Some would argue that journalism died in 2007 when “fake news” anchor Jon Stewart was ranked among the most trusted TV news anchors in the U.S. - along with that other fake news purveyor, Dan Rather (second item) in a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. But “citizen journalist” Rick Warren, pastor of the Saddleback Church, put the toe tag on the bloated MSM corpse on Saturday night by conducting one of the most thorough and informative interviews – he termed it a “conversation” - The Stiletto has ever seen.
The Stiletto thought that Fox News anchor Chris Wallace’s technique of pitting candidates against one another in the primary debates effectively put them on the hot seat and forced them to explain themselves. But Warren’s innovation of interviewing Barack Obama (D-IL) and John McCain (R-AZ) one-on-one for an hour and asking each the identical set of questions so voters could compare apples with apples should become standard practice.
The MSM professed to be unimpressed, reports National Review’s Byron York:
Not a few people in the press thought it was a bad idea. Asking each man the same questions meant Warren couldn’t tailor his queries to each man; sure, he could ask Obama about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but what sense would it make to ask McCain, too? It seemed like a recipe for nothing much at all.
But Pastor Rick hasn’t built a huge church and sold more than 25 million copies of The Purpose-Driven Life for nothing. By the time Warren finished questioning Obama, people were eager to hear how McCain would handle the same subjects. In a debate, candidates are often asked the same question, but the second guy has always heard what the first guy said and tailors his answer accordingly. At Saddleback, there was something much different — and more revealing — going on.
The “Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency” was held at the Lake Forest, CA, megachurch before an audience of some 5,000 church members. A coin-toss determined that Obama would go first – McCain was kept in a room in another building without access to a radio or TV so he could not hear the questions in advance.
Warren’s questions were divided into four categories: Stewardship, Leadership, Worldview and America’s Role in the World, and the questions covered everything from when a baby “gets human rights” and embryonic stem cell research to whether there is evil in the world and what is “worth dying for” and worth “sacrificing American lives for.”
Here are the highlights, based on a rough transcript posted on Warren’s Web site (where necessary, The Stiletto added corrections and contextual links). The Stiletto put each candidate’s answer to Warren’s questions side-by-side for easier comparison.
RW: Who are the three wisest people you know in your life and who are you going to rely on heavily in you administration?
BO: One person I’d be listening to … Michelle, my wife, who is not only wise but she’s honest. … I think any leader needs somebody who can get up in your face and say, boy, you really screwed that one up, you really blew that. … Another person in that category is my grandmother, who’s an extraordinary woman. She was never went to college [sic] … she’s just a very grounded common sense, no fuss, no frill kind of person and when I’ve got big decisions I often check in with her. … In terms of the administration … I don’t think I’d restrict myself to three people. There are people like San Dunn [sic; the transcript should read “Nunn”], a Democrat, or Dick Luker [sic; the transcript should read “Lugar”] a Republican … I got friends ranging from Ted Kennedy to Tom Colbert [sic; the transcript should read “Coburn”], who don’t necessarily agree on a lot of things … What I found very helpful to me is to have a table where a lot of different points of view are represented and where I can … ask them questions.
JMcC: The first one I think would be General David Petraeus, one of the great military leaders in America [sic] history, who took us from defeat to victory in Iraq. … I think John Lewis. John Lewis was at the Edmund Pettus Bridge. He had his skull fractured, continues to serve, continues to have the most optimistic outlook about America. He can teach us all a lot about the meanings of courage and commitment to causes greater than ourself [sic]. Meg Whitman … the CEO of eBay … 12 years ago there were five employees, today they are [sic] one and a half million people that make a living off E-mail [sic; transcript should read eBay] in the world. One of these great American success stories and in these economic [sic] challenging times, we need to call on the wisdom and knowledge, background of people like Meg Whitman.
Between The Lines: As Barack Obama named his wife, Michelle first among those he will rely on to advise him as president, her worldview and background needs thorough vetting, and it’s ridiculous to suggest that she should somehow be “off limits.” Also, what to make of Obama’s grandmother - whom he characterized as a racist during the primary season - being his second most trusted advisor now that he’s positioning himself for the general election? What’s next, replacing the Kanye West tracks on his iPod with Donny Osmond?
RW: Can you give me an example of where you win [sic; the transcript should read “went”] against party loyalty and maybe even win [sic; ditto] against your own best interest for the good of America?
BO: I worked with John McCain on … the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform. That wasn’t probably in my interest or his for that matter, because the truth was both Democrats or Republicans sor [sic] of like the status quo and I was new to the Senate and it didn’t necessarily engender a lot of popularity when I started saying … we’re going to eliminate meals and gifts from corporate lobbyists … When I opposed the initial decision to go to war in Iraq, that was not a popular view at the time and I was just starting my campaign for the United States Senate and … people who advised me … you could end up losing the election as a consequence.
JMcC: You know, by a strange coincidence I was not elected Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate this year. I don’t know why. … Climate change, out-of-control spending, torture. … on a large number of issues … I’ve put my country first and I’ve reached across the aisle. But … when I was first a member of Congress … and President Reagan … wanted to send troops to Beirut for a peacekeeping mission. My knowledge and my background told me that a few hundred marines in a situation like that could not successfully carry out any kind of peacekeeping mission and I thought they were going into harm’s way. Tragically, as many of you recall, there was a bombing in the marine barracks and well over 100 brave marines gave their lives. But it was tough, that vote, because I went against the president I believe [sic] in and the party that believed that maybe I was disloyal very early in my political career.
Between The Lines: In his scant three years as a U.S. Senator, Obama has voted with his party 97 percent of the time. Obama can never hope to be as credible on this point as McCain.
RW: What’s the most significant position you held ten years ago that you no longer hold today, that you flipped on … because you actually see it differently?
BO: Welfare reform … I was much more concerned ten years ago when President Clinton initially signed the bill that this could have disastrous results. … It worked better than I think a lot of people anticipated and … one of the things I am absolutely convinced of is that we have to have work as a center piece [sic] of any social policy.
JMcC: Offshore drilling. We’ve got to drill now and we’ve got to drill here and we’ve got to become independent on foreign oil … This is a national security issue … we’re sending $700 billions [sic] of dollars a year to countries that don’t like us very much … some of that money is ended up [sic] in the hands of terrorist organizations … we cannot allow this greatest transfer of wealth in history and our national security to continue to be threatened.
Between The Lines: McCain seizes upon this question to turn one of his weaknesses – and biggest political miscalculations - into a strength. By attributing his change of heart to national security, he blunts criticisms of political opportunism since national security is the central issue of his campaign.
RW: What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve even had to make and what was the process you used to make it?
BO: The opposition to the war in Iraq was as tough a decision that I’ve had to make, not only because there were political consequences but also because Saddam Hussein was a bad person and there was no doubt that he met [sic; the transcript should read “meant”] American ill. But I was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence o weapons of mass destruction and … do we know how the Shiites and the Sunnis and the Kurds are going to get along in a post-Saddam situation? What’s our assessment as to how this will affect the battle against terrorist [sic] like Al-Qaeda? Have we finished the job in Afghanistan? … And now as the war went forward, very difficult about how long do you keep funding the war if you strongly believe that it’s not [sic] America’s national interest … at the same time you don’t want to have troops who are out there without the equipment they need.
JMcC: It was long ago and far away in a prison camp in North Vietnam. My father was a high-ranking admiral. The Vietnamese … said … I could leave prison early and we had a code of conduct that said you only leave by order of capture. … I was in rather bad physical shape … I said no … and the interrogator said go back to your cell, it’s going to be very rough on you now. And it was. But not only the toughest decision I ever made, but I’m most happy about that decision than any decision I’ve ever made in my life. … It took a lot of prayer.
Between The Lines: From opposing Reagan’s peacekeeping mission in Beirut to sizing up Putin as an unreformed KGB goon, McCain has been very clear-eyed about foreign policy matters. But doesn’t he wish he had Obama’s 20-20 hindsight? When the Iraq War Resolution came up for a vote in Congress in October 2002 Obama was chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee - as an IL state senator. Yet, he somehow knew what was in the classified intelligence reports on Saddam’s bioweapons capabilities. When Obama began his Senate run in 2004, he was reflexively anti-war, like all liberals. His assertion that this was gut-wrenching decision – or even a reasoned judgment - is beyond laughable.
McCain’s answer is so heroic, so inspirational. It is almost beyond comprehension a human being - weak and flawed as we all are - can find the courage to choose to endure additional years of torture because his personal honor and love of country demanded it. All the manly virtues rolled up into one package.
RW: At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
BO: Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade. … I am pro-choice. … I believe in Roe v. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I’m pro-abortion, but because … I don’t think women make these decisions casually.
RW: Have you ever voted to limit or reduce abortions?
BO: I am in favor … of limits on late term abortions if there is an exception for the mother’s health.
JMcC: At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in Congress … And as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies. That is my commitment to you.
RW: OK. We don’t have to go longer on that one.
Between The Lines: Obama often referenced bible passages in his answers - perhaps subtly to underscore the fact that he is not Muslim - but this line of questioning showed that he only talks the talk. In addition, Obama was less than forthright in answering Warren’s follow-up question, considering that he has pledged to sign (second item) the Freedom of Choice Act, which would nullify state and federal laws that restrict abortion in any way. American Values president Gary Bauer thinks Obama’s chances of capturing the evangelical vote “ended” at Saddleback Church, because he revealed himself to be an abortion “radical” and that this forum could be “one of the defining moments of the campaign” (video). In contrast, McCain used personal testimony to illustrate his core beliefs, and gave unequivocal answers to questions such as these. Whereas the crowd sat in stone cold silence throughout Obama’s answer, the folks went wild over McCain’s.
RW: Does evil exist, and if it does do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it?
BO: Evil does exist … we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who have viciously abused their children … One of the things that I strongly believe is that … we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That’s G-d’s task. But we can be soldiers in that process and we can confront it when we see it. Now the one think [sic] that I think is very important is for us to have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil … recognizing that … just because we think our intentions are good doesn’t always mean that we’re going to be doing good.
JMcC: Defeat it. … If I’m president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of Hell, I will get Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice. … No one should be allowed to take thousands of … innocent American lives. Of course evil must be defeated. My friends, we are facing the transcendent challenge of the 21st century – radical Islamic extremists. Not long ago in Baghdad, al-Qaeda took two young women who were mentally disabled and put suicide vests on them, sent them into a marketplace and by remote control detonated those vests. If that isn’t evil, you have to tell me what is.
Between The Lines: McCain knows evil when he sees it - and unflinchingly calls it by its name. Obama was wishy-washy and retreated into moral relativism. As Edmund Burke noted, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – but after stating that evil should be confronted, Obama doubled-back and conceded the fight against evil is futile and best left to G-d. Worse, in his worldview, every single action we take in fighting evil had better be morally correct, else we will be as evil as an enemy who blows up hapless dupes by remote control.
RW: Which existing Supreme Court Justice would you not have nominated?
BO: I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. … I don’t think he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation.
JMcC: With all due respect, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Souter and Justice Stevens.
RW: Why?
JMcC: The president of the United States has incredible responsibility in nominating people to the United States Supreme Court. They are lifetime positions … there will be two maybe three vacancies. This nomination should be based on the criteria of proven record of strictly adhering to the Constitution … and not legislating from the bench. Some of the worst damage has been done by legislating from the bench.
Between The Lines: So applying Obama’s reasoning on Thomas, as the presumptive Dem nominee has not completed even a single term in the Senate and has no foreign policy or military experience whatsoever, he is not strong enough to be elevated to the office of president and CIC. Well, he gets no argument from The Stiletto there!
RW: Taxes. This is a real simple question. Define rich. Is it $50,000, $100,000, $200,000?
BO: If you are making $150,000 a year or less as a family then you are middle class or you may be poor. … I would argue that if you are making more than $250,000 then you … are doing well. … If we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roads, if we want to make sure kids can go to college, if we don’t want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation, then we’ve got to pay for these things. They don’t come free. And it is irresponsible … intergenerationally for us to … spend $10 billion a month [sic] on a war and not having a way to pay for it. That I think is unacceptable.
JMcC: I don’t want to take money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. I don’t believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth. … If you’re just talking about income, how about $5 million … But seriously … the point that I am trying to make here … and I’m sure that comment will be distorted … the point is that we want to keep people’s taxes low and increase revenues. … It was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. … We spent money in a way that mortgaged our kids’ futures. … The Congress is supposed to be careful stewards of your tax dollars. So what did they just do in the middle of an energy crisis … went on vacation for five weeks. … Two things they never miss, a pay raise and a vacation. … We should not and cannot raise taxes in tough economic times. So it doesn’t matter really what my definition of rich is because I don’t want to raise anybody’s taxes.
Between The Lines: Obama’s figure on Iraq war spending comes from the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, which describes itself as a “non-profit, non-partisan research organization dedicated to enhancing international peace and security in the 21st century.” According to Wikipedia, “The Center aims to seeks to reduce and ultimately eliminate nuclear weapons as a tool of U.S. national security policy, halt the spread of all weapons of mass destruction, stop the deployment of a national missile defense system, and redirect national security spending to better address the genuine threats facing the United States.” The Stiletto could not find an explanation of “genuine threats” on the Center’s Web site, but this group appears to want the U.S. to be utterly defenseless against its enemies.
The Stiletto is also rather alarmed at Obama’s definition of “rich.” As a childless single woman who lives in an extremely high cost-of-living city and has only her own income to rely on – out of which she must set aside money for healthcare and retirement – The Stiletto is very disturbed at the thought that she would be considered “rich” by Obama. She much prefers McCain’s definition of “rich” because it’s a target for her to shoot for without worrying about taxes eating away at her upward mobility and economic freedom.
RW: What’s worth dying for? What’s worth having sacrifice of American lives for?
BO: Well, obviously, American freedom, American lives, American national interests. … We also have forged alliances with countries, NATO being a prime example, where we have pledged to act militarily for the common defense that is in our national interest and that is something I think we have to abide by.
JMcC: Our national security. … Wars have started in obscure places that have enveloped us. We must also temper that with the ability to effectively and beneficially cause the outcome that we want. … there’s tyranny and tragedy throughout the world and we can’t right every wrong … so there could be conflicts that we can’t settle. The most precious asset we have is American blood and throughout our history Americans have gone to all four corners of the world and shed that blood in defense of someone else’s freedom. No other nation on earth as done that.
Between The Lines: Compare McCain’s answer here with Obama’s earlier answer that “just because we think our intentions are good doesn’t always mean that we’re going to be doing good.” McCain believes the inherent goodness and generosity of the American people assures that on the whole our intentions and actions will be good, whereas Obama appears to subscribe to his wife’s view of this country and its people as “mean.”
RW: What would be the criteria that you would commit troops to end the genocide … what’s going on in Darfur or could happen in Georgia or anywhere else – a mass killing?
BO: I don’t think that there is a hard and fast line at which you say, OK, we are going in. I think it’s always a judgment call. … The basic principle has to be that if we have it within our power to prevent mass killing and genocide and we can work in concert with the international community to prevent it then we should act. … I think the international component is very critical.
JMcC: Our obligation is to stop genocide wherever we can. … The question is how can we effectively stop it and obviously we’ve got to do more and we’ve got to try to marshal the forces all over the world to join us. I think one of the things we ought to explore more carefully is supplying the logistics and equipment and the aid. And the African countries step forward with the personnel to enforce a genuine cease fire.
Between The Lines: As with so many of the answers the two presumptive candidates gave, Obama speaks in generalities while McCain gets down to brass tacks.
The Stiletto’s Take: While Obama was smooth and relaxed, he seemed incapable of saying what he means - or meaning what he says. Obama was often hesitant, kept second-guessing himself and had a habit of refining his responses in real time so as to please more of the viewers more of the time. McCain was resolute, self-assured and plainspoken.
When you compare Obama’s answers to Warren’s questions with McCain’s, there is a stark difference between the two candidates: nuance v. clarity, dithering v. decisiveness, waffling v. certitude. Obama remains as opaque as ever. And McCain is the mensch we always knew he was.
Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog, chosen an Official Honoree in the Political Blogs category by the judges of the 12th Annual Webby Awards (the Oscars of the online universe) along with CNN Political Ticker, Swampland (Time magazine) and The Caucus (The New York Times).
(19 votes, average: 4.21 out of 5)
Loading ...
36 users commented in " Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Interview Of Obama And McCain "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackMy take is that McCain set in his ways, and thinking, unwilling to change or second guess himself. McCain is a classic old person set in his ways.
Obama seems more human, able to articulate, and refine his perspectives. I think America has seen enough people in the Executive Office i.e. Bush/Cheney who are unyeilding to comprimise, unyeiliding outright to the will of the people, or the will of Congress.
I seen parts of the Saddeback interview, nothing new on the subjects same topics that divide the Country.
I think Obama will bring these hot topics more into perspective, rather then polarizing everyone.
It is o.k. to have differences
we live in a democracy, not everyone is from the Saddlback church, or have the same faith, desires, interests, and yes our morals have different levels.
I agree that This debate has been the best venue so-far to actually compare the two candidates on questions of our time. I also commend the style of the blog in illustrating the comparison. I mean showing the candidates responses to the question, side by side. I sought out this bolg because I saw mcCain’s response on TV, but had not been able to see Obama’s earlier. Well informed voters should be directed to this blog if they also missed the debate.
Rich, What you perceive as an “old person set in his ways” is in fact a man with strong character who knows how to answer a question directly. You should try it in your own writing.
You, like Barack Obama have an irritating ability to string together words without actually making a point. You wrote:
“we live in a democracy, not everyone is from the Saddlback church, or have the same faith, desires, interests, and yes our morals have different levels.”
These are obvious facts. You, like Barack Obama have told us nothing about who you are or how you think by making this statement.
You perceive Barack Obama as “human and articulate”. I perceive him as shifty and unable to answer a question directly and succinctly. His perspectives are not refined, they are filtered. There’s a huge difference.
McCain was amazing. I am more impressed with that man than ever. Obama as always skirted the issues.
Gosh! This is like the behavioral interview I had last week for my job. And I thought landing the prime job once will be the end of such interviews.Poor guys, wonder how many they had in their lives
Ken,
Take the facts for what they are this is not about me. If my point was not clear enough we live in a democracy where people have differing views on these polarizing topics.
You think your beliefs are alligned more-so with McCain, fine vote for him.
Obama is excellent at communication more-so then McCain. If you are compfortable in black and white, yes and no, answers then vote for McCain.
In my view we live in a complex society. Easy simple to understand two sentence responses rob everyone from the complexities of our society. That is where I believe Obama will win the Presidency because he will help bring the polarization of our society back to the middle common ground.
The far right and far left can just stay where they feel most compfortable no one will change them and no one is trying too.
I am amazed that this site does not cover the question about their faith and how they rely on it on a day to day basis. Obama had the courage to declare the Lord Jesus as his savior, when McCain simply said he was saved. I question anyone that does take the opportunity to openly profess his love for the Lord on national TV. I was also confused at McCain’s support of stem cell research when he said that life begins at conception.
Wow,
Having missed the live airing it was nice to be able to read through some of the discussion and get a sense of the candidates. I am impressed with both. They handled themselves well under such an interesting forum.
I could have done with out the slanted politcal “between the lines” comentary, but I understand that is what this blog is about. And I am sure it has sparked some interesting dialogue.
It bewilders me that any of us “men/woman of faith” can sit and try to guage Obama or McCain’s competancy on there positions regarding a few very subjective issues.
Face it. The president of the United States does not and has not lead this country religiosly in our past, and hopefully will not in our future. It is not his/her job. It is our job. It is time to stop hoping someone will be our moral compass and start being it our selves.
Live the life we are asked to live and this country will be great again.
And if our next President is listening. Be honest, be responsable, be forgiving, and think. We’ve had enough of the opposite for the last 8 years.
Good luck to both candidates. I look forward to the debates and to the future of our great country.
well i just want to share this video that i saw earlier in pollclash that the two presidential candidates talked about their plans about the huge taxes that we are paying and so far i think Obama has a better plan than McCain has but you can see the video in http://pollclash.com
Well stated Rich.
Rich
What’s wrong with black and white straightforward answers? Why use twenty words to skirt an issue when just a few will do to get a point across? When you state our society is complex do you mean that if dissected enough evil will become good? That is what I find so encouraging about men like John McCain and our current president GW. They see a very marked difference between Good and Evil and are not afraid to say so. When Obama and the rest of the liberal horde have become adept at changing their stances to reflect what the media says we want to hear McCain and Bush will do exactly what they believe to be right. And believe me right and wrong are not interchangeable. No matter what the media tells you.
Why did Sen McCain pose this question - which referred to getting back “to to the importance of Supreme Court justices ? - before the subject of the justices was brought up to him by Pastor Warren ?
Define marriage.
SEN. MCCAIN: A union — a union between man and woman, between one man and one woman. That’s my definition of marriage. (Applause.)
Are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court justices, or should I mention it?
REV. WARREN: We will get to that
CWard–You just raised a very interesting question. I haven’t reviewed the whole transcript (though I did see the interview), and I didn’t catch this. But I do remember the quote from McCain about “getting BACK to the importance of … justices.” If that’s correct, how did he know it was coming up? There has been a controversy the last two days about McCain being in a car instead of a “cone of silence” during Obama’s questioning, with the inference that he somehow cheated. I blew this off as just opportunistic speculation until I read the comment above. Would someone give me, and the other readers, an honest answer to this question? –Mark Mercer
Mose,
So you like GW’s good vs. evil depiction of the world, that is telling in and of itself.
And you buy into this media liberal slant? so where do you search for the truth, or yur interpetation of the truth?
So GW’s policies fight evil because he is “good”. America is “good” and our government is fighting “evil”?
Liberals are “evil” and Conservatives are “good”? Please explain because I have never bought into this type of thinking.
Also you state: “right and wrong are not interchangeable” If you think something is wrong or right and you recieved information that contradicts your thinking would you still stand behind your original thought?
CWard–I just researched the question you raised and I followed up on (two comments above). I checked the unofficial transcript cited by The Stiletto and then listened to the actual segment in context on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5Li1okW5Rg&feature=related
McCain had just answered the question about abortion. Then came the definition of marriage question, after which McCain made the statement you quoted about “getting back to the subject of justices,” adding: “When we speak of the issue of the rights of the unborn, we need to talk about judges.” This got kind of fogged in the overlapping conversation, but it is clearly audible, and McCain was clearly completing his answer to the previous question about abortion. Out of this context, it sounds like a smoking gun, but there is no story here. –Mark Mercer
Mark: Thank you for that research. The Stiletto provided a link to the transcript in her post, but her purpose wasn’t to reproduce it in its entirety. THe post meant to highlight several especially revealing or interesting Q&As and provide analysis. The fact is if you’re a conservative, you cannot have a discussion about abortion without mentioning judges, since it was the Supreme Court that divined the “right” to abortion in the U.S. Constutition. Isn’t it amazing how quickly urban legends start and take off.
Stiletto–Thank you for NOT posting the entire transcript (it was l-o-o-o-o-ng); the link was sufficient, and you did your research throroughly, as you always do, over the section you covered. (I had very different reactions than you, but you backed up what you said.) CWard brought up an intelligent observation, and it took me two hours to figure out what really happened. I probably won’t vote for McC, but he is an honorable man, and we’ve seen enough dishonorable blogs and rumors and emails. You are exactly right–his point was that justices and abortion are inextricably linked; it was an afterthought that he apparently didn’t have time to say in his earlier answer. I inadvertantly nearly started an urban legend myself about this, and someone else probably will.
Always fun to have these little chats with you, from somewhat opposite sides of the political center! –Mark Mercer
Stiletto
I commend you on a fine article. I also had not seen the event nor read the transcript. When I came home tonight it was refreshing to see the comparative column. Also interesting are the comments here which seem so clear to me and are as divergent as the actual event itself was.
None of us have a monopoly on morality nor can give a perfect definition of good or evil yet there are some who view all in shades of gray.
I am not afraid to say that we all were born equal under God and that our country was formed with spiritual knowledge of good and evil as understood by the writers of our constitution.
Basic laws and freedoms have universal basis and simply pertain to all. None of these simple rules should be tailored to suit the day or the current desires of anyone. Obama fits the perfect description of one who picks and chooses the rules that suit him at the moment in his quest for power. Situation ethics are not what we need or want in a leader. We want to know where our candidate stands clearly on moral issues because morality and rule of law is what Americans should stand for.
David are you now in a position to determine how moral a man is or isn’t? It sounds like you are saying that McCain is more moral than Obama. If so based on what criteria?
I am stronger now for McCain than ever! He is seasoned and ready to lead this nation. Obama talks about how he wouldn’t have nominated Thomas for the supreme court because he wasn’t a “strong enough thinker or jurist at the time?” well neither is Obama for President. He isn’t even a seasoned Senator! His vote record stinks!! He doesn’t show up to vote and he speaks with a “silver tongue”. He says what he thinks he needs to say or what we want to hear. I like McCain because he gives us the “meat and potatos!” He has been to war and been a POW; what has Obama done? NADA! And he thinks he deserves to run this country? And he thinks his grandmother is wise and he would seek council from a racist? He said she was racist! People..Democrats…you better wake up and smell the coffee? And I have one question. Why do you people recognize Obama as African American? OBAMA IS NOT TRUE AFRICAN AMERICAN…HIS MOTHER IS WHITE AND HIS FATHER IS BLACK. He has roots on both sides!! He is both black and white. He can’t be black and NOT WHITE. And if he’s elected, God forbid, he won’t be the FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT!! H E L L O! I wouldn’t vote for him not matter what. I would have voted for Hilary…but I can’t vote for someone who claims to be black when he’s white too and his hame is “Hussein” with muslim ties to it. People you better get on your knees and pray to God Almighty and turn back to him and let him place in your heart who you should vote for. That’s what’s wrong with this country and why we are crumbling as a “Nation Under God”..it’s because we aren’t under God anymore. We are living in present day Sodom and Gomorrah! And we are going to pay worse than they ever did. VOTE MCCAIN!
I think we get too into vilifying the candidates and that really is neither necessary nor productive. Let’s just drop the emotion and think about the facts and what was said. As an example,iIt would be interesting to present this transcript without the commentary to a college political science class and with the candidates labeled only as #1 and #2. How would they answer these questions?
1. Which candidate answered the questions most frequently and most clearly?
2. Which candidates dodged questions the most?
3. Which candidate’s answers do you think most clearly were given in the spirit of “full disclosure”?
4. Which candidate’s views do you more clearly understand after reading the answers?
5. Which candidate seemed most genuine to you?
6. Which candidate’s answers were most consistent with past statements and their record- this assumes the students would have been provided with that information?
I am glad David brought up the Constitution as an integral part of the Country’s morals and and laws.
Senator Obama was literally a Constitutional Law lecturer/professor at one of the most presdigious school in the United States, University of Chicago.
Like I said before, if those of you that want cut and dry, black and white, yes and no answers, to complex issues vote for McCain.
I just think you are being robbed of understanding the issues to think you deserve easy answers.
Wouldnt you want someone who can balance issues and see things from more then one perspective? A one sided approach is what we have in the Oval Office right now. I think the people are sick of what we have now and want change for the better.
McCain’s perspectives seem to be heading for more of the same Bush/Cheney policies, some welcome this, but many of us fortunatly do not.
Rich, It’s easy to see why you prefer Barack Obama. In order to reinforce a point which you never made, you offer the following:
“If my point was not clear enough we live in a democracy where people have differing views on these polarizing topics.”
Really? We live in a Democracy? People have differing views?
I point this out as a specific example of how some people answer questions without ever saying anything. YOU HAVE SAID NOTHING HERE. This is just filler and rhetorical nonsense. I have no doubt that you have learned this style of communication by listening to people like Barack Obama.
“Obama is excellent at communication more-so then McCain. If you are comfortable in black and white, yes and no, answers then vote for McCain.”
I am comfortable with answers which address questions in a straight forward manner. I am comfortable with answers which provide insight into a candidates world view. Barack Obama provided very little to further our understanding of his world view.
I am not bothered that many of his answers conflict with my positions. I am bothered that most of his answers didn’t answer the questions which were asked.
“In my view we live in a complex society. Easy simple to understand two sentence responses rob everyone from the complexities of our society. That is where I believe Obama will win the Presidency because he will help bring the polarization of our society back to the middle common ground.”
Equivocation and pandering are not virtues, even though you seem to think so.
“The far right and far left can just stay where they feel most comfortable no one will change them and no one is trying too.”
How did the far right and far left enter into this conversation? Do you consider me far right, or do you consider yourself far left?
By the way….I intentionally did not answer any of the questions I posed. Why? Because I think the debate they may spark would be much more interesting than my solitary point of view.
Rich. I can understand why you think BO was a constitutional professor at the U of Chicago. It’s probably because he has said he was. In fact- and I use the word “fact” accurately- he was a guest lecturer. He never taught a class or had the responsibility for a class nor did the university recognize him as a member of the faculty there. He gave a handful of lectures. I have also done this at schools but I never claimed to be
John, I believe that you are incorrect. This is a statement from the UofC News office.
“The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.”
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
Oh, I’m sorry John for getting a little emotional. But I do get ALOT emotional about abortion, the killing of a child! And I get a little emotional about giving rights to gays and lesbians! That goes against GOD’s laws, however let’s not bring GOD into this, after all, our country’s laws were founded on the Church and GOD, but let’s ignore that part of the Constitution! That makes me a little emotional! Sorry! That’s what’s partly wrong with this country…we don’t deem it necessary nor productive to get emotional about things anymore. I get emotional about people burning the American Flag that my daddy fought for in Vietnam! I get a little emotional about that! So don’t tell me what I can or can’t and should or shouldn’t get emotional about. I know the facts! That’s why I’m voting for McCain. I feel emotional to do so.
-John I guess my first hand knowledge is wrong my Cousin who’s teacher was “in-fact” Barak Obama at the Chicago University of Law.
-Ken it is more so you do not understand. Try helping yourself understand my points.
What you consider yourself in the political spectrum is up to you. Judging from the 2,400 hits on this article, you, me and a hand full of writers are compeled enough to voice opinions is because they feel strongly about either candidate i.e. political party identification.
You stated:
“Equivocation and pandering are not virtues, even though you seem to think so.”
You may not have a grasp of our electorate demographics or how polarized our society is, if so you would not be quick to label politicians as such.
Ken you also stated: “This is just filler and rhetorical nonsense. I have no doubt that you have learned this style of communication by listening to people like Barack Obama.”
You stated:”I am comfortable with answers which address questions in a straight forward manner. I am comfortable with answers which provide insight into a candidates world view.”
So who offers this, McCain? And you do not believe he is pandering for your vote? He is robbing you of objectivity and that is what people who feed on simple “straight forward” answers want to hear.
As I stated befor, you simply do not want to understand the complexities of our society, thats fine, then vote for McCain.
Rich, thanks for the reply, but your semi-literate writing style is too bizarre to follow.
I’m done.
Ken,
Yes resort to snide remarks, typical when you have nothing left to say for yourself.
Not to mention you have not contributed to the conversation other then false assesments of views other then your own.
I wanted to be as blunt and to the point so you can follow. I guess I over estimated your level of comprehension, sorry.
I’m sure McCain will welcome you vote.
Stiletto
Thanks again for the great article. It has brought out the “best”(beast) in everyone here.
Fantastic! It seems our little group has turned to sniping just like the regular press as the real issues fall to the wayside. And yes, folks there is good and evil and there really is a God, and there really is no gray space between factual truth and lies.That gray space is filled with opinion and philosophy. Besides, why else do you think there are so many lawyers in this world? Ah, for a simpler life.
Sam,
I judge no man except by his action.
David what are you talking about? Your last post is better served on some religious web site.
“Good”, “Evil”, “God” seems your a follower of Reagan/Bush, they co-opted the Relgious right more-so Bush through Karl Roves campaign brilliance.
I was uncertain about either candidate until I heard this well-done interview. The questions were designed to be answered black and white, which although Obama’s nationality is black and white, his answers definitely were gray. When he answered a question, it was always long and drawn out, like he was trying to appeal to as many voters as possible, not the actual truth. McCain was easier to understand, honest, and made himself vulnerable, which means he can be trusted more. He definitely has more first-hand experience in both life and government. My goodness, he was a POW, and Obama wasn’t even in office when he said he had to make a choice about the war. How could he make a political choice from a elected government position when he wasn’t even an elected senator when they voted about the war? He comes across as a big liar. Just by his answer of who he goes to for advice, two out of three, or four, or five (when only asked for 3) were women, and it is obvious that his wife rules the house, and will also rule the white house if they make it in there. His pro-choice (yet ‘anti-abortion’…. can you be both?) views are also skewed. What about the comments he made in another interview about his daughters, to raise them with high morals, but if one of them ever made the ‘mistake’ of getting pregnant, he would not PUNISH her with a baby. Punish? A baby is a gift, not a punishment! There are many couples out there who would gladly take an unwanted child. I have taken two. Our country will turn into China if we allow abortions to continue, especially partial-birth abortions, where the baby is stabbed in the back of the neck with a scissors if it comes out alive. Obama voted yes on the ability for doctors to kill a child in this way. That alone defines his character.
Barbie,
Look into McCain’s past infidelity I doubt you’ll find any character.
Seems your decision is based on a womans’ right to control ther body. If you want the government to control your body vote for McCain.
I would just like to know if this will be repeated on tv. I missed the program an wouls like to see it. Mrs Thompson
Leave A Reply