIAGE.

John McCain answer: A UNION -- A UNION BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN, BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN, THAT'S MY DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
ARE WE GOING TO GET BACK TO THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?S.

Warren answer: WE'LL GET TO THAT.

McCain: ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

Senator McCain had no reason "to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices" since he had never discussed it in the first place with Warren.

How do you get back to a topic that had not yet been discussed?

Unless McCain was referring to the discussion that had already been held with Barack Obama when he was supposedly sequestered away protectively in the cone of silence to insure that he would not know the questions or the Obama answers in advance?

Just asking folks.
====================================
Rick Warren on Larry King Live said that IF McCain had listened to the questions asked of Obama before he was put into the green room that the Secret Service would have reported it. Really? I never knew that was one of the jobs of the Secret Service.

[Cerin]

I've been told that the pastor has explained in an appearance on Fox News that he knew McCain was not in the building ten minutes before the telecast, but assumed that he had arrived by the time the debate began. If the pastor is to be faulted for making that assumption, then we should be also, for assuming he (knowingly) lied.

[Jnyusa]

[removed]

[JewelSong]

Cerin, I don't think we (or most of us) have assumed anything. From what I can see on this board, people have merely been asking questions about what seems like a breach of confidence and a false statement.

I have not yet read the Fox News report. If Warren did explain it that way, it is the first time he has actually addressed the issue head-on.

The issue could also have easily been deflected by McCain - when asked about the "cone of silence" he could have said something like, "Well, I never actually made it to the "cone, Rick, but I can assure you that I did not hear any of your previous questions."

By omitting this and just answering the question as if he (McCain) had, in fact, been isolated in a booth as stated, it seems as if he was hiding something.

I have read about a dozen news articles so far on this non-incident and my own opinion is that the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.

I don't think there was any nefarious plot, I don't think anyone meant to deceive the public, I don't think McCain "cheated," I don't think Warren was lying. I think the "cone of silence" thing was a silly joke taken out of context and made to seem more sinister than it was because McCain was NOT, in fact, in the Green Room when Obama's interview was happening.

Politics is a strange beast and people's comments on the news sites are far more telling to me than the actual "story." Both "sides" have their share of crazies and people ready to leap upon the least little suggestion of impropriety.

[sauronsfinger]

from Jnyusa

First off, dumb question: when did they toss the coin?

That must have been done in advance, and the candidates must also have known in advance who would go first, otherwise how would Senator McCain dare to be so late? If they had had to wait for his arrival to toss the coin, the national telecast would have been quite far behind schedule, wouldn't it?

Warren was asked this by Larry King last night. He said it was done weeks ago and was done by his own staff without the candidates present. So for at least two weeks, McCain knew of the schedule.

from Jnyusa

(To answer the question sf raised earlier, if that is the way the McCain campaign interpreted the questions, then I understand why the spokesperson would give the answer she did - that he proved personal integrity in Vietnam. That happens not to be a pertinent answer, in my opinion, but it doesn't sound quite so off the wall in that context.)

For the McCain spokesperson to suggest that a veteran could not twist the truth or even lie is completely and totally off the wall. Are we to say that a person who served in a prison camp can then never do anything that is not ethical or moral? That seems to be the implication. And it is absurd and nonsensical because I don't think anyone would actually subscribe to that position when stated clearly.

In fact, we know from the historical record that former prisoner McCain did indeed demonstrate repeated episodes of unethical and immoral behavior when he returned to the States causing the failure of his first marriage. In fact, McCain himself admitted this and told Warren that was his greatest personal moral failing during the event.

So a spokesperson waving the bloody shirt of McCains imprisonment is two things - 1) part of a never ending pattern to dangle McCains imprisonment in front of the American public whenever the opportunity presents itself so to continue to milk it for all it is worth, and 2) bears no relationship at all on anything McCain may have done or not done at the Saturday night event.

Warren had the opportunity on Larry King last night to admit he made an error and said something he should not have said. Instead, he said the whole thing was "bogus" and dismissed it out of hand. He gave a weird explaination actually saying that the US Secret Service would have reported McCain if he had been informed of the questions. While I am not an expert on the Secret Service, I do know their job is one of protection and security. I do not believe they are behavior monitors or gaurdians of debate rules and procedures. The actual idea of a Secret Service agent turning in Senator McCain for getting a phone call with the questions is something out of a Mel Brooks movie. It is ridiculous on its face.

I do not think the cone of silence was meant as a joke. A reasonable and intelligent does not joke to a nation wide audience about the rules for an event like this. Especially about a rule that is intended to insure the fairness and integrity of the process. That is no joke.

Warren may have used a humorous phrase to describe the security procedure, however, he also clearly intended to tell the world that he had taken steps and had installed a procedure to insure the integrity of the event and the inability of McCain to hear the questions. He gave us information that was not true at the time. His last task before going on the air should have been getting a signal from a staff member telling him asto if McCain had arrived and was secure in the cone of silence. But he opened his mouth and took a chance and now is paying for the error.

(I want to shift gears here and approach the same topic from a different direction so i hope its okay to make a new post as I do not want to confuse the two different trains of thought)

[sauronsfinger]

from Jewel Song

Politics is a strange beast and people's comments on the news sites are far more telling to me than the actual "story." Both "sides" have their share of crazies and people ready to leap upon the least little suggestion of impropriety.

I do agree with some of this - but I do not think this is "the least little suggestion of impropriety".

Lets put the shoe on the other foot and tell me what would be the result.

The American Civil Liberties Union, a fairly liberal organization, announces a similiar event to be moderated by Phil Donahue. Tickets are distributed to both sides but a significant chunk are set aside for big time ACLU donors and fatcats. On the night of the event, the hall, located in San Francisco, is tipped decidedly in favor of the liberal candidate. Donahue, a noted liberal, informs the crowd that John McCain will go first in the questioning but Obama has been secreted away in a cone of silence and cannot hear the questions. Donahue was informed that Obama is not in the cone of silence at the time they are about to go on the air, but he makes the announcement anyways hoping that Obama will arrive in time. Besides, he trusts Obama and feels this is no big deal. But he still tells the nation that Obama is now in the cone of silence as a precaution of fairness.

He then asks McCain an hours worth of questions with several breaks for TV commercials. At any time during those breaks he can be advised on the appearance of Obama and his location. He has ample time to go on air when they return from a break and inform the crowd as to the real situation - but Donahue does not do so.

When Obama comes out for his hour, Donahue again brings up the cone of silence and asks him what it was like in it. This despite the fact that he has had ample time to discover that Obama was NOT in the cone of silence for at least half of McCains questioning time. Obama has the opportunity to admit to Donahue and the crowd that he was not really in a cone of silence but aopts to remain mum about tht reality.

During the questioning, Obama says he wants to "get back to" a topic that has not yet even been discussed during his session. The topic he wants to "get back to" was discussed in the previous McCain hour.

24 hours later we find out the truth. Obama was not even in the building for at least half of McCains questioning. He was in his own car at the time. No representaive of the ACLU or Donahue was with Obama during that time.

Now please take a wild guess what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and the other conservative pundits would do with that scenario? What would the Fox News organization do with that scenario?

Whats is good for the goose should also be good for the gander.

[Cerin]

Cerin, I don't think we (or most of us) have assumed anything.

Yes. I had trouble wording that to indicate that I was referring to those of us who seemed to jump to the conclusion or very willingly entertained the notion that a lie (knowingly telling an untruth) had been told. I was also regretting, in retrospect, not having urged people to refrain from doing so (particularly as we have a member of that church in our midst), and so included myself in that group.


edit

The issue could also have easily been deflected by McCain - when asked about the "cone of silence" he could have said something like, "Well, I never actually made it to the "cone, Rick, but I can assure you that I did not hear any of your previous questions."

Yes, I wonder if he wishes now that he had said something of the sort. But I can imagine how confusing the moment was, going out into the bright lights and suddenly realizing by the question that the Pastor hadn't been informed of his whereabouts and was under the wrong impression. I can understand him making the split-second decision to just gloss over the question and move forward.

[Faramond]

I haven't yet heard an actual evidence that McCain cheated. A lot of time is being wasted on supposition and gotcha-mongering. I feel like the only way McCain could have avoided being accused of cheating by certain Obama partisans is if he had been padlocked into a sensory deprivation coffin while Obama was on stage.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I haven't yet heard an actual evidence that McCain cheated. A lot of time is being wasted on supposition and gotcha-mongering. I feel like the only way McCain could have avoided being accused of cheating by certain Obama partisans is if he had been padlocked into a sensory deprivation coffin while Obama was on stage.

I have heard any, either, Faramond. The point that sf raised about the supreme court question is less than convincing to me. I regret that the question has overwhelmed any discussion of the actual issues that were discussed.

There was one point that Obama made that was among the most misleading things that he has stated in this campaign. When Rev. Warren asked him about actions that he has taken that went against his party and even his own interests, he mentioned working with McCain himself on ethics reform. That was a really bad example, because while it was true that he had initially reached out to McCain to work with him on that issue, their "partnership" dissolved in sea of partisanship and animosity. That was a really bad example. I generally impressed with Obama's performance during the forum, but that answer really stuck in my craw.

There were things that McCain said that bothered me, too, but most of those were simply issues that I disagree with him about. His low point, I thought, was his "joke" that dividing line for who should be considered "rich" should be an annual salary of $5,000,000. Wow, he really set himself up for attack with that one. I know both Obama and the DNC have used that to paint McCain as out of touch with middle America. I wonder whether that will be an effective argument?

[sauronsfinger]

One question about a story McCain told on Saturday night. I would appreciate it if any fans of McCain can clear this up for me.

On Saturday night, when asked about faith, McCain told yet another tale of his time in the Viet Nam prison camp. This one about a Viet Namese gaurd who drew the sign of the cross in the sand.

In 1973, John McCain gave a 12,000 word narrative about his many years of imprisonment and about his experiences. He never mentioned the cross in the sand anecdote.

As far as I can find out, he never mentioned it in any form for at least 25 years.

In 1983, Chuck Colson wrote a book in which he mentions a very similar scene happening to Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsen.

Like other prisoners, Solzhenitsen worked in the fields, his days a pattern of backbreaking labor and slow starvation. One day the hopelessness became too much to bear. Solzhenitsen felt no purpose in fighting on, his life would make no ultimate difference. Laying his shovel down, he walked slowly to a crude work-site bench. He knew at any moment a guard would order him up and, when he failed tro respond, bludgeon him to death, probably with his own shovel. He'd seen it happen many times.

As he sat waiting, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he lifted his eyes. Next to him sat an old man with a wrinkled, utterly expressionless face. Hunched over, the man drew a stick through the sand and Solzhenitsen's feet, deliberately tracing out the sign of the cross.

As Solzhenitsen started at that rough outline, his entire perspective shifted. He knew he was merely one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire. Yet in that moment, he also knew that the hope of all mankind was represented by that simple cross - and through its power, anything was possible. Solzhenitsen slowly got up, picked up his shovel, and went back to work - not know that his writings on truth and freedom would one day enflame the whole world.

When did John McCain first publicly put the cross in the sand story into the public arena?

[vison]

This "cross in the dirt" story has big legs. Of course, it doesn't matter one whit, since those who think it's true will go on believing it and those, like me, who think it's just a convenient little "stretching of the truth" like Ms. Clinton's "sniper fire" tale, why, I'll go on believing it was a stretching of the truth. Mr. McCain is pandering in a way and on a scale that I find shocking and disgusting. I want to say, "How can people be so DUMB?" But I won't say it.

More to the point, I thought sauronsfinger's question in which the tables were turned and Phil Donahue interviewed the candidates, etc., is a worthwhile exercise to ponder. One can imagine, one does imagine, the scorn that would be heaped on the heads of all the Libs.

[Lalaith]

More to the point, I thought sauronsfinger's question in which the tables were turned and Phil Donahue interviewed the candidates, etc., is a worthwhile exercise to ponder. One can imagine, one does imagine, the scorn that would be heaped on the heads of all the Libs.

Yes, especially if the Democratic candidate had done a better job than the Republican, I imagine the conservatives would howl.





Lali

[vison]

Well, "better job" is a subjective thing, isn't it? I've read plenty of commentary on this where McCain is described as being "lifeless, talking by rote, failing to see the point", etc. Since I didn't see it, and won't (regarding such a thing much as I regard having a tooth drilled without freezing), I really couldn't say. Those who like McCain think he did " a better job", those who like Obama think he did.

Pointless. All show and nothing else, meaningless pandering to a segment of the electorate that I fundamentally distrust.

eta: it was not supposed to be "non-partisan" and it certainly wasn't!

[sauronsfinger]

This would be from the Pot Calling The Kettle Black department.

On August 18, John McCain delivered a speech to the VFW convention in Orlando Florida. In it he ripped into his opponent saying this

“Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president."

Clearly Senator McCain meant this as a criticism of Obama as an ambitious man.

In 2002, McCain wrote a memoir about his failed 2000 bid to run for president. In WORTH THE FIGHTING FOR he confesses what his main motivation to run for the office was.

"I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. . . . In truth, I'd had the ambition for a long time."

You could not make this up.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Interesting choice by the GOP for their keynote speaker at their convention: none other than former New York City Mayor (and former presidential frontrunner) Rudy Guiliani. I am frankly pretty surprised. I was expected a young up-and-comer like Bobby Jindal. Is this a good choice? I suppose it is, in the sense that he should be able to fire up the national security theme by focusing on 9/11.

[Túrin Turambar]

For the first time, Five Thirty Eight is showing John McCain winning a majority of simulated elections. This is consistent with recent polls we’ve seen that show McCain pulling a slight lead in Ohio and Colorado – Obama must win at least one of those states to win the election.

[Frelga]

“Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president."

Really? Finally McCain reveals his secret identity as Captain Obvious.

Seriously, if the Democrats manage to lose with this guy to that guy, I think they should just quit trying.

[Faramond]

Seriously, if the Democrats manage to lose with this guy to that guy, I think they should just quit trying.

I consider this anti-McCain spam with no real content, with nothing behind it except the sentiment that "the candidate I don't like is lame".

You don't think Obama hasn't said some rather obvious things in his life too?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Faramond, I agree, and as a matter of policy, that is exactly the type of comment that we wish to discourage (about either candidate). If someone has a substantive statement to make about one of the candidates, that is well and good, but that kind of empty rhetoric does not advance the discussion in any way.

[Faramond]

For the first time, Five Thirty Eight is showing John McCain winning a majority of simulated elections. This is consistent with recent polls we’ve seen that show McCain pulling a slight lead in Ohio and Colorado – Obama must win at least one of those states to win the election.

With McCain recent poll lead in Ohio it now appears that the true tipping point state of the election may be Colorado. Right now fivethirtyeight shows Colorado as a 42% chance of being the tipping point state in the election. The Dems are sure looking smart to have put their convention there! Unless something bad happens there, such as in '68, but I kind of doubt that.