The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

[JewelSong]

Wow, Hal. What is your problem here?

People are reporting a story as it unfolds.

You have something to say that adds to it or changes the story, please say it. Otherwise, it just seems like you are blindly rising to someone's defense with no evidence and no ground.

Admirable, but not productive.

[halplm]

There is no evidence of any lies, deception, or wrongdoing on the part of Rick Warren or Saddleback church.

The slander against MY CHURCH and it's pastor is unacceptable.

That is not allowed here, or so I was led to believe.

Yesterday I had a post removed for implying somone was sarcastic.

I'd say this is considerably worse!!




Edited, as the total meaning of what I had said was changed by mod edits because I'm apparently not allowed to say what I wanted to say.

[yovargas]

hal: TRUE or FALSE - was McCain in a "cone of silence" as Warren apparently said?

[JewelSong]

There is no evidence of any lies, deception, or wrongdoing on the part of Rick Warren or Saddleback church. !

Well, from the information given so far, it seems as though Rick Warren stated that McCain was in an isolated, soundproof chamber when in fact, he wasn't.

If Warren DID state that, it was false.

That is not libel or slander.

I didn't see the event at the church nor do I have any opinion about who did better, McCain or Obama. And although I am a liberal, I am not a wacko.

I don't really care if McCain came off better than Obama and I have no vested interest in trashing anyone.

But if Warren stated one thing about the terms of the debate (or talks) when he knew another thing was the case...then, he told a lie.

That's all I am saying - that's all anyone seems to be saying, really.

[halplm]

I'm not saying anything else until the slander is removed.

[WampusCat]

Liberal wackos worship a posterboy god-figure and think republicans are evil?

That's not exactly calm and reasoned discussion.

The mismatch between what Rev. Warren said and what really happened is worth mentioning. Calling it a lie is an opinion based on that fact. It can be countered reasonably by other opinions based on fact. (As I said, I think SF is overreacting to what might have been a misfired joke -- is everyone here too young to have seen the old "Get Smart"?)

But your mean-spirited generalizations about Obama supporters are ridiculous and unhelpful.

I think Obama is the best candidate and intend to vote for him. But I am not a wacko, I do not worship him or confuse him with God, and I do not consider Republicans evil. My political leanings are quite liberal in some matters and less so in others. I have voted for candidates of both parties.

And by the way, I was highly impressed with how Obama did in the debate. It solidified my high opinion of him. I was also impressed with your pastor, hal, and thought he asked excellent questions.

So can we please stop these angry generalizations?

[JewelSong]

It's not slander if it's true, Hal.

And slander also has to have the intent of wrong-doing. In my case, at least, I am not intending any kind of ill. I am trying to discover the facts of this incident.

Are you interested in the facts as well?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I too was impressed with Pastor Warren during the forum, and I seriously doubt that he intentionally tried to be misleading, or to give McCain an unfair advantage. However, the appearance is that his statement was false and misleading and that is unfortunate.

As for the "whacko" and "God-like" comments, those are exactly the type of things that we are attempting to eliminate in this forum. I'm not going to remove them now since several people have already referred to them, but we will be diligent at eliminating those types of comments (whichever side of the political aisle they target).

I also agree that some of sauronfinger's characterizations of Pastor Warren were unnecessarily inflammatory and I caution against that type of thing as well

[yovargas]

(Since hal is unwilling to discuss his outrage any longer, may I suggest we all just drop it and move on to more important things?)

[Cerin]

And he proved to me that he can win in November unless Obama begins to compete on his level.

IMO, Obama just isn't that good of a campaigner. He comes across as lacking energy and passion (not to say that he lacks energy and passion, but I don't think it comes across in campaign situations, excepting the large audience oratory). He needs to learn to answer more concisely and without so much stumbling around. He needs to be able to connect to an issue in a way that is easy for people to grasp. It strikes me as the same type of rambling, overly erudite answer problem John Kerry had.

“The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous,” Ms. Wallace said.

I find that rather sickening. But what else is new.

Could you clarify? Was it McCain's use of his POW status you found sickening, or the insinuation that he might have cheated?

[yovargas]

I think someone said it might've been a joke but if it's not...what I meant was the insinuation that a former prisoner of war shouldn't be accused of cheating.

[Cerin]

Thanks, yov.

I strongly doubt that it was a joke.

[Maria]

OK, this is getting amusing:

The BarackBook

McCain's Low Road Express

I apologize if these have been linked before, I haven't been keeping up.

[Cerin]

I'm afraid I don't get that first one, Maria.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Maria, posting links without any commentary about them is one of the things that we are trying to discourage.

[Maria]

Both parties have amusingly derogatory websites up about their opponents.

I thought that was self evident from the content of the links and didn't need to explain. Pointing out the obvious is a bad thing in my family- so I guess I'm overly brief sometimes.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks, Maria.

[sauronsfinger]

Wampus Cat has an excellent memory. I was born in 1949 and consider myself a pretty good TV addict of that period but I forgot all about the Get Smart device. Here it is from Wikipedia

The Cone of Silence is one of many recurring joke devices from Get Smart, an American comedy television series of the 1960s.

Invented by "Professor Cone", the device is designed to protect the most secret of conversations (aka "C.O.S. security risks") by enshrouding its users within a transparent sound-proof shield. Unfortunately, Control had purchased the device from a "discount place" rather than the federal government, so it has never worked properly. Naturally, this frustrating situation provides fuel for comedy.

Whenever Maxwell Smart ("Agent 86") wants to speak to his boss ("Chief") about a top secret matter, "86" would insist on using the comically defective technology despite being reminded that it never works. The Chief, usually with annoyed skepticism, would press a switch, causing the device to descend from above his desk, surrounding the heads of the two would-be conversers. The awkwardly impractical device appears to be constructed of clear plastic in the shape of a large oblong box with two interconnected inverted bowls on top.

So was Rick Warren lying or not? Or was he pulling all of our collective legs with a sly popular culture reference that was clearly intended to be a joke and not at all to be taken seriously?

Again, let us look at the exact words used by Rick Warren at the start of the event. I apologize for the all caps but that is how the transcript is presented on the net.

NOW WHAT I'VE DECIDED IS TO ALLOW FOR PROPER COMPARISON I'M GOING TO ASK IDENTICAL QUESTIONS TO EACH OF THESE CANDIDATES SO YOU CAN COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES. NOW SENATOR OBAMA IS GOING TO GO FIRST. WE FLIPPED A COIN. AND WE HAVE SAFELY PLACED SENATOR MCCAIN IN A CONE OF SILENCE.

If Warren was joking, he picked one of the worst possible moments to do so. He was explaining the ground rules of the event to the audience in his church, millions of viewers watching on TV, and the world. You do not joke about the ground rules in a situation like that with the whole nation watching.

And Warren brought up the isolation of McCain yet a second time, nearly an hour later when Senator McCain came out for his hour of questioning, this time directly asking Senator McCain about his experience in the cone of silence.

Q from Warren: “Now, my first question: Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?”

A. from McCain “I was trying to hear through the wall.”

McCain attempted to give a humorous answer. However, the question from Warren appears to be totally serious.

In fact, McCain was not even in the building at the time of the start of the event. He was in a car in a motorcade en route to the church. He arrived after the questioning of Obama had started and was sent to a green room to be isolated.

None of this is in dispute.

The McCain campaign has chosen to attack the idea that Senator McCain did not hear the questioning of Obama and thus did not engage in any form of cheating. That could be true and I do not think anyone has presented any type of smoking gun evidence that McCain heard the questions.

However, the entire "cone of silence" provision was presented to the audience as a preventive measure to insure the fairness of the event since the same questions were being asked of both men. Without it, there would have been ample opportunity for the second man - McCain - to hear the questions and prepare their own answers.

In point of fact, there was no cone of silence. When Rick Warren told the nation that there was a cone of silence to insure fairness in the event, he presented information and ground rules that proved to be false.

Did Warren realize or know of his presentation of false information?
We do not know this right now. However, it was one hour and several commercial breaks between the first statement given at the top of the event and the second statement at the start of the McCain questioning. There was ample opportunity for any one of his aides to inform Warren that the integrity provisions for McCain had been breached or not used as intended. Warren could have announced that to the crowd and the TV audience. But there was no such announcement.

Long after McCain arrived in the building, people close to McCain clearly realized that Warren had presented false information about the ground rules. But nothing was done about it when there was clearly time and an opportunity to correct matters.

In fact, there was the passage of the second hour of time between the second mention of the cone of silence andthe end of the broadcast during which Warren spoke directly to the audience. There were several more commercial breaks during that hour during which there was ample opportunity for the staff to inform Warren of the security breach.

McCain himself was on stage with Warren during those commercial breaks and could have informed Warren of the real situation if indeed Warren was simply laboring under a misimpression. But that did not happen.

Such a breach causes fair minded people to now have serious questions about the integrity of the entire event.

I personally believe that McCain did not hear the questions. I personally believe that McCain simply was better prepared for the event, decided in advance to answer questions as briefly as possible, decided in advance to work his personal story in as often as possible, and decided in advance to use the politicians long established M.O. of twisting any question to give the prepared answer you want to give. In doing just that McCain came off much better than Obama did with his longer and far more nuanced answers.

I do look forward to watching Rick Warren on Larry King tonight. Maybe we will get some answers.

I do think it is sad and regrettable that when the McCain campaign issued their statement about the event- their denial - they had to intertwine it with the fact of McCains Viet Nam imprisonment. In one short sentence, they had to combine both things. That proves to me beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is their version of waving the bloody shirt. They will use it whenever possible and it is a deliberate and intentional device used to garner sympathy from voters and votes in November.

I can understand the feelings of Hal here. As a member of the Saddleback Church, he seems to be taking some of this personally. That is not an unusual reaction from parishioneers in situations like this.
But to call it SLANDER is simply not the case. To demand this discussion stop is way over the line. It is being discussed calmly, rationally and factually.

[Dave_LF]

The choice of the phrase "cone of silence" was almost certainly meant to be humorous. However, I find it extremely hard to believe he didn't really intend to convey that McCain would not hear Obama's questions.

[vison]

Quote:
A. Larry Ross, a spokesman for the church, said virtually all of the attendees were given free seats. But about 250 were charged from $500 to $2,000 per person to help defray expenses. Ross said much of the revenue would cover the cost of accommodating news crews from as far away as Japan and Europe. Any surplus, he said, would support the church's charitable work.

This is very puzzling to me. Why would anyone have to "cover the cost of accomodating news crews"? At a news event, the various networks pay their own way - why would anyone have to pay anything? If there is some major event, no one has to pay for CBS or CNN or anyone else, if they think it's worth covering, they do it. Was this a news event or a paid for public relations thing? Were they news crews or media types who film church events for church use?

As for the "cone of silence", it might not have been meant to mislead anyone - I knew the reference as soon as I read it and remembered Max Smart and Agent 99 with a smile - but nonetheless, it certainly implies that Mr. McCain wasn't supposed to hear the questions asked of Mr. Obama.