Warren Asked Obama and McCain Different Questions
By Jon Perr Sunday Aug 17, 2008 1:13pm
Two days after the fact, questions continue to surround John McCain's surprisingly strong performance Saturday at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church. The mainstream media and blogosphere alike are abuzz with rumors that McCain pierced Warren's so-called "cone of silence" and, more serious still, may have purloined his legendary POW "cross in the dirt" story from the late Alexandr Solzhenitsyn.
But on one point, there is no dispute. Despite CNN's assurances to the contrary, Rick Warren simply asked Barack Obama and John McCain different questions.
From the very first question, Warren treated McCain with biblical kid gloves, editing out scriptural references that might have proven uncomfortable for the religiously reticent Republican:
QUESTION TO OBAMA: These first set of questions deal with your personal life as a leader and I'm not going to do this with any other segment, but as pastor I've got some verses that have to do with leadership. The first issue is the area of listening. There is a verse in Proverbs that says fools think they need no advice but the wise listen to other people. Who are the wisest three people you know in your life and who are you going to rely on heavily in your administration?
QUESTION TO MCCAIN: This first question deals with leadership and the personal life of leadership. First question, who were the three wisest people that you know that you would rely on heavily in an administration?
Chuck Todd of MSNBC was quick to note the strikingly different answers Obama and McCain offered, but not the clearly different questions they were asked:
"Take the VERY first question Warren posed to both candidates: who are three people you'll depend on for wisdom in the presidency. Obama seemed to answer this in a very personal way, talking about his wife and grandmother. McCain went right to this message, checking boxes on Iraq (Patraeus) and the economy (Whitman) for instance. Now, I'm betting Obama's answer came across as more authentic but McCain's was probably more effective with undecided swing voters."
Given the very different framing of the question Warren posed, it's no surprise that Barack Obama and John McCain produced strikingly different responses in both substance and style. Obama took Warren's personal question personally, and cited his wife and grandmother as both "wise and honest'' before moving on to a litany of political figures on both sides of the aisle. (Obama's mention of the radical social conservative Tom Coburn (R-OK) was transparent pandering to his audience.) For his part, McCain responded to Warren's political question and pointed to General David Petraeus, Obama supporter Congressman John Lewis and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. (McCain was quick to return to his stump speech and extol the glories of eBay as America's economic future.)
But Warren's divergent paths for Obama and McCain split further with the very next question on leadership and moral weakness. Again, Warren turned to the Bible for Barack Obama, but to Dr. Phil for John McCain:
QUESTION TO OBAMA: Let's talk about personal life. The Bible says that integrity and love are the basis for leadership. This is a tough question. What would be looking over your life, everybody's got wings [sic], would be the greatest moral failure in your life and what would be the greatest moral failure in America?
QUESTION TO MCCAIN: We had a lot leaders because of their weaknesses, character flaws, stumbled, become ineffective [and] are not serving anymore, serving our country. What's been your greatest moral failure and what has been the - what do you think is the greatest moral failure of America?
Again, the different framing of the question put Obama at a distinct disadvantage. After admitting his own troubled, selfish youth as his personal failing, Obama turned to scripture to highlight America's failure to live up to its own ideals:
"I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't live by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you for the least of my brothers, you do for me."
In contrast, McCain killed two birds with one stone. He dispensed with his own marital infidelity in a single sentence, "my greatest moral failing, and I have been an imperfect person, is the failure of my first marriage." (The issue never surfaced again, and Warren's admission Friday that he "absolutely" would have compunctions about voting for an adulterer never became an issue for McCain.) More important, McCain highlighted America's greatest shortcoming as a failure to "serve cause greater than yourself." That theme - "country first" - is the rhetorical cornerstone of the McCain campaign. And the contrast of his response with Obama's discussion of his own battle with what Warren termed "fundamental selfishness" couldn't have been more strategic for McCain.
Warren's different framing of the inquiries he posed and the tailored, selective follow-ups continued in his discussion of marriage. Warren asked Obama and McCain alike to "define marriage." But while Obama was then asked, "Would you support a constitutional amendment with that definition," Warren instead offered John McCain an opportunity to weigh in on a hotly contested ballot measure being pushed by the religious right in California:
"Let me just ask a related question to that. We got a bill right here in California, Proposition 8, that's going on because the Court overturned this definition of marriage. Was the Supreme Court of California wrong?"
It's no secret that the foes of same-sex marriage see Proposition 8 as essential to fueling Republican turn-out in November.
And so it went all night. And so it went all night. Thanks in no small part to Pastor Warren's biblical guidance, Barack Obama spoke in a personal, conversational style, making a point throughout to refer to the principles of his Christian faith in the misguided attempt to please an audience indifferent to him at best, downright hostile at worst. So while Barack Obama talked of "trying to do God's work," John McCain did the work of his campaign advisers. Despite Warren's feeble requests not to do so, McCain just repackaged his stump speech and made purely political appeals. In so doing, John McCain probably had the best night of the campaign.
Login or Register to post comments.
I may not know everything that was going on but there's no way that forum was on the level.
Rick Warren is another evangelical fraud.
Call Or email Saddleback Church and let them know how you feel.
info@saddleback.com
(949) 609-8000
.
I can see it now:
AMERICA'S NEXT AYATOLLAH!
Hosted by Pastor Rick Warren
(check your local Fox channel for times)
.
But, but....Obama stuttered. He had to stop and think before he gave substantive answers.
McCain was so quick he answered questions before they were even completely out of Warren's mouth - almost as if he had already heard the questions before!
McCain's answers were short and to the point nuggets of his stump speeches. Not a single answer required much thought or attention from the audience.
Advantage McCain!
We get what we deserve.
Oh come on....you really expected a white-christian-evangelical pastor to treat Obama the same way he treats McSame?
Lets be real here...
This guys is just Fartwell-lite
Since the updated thread erased the other comments...
Where does it say in the Constitution of the U.S.A. that the President of the U.S.A. must be Christian?
I THOUGHT RELIGIOUS TESTS WERE ILLEGAL?
.
roooth @ 4:
I thought the same thing McCain's answers came just to fast.
So would McCain accept a forum at a black church?
Mr. McCain, how often does God speak to you?
Mr. Obama, how long do you think you'll fry in Hell?
St John on NEOCON Heaven
or McPOW as we mortals call him
As we sacrifice for your Father Bush in NEOCON Heaven
and hope his son Cheney will bring peace to the world.
And may the Holy ghost Rove also keep us from evil.
oh and Virgin Rice please keep our soldiers safe in this holy war.
What country Shall yee promise to spread the NEOCON word next?
.
QUESTION:
Which one does not belong with the others...?
America's Next Top Model
America's Next Ayatollah
America's Last Comic Standing
America's Biggest Looser
America's Best Nanny
America's Best Japanese Game Show
.
Look, if McLame isn't given a head start at these things then he'll have no chance.
If you want a good horse race you are gonna have to allow handicaps of some sort.
Surely no one was naive enough to think that there's an honest evangelical?
Here are some questions I'd like every candidate to answer.
1. Acknowledging that religious faith can neither be qualified nor quantified, is “G/god exists” a conjecture?
2. If I were to provide a live stork and a live baby, which notion would have more scientific credibility, “Storks deliver babies” or “G/god exists?”
3. Which religions are not based on any form of spiritual conjecture?
4. Under what circumstances is it reasonable or beneficial to utilize spiritual conjecture as a validation for political applications?
5. Under what circumstances is it reasonable or beneficial to utilize spiritual conjecture as a validation for economical applications?
6. Under what circumstances is it reasonable or beneficial to utilize spiritual conjecture as a validation for social applications?
7. Which religions do not offer posthumous rewards for social obedience and loyalty to the religion?
8. If politics are the social and economic philosophies through which resources and power are distributed to the people, where should you expect someone who validates any social application with spiritual conjecture to draw the line and not apply the same spiritual conjecture to political philosophies?
9. Is it more or less beneficial to society to utilize presumed spiritual conjecture as a validation for beneficial social application than it is to utilize research and understanding as a validation for the same beneficial social application?
10. Under what circumstances has a person who bases multiple conclusions, specifically those designed for social and political application, on absolute conjecture not earned the title of crackpot?
11. If someone validates “love, cherish and help thy neighbor” with a spiritual conjecture and goes unchallenged should they be expected to draw the line, on a purely spiritual level, and not validate “harm, abuse and kill thy neighbor “ with the exact same spiritual conjecture?
12. When is it reasonable, rational or responsible to accept, utilize or maintain any spiritual conjecture (G/god exists, Souls/Chi/Karma exists) to validate any socially, economically or politically beneficial notion when the exact same conjecture can be used to validate any socially, economically or politically abusive action?
I submitted that last question to both McPOW and Obama. Neither has yet to offer me a response.
Rick Warren lied about the "cone of silence" what else would he lie about?
I know when Obama went first the fix was in.
ysbaddaden @ 9:
Question 1. Everytime Fox news speaks.
Question 2. Until all of the chicken and pork chops are gone.
A conservative hit job? Man, I sure wasn't expecting that.
Poof! what happened to the comments on the post that this one replaced?
Probably somewhere lost in space. Oh well.
As I said in those comments, Obama had to attend this thing or else McCain would have used his refusal and made campaign fodder of it. Even with the Christian stroking that McCain received, I felt Obama came off more sincere and real. McCain hardly appears to have led a "Christian" life since he left Nam, where he says he found god.
I look forward to the explanation that "they were SUBSTANTIVELY the same questions."
Yeah. But "the same questions" means the same questions, period. And these weren't.
Cheating at Saddleback
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/08/18/cheating-at-saddleback-mccain-ap...
"MCCAIN: When we speak of the issue of the rights to the unborn, we need to talk about judges. But, anyway, go ahead."
-----------------
How did McCain knew they were going to talk about the "rights to the unborn"?
"MCCAIN: Could I — are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices or should I mention –
WARREN: We will get to that.
MCCAIN: OK. All right. OK.
WARREN: You’re jumping ahead…"
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/08/18/cheating-at-saddleback-mccain-ap...
That is called "leading the witness".
You guys are really gonna be shocked when the librul media does a hit job on BO in the (sectarian) debates
The real purpose of the "purpose-driven" life:
Accumulation of wealth, power and control.
New Book. Same old story.
McCain campaign attacks NBC - confirms Andrea Mitchell's reporting
Didn't watch...another example for me why I want nothing to do with organized religion...Shame of this so called minister...playing politics per usual..
Glad he got caught!
roooth @ 4:
Heh, yep. This is what we get when professions of faith matter so much to the electorate, and the common assumption among those to whom it matters more than anything is that Republicans have the right faith.
There are days when I think this country just isn't worth saving. (Pun intended.)
I did not even bother to watch. I will wait for the debates.
Warren is going to be on Larry King tonight. Ya think Larry will go into any of this with Warren?
This whole religious litmus test for candidates is a crock. I'm amazed this is even allowed, and I hope that this church doesn't get tax exempt status. Unbelievable.
pissed off patricia @ 28:
Barf. Warren is getting more fame off this "hit job".
If I was King I would canx him.
NYT backs up NBC
pissed off patricia @ 28:
Yes, I think Larry King will bring it up, then buy whatever B.S. gets spouted at him. Gone are the days when people are held accountable for lies and misinformation.
greg @ 27:
Because the debates will be so much better? ;)
Obama needs to go on offense. Now. Go negative, and do it relentlessly.
It's so fucking easy for McCain. Make it so that people CAN'T TRUST HIM! Call him a liar. About everything. He lies to his family. He lies about his record. He lies about Obama's record. He lies about Obama's plans. He lies about every position he's ever had, since he changes them by the second. He lies about his religious beliefs. He lies to you!
You can't trust McCain should be the theme of Obama's ads and surrogates for the next month or so.
Janet @ 2:
thanks for this. i emailed them to tell them what i think of their precious pastor.
hey! hey! jon perr - i was doing the same last night at ThinkProgress,
beginning here... i couldn't get them all as it got late...
did anyone bring up this bit-o-evidence?: MCCAIN: ... Could I — are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices or should I mention — ...
"get back to" a subject that hadn't even been brought up... a TP post on that here...
the whole thing was a sham... i hope barack learned his lesson...
repugs canNOT be trusted. period.
Could eitiher of you candidates explain these passages?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+6%3A1-6%2C16-18&vers...
Fanatical patriotism + fanatical religiosity: a winning combination sure to set any country on a course straight to oblivion (after destroying millions of lives, of course)
harley @ 21:
POW's are Mind Readers didn't you know?
Does anyone know what or how to check the viewer ratings to see how many people watched?
By tomorrow Warren will be a racist. Everytime Obama gets his ass kicked because he has to speak off script the Obamabots come up with a new crybaby excuse.
harley @ 21:
i noticed this too and was wondering if the candidates were given a heads up and gave mccain the benefit of the doubt. but now that we know he was not in the stupid cone of silence, it is clear that he was informed of the questions beforehand. what self-respecting campaign staff would not feed the questions to its principal if it has the chance? plus republican honor is an oxymoron.
Rick Warren - superstar - if you're out there, just what WAS the point of not asking the same questions of the two candidates?
Johnny @ 40:
actually it is the mccain campaign who have become whiners, complaining about the charge that andrea mitchell hinted on that they were not in the cone of silence.... which was true. obama doesnt complain about the everyday bias of fox, does he. phil gramm's nation of whiners starts with the mccain campaign.
McSame didn't "pierce the cone of silence"; it never existed. Notice how the media covers things up by retaining the memes as the basis for what they say, rather than pointing out that they are false.
pissed off patricia @ 18:
It has been noticed by some evangelicals that McCain doesn't really speak their 'language'. I know many feel the questions were phrased more favorably for McCain but I think taking into consideration the audience was made up of Christians, the Biblical phrasing of Obama's questions was more favorable. Warren may have been trying to even things up, knowing a solidly republican audience would be more partial to McCain. He hasn't come out in favor of one candidate over the other and he claims to be slightly right of center and not one favorable to the far right. I'll believe that when I see it.
Talkin' about POW's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRp45EmzCSk
maybe mccain did know the questions....personally i feel he was at least coached to fit certain key words where he could....'petraus'....'gates of hell'...'everybody rich'....'cross'....'marriage'...conservative linguistic framing...many won't remember content but they will remember key words.....they know this from control group studies.....i'm trying to recall if he said republican
someguy @ 7:
McCains's answers were obviously canned and had very little substance. As I stated before, Obama's attempts to provide meaningful anwers can never pierce the intellect of the typical republican. First, there is no intellect in the space between the ears of most of them. McCain's answers were enough for them to handle then they shut down and cannot engage the truth. Too much work for them. Its easier to say things are the way they are because its what they believe. Enough said. Nothing can change their minds. Kind of like jackasses.
John Smith @ 44:
The media has pointed out that there was no cone of silence. And Warren even admitted it. Heh, in one interview, Warren basically said that he asked McCain's campaign whether they were listening in, and they assured him they weren't. And the talking head said, oh, honor code. We respect that.
So, the media pointed it out. Then it moved on. No follow-up. No accountability. Business as usual.
But for any Democrat or Obama campaign person who expected anything different from either the forum or the media, shame on you. This is just how presidential politics works in this country.
Again, Obama needs to get out there and define McCain as someone nobody can trust.
ysbaddaden @ 36:
I see that as more of a question for Hagee, Warren, Dobson, Franklin Graham, Joel Osteen and the rest of the mega-church, televangelist crowd.
Doesn't the Bible say something about bearing false witness?
Would have been nice if both would have spoken off script. McCain was one stump speech and storytelling machine during what was supposed to be a conversation. As for Johnny at 40, it sure did not take long for you to bring up the race card. Thanks for representing the lunatic fringe.
another post at TP, from this morning:
so glad that the SCLM is “reporting”, at least a bit, on the CHEATING my the mcLIAR campaign at the p.rick warren forum…
i can’t find the link, but last night one of the articles i read about it mentioned that p.rick did acknowledge that he gave the first 2 questions to the candidates [before the forum]…
i was compiling those question last night here at TP, to try to distinguish what differences there were between the “virtually identical questions”… interesting, seems those first 2 questions are the ones MOST dissimilar to each other…
am not sure if this has been posted here but for those who have yet to see it here is the videon on mccain's mansions
http://therealmccain.com/?utm_source=rgemail
harley @ 30:
The Crappy News Network won't make any waves. It would cut into their corporate profits if they offered up something that upsets the apple cart.
Like, somebody was actually expecting fairness or intellectual honesty from a GOPer?
Hope springs eternal, I guess...
Again, Obama needs to get out there and define McCain as someone nobody can trust.
I agree but, unfortunately, I think the Obama camp sees this too negative and they are jeopardizing winning the presidency over that misguided attitude.
More important, McCain highlighted America’s greatest shortcoming as a failure to “serve cause greater than yourself.”
This is the most well known theme of Warren's Purpose Driven Life. By parroting this back, Gramps is claiming association with an audience already steeped in the ideology. It's like the Mason's secret handshake.
It should also be mentioned that Warren stated "Lets all stand up and applaud Senator Obama for coming here tonight" at the end of Obama's interview, essentially asking the audience for a standing ovation when many were already beginning to stand. He made no such request for McCain as he got a standing ovation.
Subtle? Perhaps, but it added to the impression that Obama, who regularly plays to crowds in the tens to hundreds of thousands, should need help from Warren, whereas McCain was 'so on his game' that the crowd jumped to its feet for him.
Yes, the press is treating McCain with the same kind of deference we treat our elderly who are past a time in their lives when productive, respectful sparring is called for.
Question to Obama: "Why are you dressed like that? Are you out of your mind? How could you not have noticed you're wearing one brown and one blue sock?"
Question to McCain: "Excuse me, sir, but you seem to have mistakenly put on socks of two different colors. Would you please go back and straighten that out?"
This should be viewed as a liability of McCain's. He is temperamentally and age-wise inacapable of handling the tough questions without becoming inappropriate, both substantively and emotionally.
We need a younger, more mentally astute President.
As soon as comments started coming in that McCain was doing better than expected I knew something was fishy...and it wasn't McCain's underpants.
Whether Pastor Rick was in on it or not, this whole Saddleback Sham reflects badly on him. He truely fucked himself.
harley @ 30:
No, Warren is just getting more fame period. Why do you think he cooked this whole thing up? Don't think for one minute that Saddleback church isn't getting something out of this. Not to mention Warren's book sales are probably going to increase now that he's back in the public eye.
Any publicity is better than none.
I wrote this to the ABC Jake Tapper blog in response to their article concerning McCain's penetration (ugh, the thought of McCain penetrating anything makes me nauseous) of the "cone of silence", but I thought I'd post it here, too, since ABC loves to make life easy for The Sainted American Hero John Sidney McCain (genuflect, please):
"Our Little Maverick gets caught scamming the American electorate again, and then he whips out his big bad POW meme to defend himself once more. Why, a POW couldn't possibly lie now, could he? He couldn't possibly change his position on the major issues every 45 seconds, or confuse Sunni and Shia, or not know that Czechoslovakia no longer exists, or try to put the US at war with Russia for his own political gain, or impugn the patriotism of his opponent while using his military past as a cover against retaliation, or call his wife a c***, or cheat on his crippled suffering first wife with a blond millionairess in defiance of the Code of Military Justice without being prosecuted by the Navy for his infidelity because his father was an admiral, and on and on and on. If this was a Democrat doing all of this they would have committed suicide by now from all of the reportage from the so-called "liberal media". But of course Saint John gets a pass, as always. And by the way, when is the major media going to answer the question I have been asking since the start of McCain's campaign: How does being a POW qualify one for becoming POTUS? Anyone? Brian Williams? Charlie Gibson? Katie Couric? Tom Brokaw? Bob Schieffer? ANYONE WANT TO ANSWER ME? (crickets)"
kep306 @ 55:
Good point. Integrity in reporting - what was I thinking?
Jon,
You missed one other key difference what Warren said to the candidates aside from the specific question and it infuriated me enough to see a real bias from Warren.
He point blank told Obama "I don't want any stump speeches I want answers.." Obama took great pains to look deep inside to answers Warren directly. But to prove the media has it's head up it's corporate ass we only have to look at cronies like Gerson over at the Post to write:
Warren never said one word to McCains repetitive use of stump rhetortic and campaign slogans - and gave non answers- to direct questions . Guess the Post never saw that - if he even watched the whole thing at all instead of just reporting talking points from CN, MSNBC or Fox - or from the McCain campaign direly is the more likely answer.
It was a pure Republican non-Christian like set-up to Obama.
Pastor Warren played just another role of a money loving hack/Republican crony.
Liberal AND Proud @ 51:
Lots. Lying is a sin that is equally bad as murder or homosexuality, if you interpret God's law literally.
Apply to McCain and interpret as you will.
Huh, go figure. A religious leader who isn't honest? Never heard of that happening.
Makes me glad I'm a non-believer and think all clergy are full of shit. The Holy kind, of course, but never the less, full of steaming piles of them.
Just for the halibut:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8dEjqcTv9A&feature=related
Long Suffering Progressive @ 66:
Watch what you say about Martin Luther King.
Gretchen @ 65:
Sad part in all of this is Wright lied in his own church about the cone of silence.
Truly a disgrace that should lead to him stepping down.
hazmaq @ 64:
Who thinks Warren is acting? But you have a great point!! Sharp find my friend.
Liberal AND Proud @ 51:
I thought it was baring falsies.
harley @ 69:
Truly a disgrace that should lead to him stepping down.
Opps. I meant Warren.
theWalrus @ 57:
Very possibly, yes. The Democratic Party electorate might reward a candidate for taking the high road. The American electorate in general will not.
But hell, Obama folks could even do this in a positive manner. They've long touted his judgment in order to counter the charge that he's inexperienced. Combine that with trustworthiness. Take on the following slogan: Judgment You Can Trust.
Whenever they highlight, say, Obama's judgment on the war, they should highlight it as a reason to trust Obama. Whenever they mention that Obama's faith is organic to his life, they should call it a reason to trust Obama. And any time they mention something negative about McCain -- even if it is lightweight negative advertising -- it should be followed with the slogan, Obama: Judgment You Can Trust.
All they have to do is get people talking about whether they can really trust McCain.
someguy @ 68:
You know EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Don't deflect.
well, it looks like Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church has been exposed as another reich-wing front.
THERE SHOULD NOT BE A RELIGIOUS TEST FOR PRESIDENT.
Barack Obama is NOT running for Pope or to be the next Fallwell.
theWalrus @ 57:
I disagree, I think the Obama camp are correct to stay away from this. Obama has bigger fish to fry with picking a VP and preparing for the convention. It's down the MSM. McCain campaign manager Rick Davis kept this story alive by attacking NBC for reporting the truth. That could prove to be a dumb move.
krisken @ 29:
Does anyone know if there will be a live feed?
harley @ 69:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLZKEre3yJ0&feature=related
PorridgeGun @ 76:
Republicans never lose by attacking the media.
Democrats always lose by not responding in kind to negative attacks.
BaScOmBe hearts Lara Logan and Rachel Maddow @ 75:
I agree totally with that. I'm tired of religion calling the shots for our government.
Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 6:
Exactly! I'm sick and tired of politicians pandering to the religious freaks. I don't know why Obama even agreed to fall into that trap. It's not as though the bible thumpers are going to vote for him--a man who thinks women are smart enough to make their own medical choices. A total waste of time.
Gretchen @ 61:
and the publicity is FREE!
McCain seems to be a genius. He knows how to answer before the question is asked.
Carol @ 83:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/17/02247/6361/368/569146
Obama should have listen to Admiral Ackbar: "It's a TRAP!"
Litabell @ 81:
I applaud Obama's courage for walking into the obvious trap. there is plenty of time for people to digest this hit-job just like the ABC "debate" where Charlie Gibson took it upon himself to chide Obama like a child. People see this schitt for themselves and the assholes lose credibility. We need to keep pointing out that McKeating5 was NOT in the "cone of silence" and that he was asked different questions than Obama.
We can't join the enemy in attacking Obama. It's too easy. Let's, instead, attack the attackers. I'm, all for that.
I was surprised (kind of) that such a big deal is still placed on catering to evangelicals, who, at least to me, are the equivalent of radical muslims as far as Christianity goes. I guess they have a huge voting populace but it still doesn't make it right. I'm seeing all these articles today about how Obama's stand on abortion may cost him the election???? I'd argue that people should be more concerned with voting for someone who will protect the lives of LIVING people (i.e. Obama's diplomatic stance on international matters) versus someone who's more concerned or at least pandering to people who who are more concerned about the lives of unborn children. McCain's riding the 'protect the unborn' wave while he's also high on the 'bomb the crap outta anyone we please' wave as well. Maybe being raised Jewish I can't understand this whole abortion/religious debate, or at least the amazing emphasis placed on it while so many other things are effecting EVERYBODY in America much more at the moment but one thing I've noticed is that Evangelicals and the like seem to think the people who are for keeping abortions legal want to force everyone to have abortions, which isn't true but is in line with their policies where they do want everyone to do what they think is right (i.e. forcing people to not have abortions). It seems to be like that across the board for pro stances on alot of things. another example is it seems as though people against legalizing marijuana think if it's legalized someone or some group of people is going to FORCE everyone to smoke pot. Not the case. People just want other people to have options to do things as long as they are not hurting other people where as the hard line stance types don't want anyone to have a choice and just act like what they think is right (which, we are finding, is hypocrisy most of the time as the foes are usually engaged in the same behaviour). Ah you religious nuts....
Gretchen @ 45:
Obama is much more comfortable talking about his faith than McCain. Just listen to McCain when he got the Jesus question. He just said "Means I'm saved and forgiven." then some moronic nonsense about "our faith encompasses not only the United States but the world" and then he saved himself with his (or Solzhenitsyns) Vietnam story.
So while a persons religion is completely irrelevant in a presidential election I wouldnt mind McCain making a fool of himself in the debates trying to answer faith questions.
Karen @ 79:
You've got a point there. But I'd place more emphasis on the latter if I'm Obama. NBC reported the truth - even Rick Warren confirmed it.
I wonder how the evangelical sort would respond to a candidate like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=act6JIFZG-M
Johnny @ 40:
I don't know if he's a racist, or keeps the speed limit or has any character at all, but after seeing the questions, I do know he's a liar.
this is good:
What Rick Warren Should Have Asked
Even a cable TV commentator could watch Saturday's Saddleback Church Civil Forum and figure out why John McCain did so well. In a sanctuary filled with conservative evangelicals, McCain decided to preach to the choir while Barack Obama decided to talk to the pastor. Obama had a conversation; McCain's goal was conversion. Fortunately for McCain, Karl Rove could not have designed a better set of questions for him.
[...]
I still think a church is no place for a campaign event, and a clergy person has no business posing as political moderator. But if the church is going to insert itself into the electoral process, it should do so as the church and not as a political action committee.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/08/what_rick_wa...
Ron @ 77:
Of what?
pissed off patricia @ 93:
I'm sorry, Larry King and the pastor.
Long Suffering Progressive @ 74:
Sorry but I'm not a mind reader.
chicano2nd @ 48:
HIs answers consisted of anictdotes and talking points.
there right wing has also been calling obama "tacky" for naming one justice that he wouldn't nominate (thomas), while arguing that mccain took the high road by naming every member of the liberal contingent.
but warren's question to obama was which JUSTICE would you not have nominated, and his question to mccain was which JUSTICES would you not have nominated.
Ron @ 94:
You might check at CNN's web site. I don't even know if it's live on tv or taped.
Like this live feed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9n0HbicZto
James @ 97:
Obama also mentioned Scalia.
My question is who in the hell made Rick Warren relevant for who we pick as president?
Are the candidates going to have a sit-down with top intellectuals of the country, or do they just save discussion time for religious people?
constituent @ 47:
once. according to the CNN transcript:
So you need Congress to work together. You need a judiciary that will review these laws that we pass; and at the same time, it's just an example of our failure to sit down, Republican and Democrat, and work these things out together blahblahblah...
do the control-f search for the word...
OBAMA said it twice...
This whole event makes me a little queasy.
Ron @ 100:
In fairness to Obama...Scalia, Thomas, same thing.
92 katy Says: this is good:
What Rick Warren Should Have Asked
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Could God make a Twinkie so big, even He couldn't eat it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRfRWfmlfNM
Left&Left @ 104:
The funniest bit of all this is that McCain said he wouldn't vote for Ginsburg, Breyer or Souter to the Supreme Court. Well, he really did.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/08/18/just_asking.html
Just fascinating. You know, since he was fed these questions ahead of time, you'd think they could have at least prevented him from making a jackass of himself.
I knew watching this fake forum there was something not right about Warren. This blog post proves it, not only did McLiar cheat, he was unfairly treated like a good old boy buddy by this Fallwell wannabee.
So basically, it was a set-up. Obama's questions were framed with Biblical scripture, rather intended to illicit a more personal response. There was little mention of Scripture in McCain's questions. Why is that do you suppose? Could it be that a.) Warren knows McCain is not a religious man, and didn't want to make him uncomfortable. In other words, didn't want to make him look bad, or b.) it would pave the way for McCain to give his canned political talking points, c.) some other reason. I don't trust Warren. I suspect he's a smooth operator with a political agenda. Being a largely right wing audience, they were already more hostile to Obama from the outset. Personally, I have some real issues with the whole "interview". Seems to me we're getting closer and closer to having a religious litmus test.
Bill Kristol quietly revises column on "Cone of Silence"
Am i the only person who is disgusted by this whole thing? The very idea of our top political leaders in this country having to be questioned by some high priest is ridiculous. Why does any of this crap matter. This is just embarrassing, as if the intensity of your superstitions is a measure of your ability to lead.
Is Saddleback Church in Brokeback Mountains?
108 Spicegal
Do they have to pee on a litmus strip?
krisken @ 106:
wow. the obama campaign should use this.
#1 Obama didn't bring up his wife in answer to the "three people question"...go listen to it...Warren did...Obama mentioned his grandmother who I've often heard him refer to for inspiration in his upbringing...and Warren asked who else "other than your wife"...that entire episode was a SHAM and a FARCE...part of me hates to encourage it to have any more viewership and another part wishes (at least our crap media) would watch it with a sense of actually hearing and seeing what transpired...something I'm convinced they are UNABLE to do...and I'd love for someone to expose the reality of how McShame was able to to come off as "direct and clear" because it's surely isn't a facility he exhibits on a daily basis...
krisken @ 106:
Great catch. But of course the double standard MSM will overlook this lie by Grandpa too.
mike @ 13:
There are. They're the ones who work and live in impoverished countries, living just as poorly, while giving everything from their heart and soul without any expectation of a return for their efforts to "do unto others." They share the Gospel and that's it. They don't shove it down people's throats.
Mega "churches", you know, the likes of Robertson, Falwell, Bakker, etc., have been complete disasters to the true teachings of their alleged saviour JC. If they really understood Jesus' teachings, he didn't establish a church, but an ecclesia. The church was created my men and explains why so many of them are so goddamned corrupt and full of shit.
I thought David Waters from the Washington Post summed up Warren's role nicely:
Too late. Warren stuck his nose in a place he does not belong by the standards of his own religion.
Fucking Bloody Bill thinks one of the slated debate hosts should step down for Warren to take their spot - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/opinion/18kristol.html
Below is the email I sent to Pastor Warren:
I watched both men being questioned by Pastor Rick Warren and was appalled that he had lied when he said he would ask both men the exact same questions. He clearly did not do that. Even a cursory rereading of the transcript of the night's event will dispel any glimmer of thought that the questioning was fair and even-handed.
Further, I distinctly recall Warren telling Obama NOT to go off into a recitation of his stump speech, yet when McCain repeatedly did that, he said nary a single word of warning, much less castigated him for doing so. Clearly, this whole event was yet another right-wing Christian set-up designed to showcase McCain and to trap Obama.
Yet the worst thing about it was Warren's lies about keeping McCain in a "cone of silence" whereby he would not be able to hear the questions in advance or know Obama's answers in advance. The networks and netroots have now clearly shown that Warren did not do any such thing with respect to safeguarding the integrity of the event. McCain was NOT sequestered in a sound proof room; in fact, he had complete access to the media for at least half of the event while he was at his hotel room, while he was riding in his limo (no one ever heard of mobile broadcasts, television, cell phones, computers) in a limousine? The best Warren could do to put lipstick on this pig was to say that he had asked McCain if he had had prior access to the event's questioning. And if he had, would he give up his advantage by telling the truth?
Also, no one has come forward with a statement that McCain did not have access to the questions while in the ready room -- just because he did not have broadcast access, does not mean he did not have broadband access, cell phone communications, or other means of keeping him abreast of the questioning. And all of this does not even begin to dispel the suspicions that McCain was given the questions in advance of the event so he could be prepared with ready answers.
In short, all that this event did was to ensure that once again the public was given a dog and pony show designed in advance to elevate the case of the Republican candidate, while trapping the Democratic candidate to provide answers detrimental to his campaign. All this event has done for me is to prove that so-called religious figures like Warren are nothing but pawns for the radical right-wing who are willing to do anything to win an election, including, lying, cheating, and deceiving the public. What a travesty this whole event was. Sorry Pastor Warren, but your political bias was clearly obvious and you fooled no one truly paying attention to the charade you hosted on Saturday night. Disgusting!
Personally, i'm not sure why Obama chose to enter the den of the lions. He certainly knew or had advisors astute enough to direct him away. Why play into this preacher's hands in the hopes that he will win over evangelicals. ain't gonna happen. obama has to be smarter than that. even i could have told him of the negative oucome.
# 23, you forgot about the accumulation of pussy. don't think for a minute that warren hasn't banged half that congregation. hell, most of those women and probably some of those men would blow him while he was delivering a sermon. bill maher should also be on larry king tonite with warren. now that would be must see tv.
i must say it seems like obama made the same mistakes as kerry, obamas off snorkeling and kerry was off windsailing, while mccains spending his time being fed the questions that are going to be asked at a debate that never have been accepted by obama, how easy is it to be fooled by the repukes, never mind the debates between mccain and obama , thiers no such thing anymore , real debates are where the participents get down and dirty and dont use mideators to control thier arguements , it seems like the mediators get more lip time then the ahem supposed debators, arent you tired of these news whores getting involved in what should be a real brawl of a debate?
Since NBC has confirmed that Rick Warren was lying when he said that McPappy was in the "cone of silence", then shame on PASTOR Rick Warren! He will now be associated with fraud - big time fraud - with his endorsement and name written all over it.
Shame on Rick Warren for aiding and abetting the evil side of the GOP's nature - defrauding the public.
Knowing McPappy as we all do, it did seem very odd that he appeared to be so articulate - sure, even my dog could be articulate if he gets the questions in advance.
What a sham and a shame that Rick Warren can now be numbered with the evil doers! There goes Warren's reputation - down the toilet.
Purpose drive "life" will not be coined as the author of the "purpose driven debate"!! Rich Warren's nothing more than a very pedestrian fraud.
Rick Warren will now be known as "THE PURPOSE DRIVEN FRAUD"!
sophya @ 122:
Pastor Warren needs to either issue an apology to the american people for defrauding them or go down in history as just another typical shill for the GOP.
no longer a proud american @ 118:
Again, he was put in a place between a rock and a hard spot. If he didn't participate, he would have been accused of being afraid, a fake Christian or a Muslim. It was better to participate and take that ball out of their court.
Pastor Rick Warren has lost any shard of integrity he once may have had.
Boycott his book because it's clearly a case of "do as I say/not as I do". I can't believe that he would lend his reputation and name to this sham. What a huge error in judgment this man has made.
His name will now be mud once the american people realize what he is involved with here.
Left&Left @ 115:
Oh, no doubt. A sad reality of our world is that the truth doesn't sell, no matter how strange it is.
Every american needs to write a letter to "Pastor" Warren and tell him what a fraud he truly is. He's as corrupt as the rest of the GOP. Nothing special about this man. He's just another Republican "hypocrite". We all need to let him know that we are aware of the collusion he participated in to defraud american citizens.
He doesn't deserve any respect after this. His reputation is toast.
Quite frankly, I was never convinced about this man's spirituality at all. He wrote a book - so what? The theme was uplifting - so what? Now he's some type of demigod? Absolutely NOT! He smugly smirked while asking the questions with such a faux piety about him that it almost made me gag. Just like all the religious fanatical hypocrites who bless themselves on Sunday and then turn around and lie to their neighbor. Frauds - all of them. Like the poster above, when these unsophisticated, insecure egos suddenly rise to power, they screw everything that moves in order to keep the power illusion alive. He's just like the rest of them - egomaniacal frauds.
As quickly as Pastor Warren rose to fame, that's as quickly as he is falling after committing one huge error in judgment - putting his name and reputation on the line and stating a known falsehood that McCain was in the "cone of silence" - hell, McCain wasn't even in the building and Rick Warren knew it when he lied on camera.
Fool us once, Warren, shame on you! (with your purpose driven fraud). Fool us twice, Warren, shame on us. You will no longer hold any respect in the minds of americans who are aware of what you have participated in.
roooth @ 4:
This was set up like a Tee ball league is set up for seven year old boys and girls.. Only the league president would like to run one particular little boy and his family out of the neighborhood.
The game plan will be to sell the idea that a reasonable number of people want to elect mccain. After this has been drummed into the corporate media forum. When they actually do the most important part of the plan...steal the election...it can then be sold as plausible for the next ten years.
sophya @ 125:
My parents sent me his book. I told my sister about it, who happens to be a born again Christian, and she said: "DON'T READ IT!" (I'll have to ask her what she knows.)
I haven't read it and now I think I'll use it as fuel for the fireplace. Clean energy at its best!
Obama prefers hugging cranky old white men than Hillary?
ed henry of cnn just filed a report on the cone of silence complete with get smart video. conclusion: forum was not as transparent as rick warren made it out to be. this is the msm. rick warren really hurt his credibility with this exercise. he deserves it.
While I am very dissapointed Obama agreed to take part in this sham, I think this post draws the wrong conclusion. Polls show that evangelicals actually have a chance of voting for Obama over McCain because he is so comfortable and up front with his religious views while McCain is not. Warren very likely shaped his questions so that McCain would not be uncomfortable and gave him a much aided performance for it, however, the thoughtful and personal way that Obama answered the questions and his authentic comfort and knowledge of christian ideology must have been apparent to the crowd. It may have actually helped Obama.
masha @ 133:
Two things not mentioned on the thread here that I found elsewhere:
The church was not filled by the Pastor's normal congregation - seats went for $500-$2000.
Also, did anyone catch the 5 minute interview by a Christian Broadcast News interviewer that said to Obama's face "Let's call a spade a spade"?
I haven't read every response so I don't know if anyone else has mentioned the other advantages the pastor's tactics gave McCain. Leaving out the quotes both made the questions shorter and McCain's answers easier which gave the pastor the 'opportunity' to complement McCain for his brevity and claim more time to ask McCain more questions Obama never got a shot at.
I watched the "forum" live, and there's no question ol' Pastor Ricky set up McCain differently than Obama and changed the questions or added little comments.
But, really, it doesn't matter. Warren could've asked McCain ANY questions about any thing and what came out of McCain;s mouth would have been exactly the same. All he did, my friends, was recite his stump speeches to the adoring crowd.
McStain @ 131:
Rick Warren is not well loved in many evangelical circles. I haven't read the book (don't want to), but I've had others tell me it smacks of 'prosperity gospel' - serve a power higher than yourself and you will then reap rewards. The evangelical community is splitting along several lines and has been for a while now. First the prosperity preachers like Warren and Osteen, now Hagee and his crowd are trying to hasten along the end times by meddling in Israeli politics. Finally there is what I call the 'new fundamentalist' split which is those of us who have gone back to serious OT study, observe the Sabbath and hold the Biblical feasts. The 'new fundies' do NOT align with the political right and tend to have a deep distrust for the mega-churches. Many younger voters belong to this group. There is a final group of young voters who are affiliated with some of the large churches but have become more diverse in their issues; they care about the war, environment and economy. They are no longer the single issue voters (abortion) they were in the past.
This forum happened because the old concept of courting the evangelical vote is not the same as it was the last election cycle. I think Obama is well aware of this but McCain still hasn't caught on yet.
Three comments/questions:
1) I'm embarrassed that this event was even held. Religion has no place in government and never will. This continued lean towards the religious right has got to stop as it has no place in chosing an elected leader. If evangelicals get a forum why don't athiests and agnostics? I don't hold anything against religion and those that chose to believe or attend church. But please leave your beliefs out of politics/government.
2) I don't know much about this Saddleback church or "Pastor" Warren but isn't this whole place pretty much televangelist land?
3) and finally by a show of hands..who in their right mind would ever think we'd hear "cone of silence" be used in a political debate/forum. It's almost complete now, the Presidential election has now become a sitcom and the country is the worse for it.
You know, because of work, I only caught bits and pieces of both McCain and Obama, but I was wondering why all the pundits were complaining Obama said "God" or "Jesus" or that "too much". When you frame a question with the Bible, it kind of forces you to mention those things a little bit.
Now they'll use it against him for showing the Christian side of himself. Rove may not be out and about with the McCain campaign, but he's there and his main rule is to take your opponents greatest strength and turn it into their greatest weakness. Obama appearing as a stronger Christian in McCain WILL be used against him.
Any Democratic nominee that would go into some fake cult church should not be nominated. By going into this 'church' he gives weight to the entire group of perverts and lunatics that make up about 90 percent of the 'evangelical' group of weirdos. How many of these people will need to be exposed as fakes before the entire group is finaly blown off? How many will need to be exposed as pedophiles, crack smokers, bigots, the list goes on and on. Obama should not go into someplace that a large group of his supportes would not be welcomed. Just another reason to write in Kucinich.
Warren was reading off his notes. How hard would it have been to simply read the same set-up with the same wording of the same question?
The moment he strayed from that, it became Warren's personal editorial commentary. Even the wording of the topics was skewed to signal a message. "Tax the rich"? Who the hell but a RightWingNut would think of framing it that way, damning the Dem position and approving the GOP position from the very beginning? Instead, how about, "What tax policy would you propose to get us out of the nightmare of rising deficits we've incurred after 6 years of Republican mismanagement?"
Of course, we know Warren would NEVER have framed it that way.
This kind of thing passes unnoticed by his congregation, I'm sure. But he was being monitored on national television this time.
He was sooo giggly and chummy with Obama, any experience with these evangelical liars should have told you he was walking his prey toward an open manhole. He might as well have prefaced every Obama question with the code words, "Bless your heart..."
ysbaddaden @ 135:
please dont make it seem that i wrote the above as changed by you. acknowledge the changes you made as your own.
More noticeable perhaps than all the other differences in questions was that Warren specifically asked McCain to expand a discourse on Georgia.
while senator obama may be a sincere man of faith, he should know by know that republicans use religious discourse to obfuscate, not enlighten . . . if he continues to engage them on this level, he doesn't have a prayer
oops! senator obama . . . should know by NOW . . .
Rick Warren you have used God for Base purposes and for that God's Judgement is upon you.
As for the so called forum Warren had with the candidates. I pretty well knew it would be like that only because of "Abortion".....I go to a church that Warren supplies the e-mail Devotions to,,,,,but I will tell you that I think he did not do the right thing with that forum. It was so obivious that McCain knew just want was coming and Obama didn't. Obama is right about his views on Abortion and by Bush being so outspoken that he was against it and these same people fell over voting for him. Have you seen a change in it? No, except that it went higher in numbers. Obama is correct that we need to find ways to get them down without breaking the law. Roe vs Wade will never be overturned so get used to it. And work for ways to keep the numbers down until maybe they vanish.
I will not read another one of Warrens devotions. He can count on it.
yes. welton gaddy talking with rachel maddow just now... excellent conversation about this...
gaddy says, about the founders, "i think they rolled over in their graves on saturday night."
i'd bet this is one interview she posts... hope so!
http://airamerica.com/maddow ... look for it tonight.
Login or Register to post comments.