Sunday, August 17, 2008
|
|
The "McCain Cheated!" Saddleback Rumor
|
|
Posted by:
Amanda Carpenter at
9:28 PM
|
The Obamaphiles can't believe McCain could have outperformed the Messiah at the Saddleback Showdown So, they're floating out a rumor he "cheated" and was not contained in Pastor Rick Warren's promised "cone of silence."
Maybe he heard Obama's Q & A. Maybe someone was sending his text messages with the questions. There has to be SOME reason McCain did better than Obama that cannot be attributed to McCain's experience, wit and conversational skill, they're thinking.
This comes from none other than MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell on Meet the Press this morning. H/T Newsbusters:
Mitchell: The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that -- what they're putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. MR. GREGORY: Right. MS. MITCHELL: He seemed so well prepared.
Now, I understand the Obama people are mad. But if they are going to accuse McCain of cheating to members of the media, they'd better dang well have some proof. I don't lay blame on petty staffers, though. I expect them to gripe after a bad performance by their boss. I don't expect their whining to be legitimately reported without any skepticism.
So my question is this: is it fair for Andrea Mitchell to "put out" what the Obama people are saying privately, true or not? (Remember, she also passed on the Obama rumor McCain persuaded the Pentagon to spike Obama's visit to the wounded troops in Germany.)
I don't have a problem with openly discussing political rumors as long as they are done with an eye towards verification purposes. And here's why. Townhall bloggers, and lots of other people, openly discussed rumors of a controversial Michelle Obama video floating around. Most of the discussion about the Michelle video (which never turned up) focused on trying to determine whether it existed and trying to figure out who started the rumor in the first place.
On the other hand, Mitchell eagerly reports anti-McCain rumors without any consideration if they're true or not. Passing them on just for the sake of throwing some dust up over McCain's performance isn't right. If there's any evidence McCain could hear Obama's Q & A session, that's newsworthy no doubt. Till there is, I expect most people will chalk this up to yet another example of MSNBC being in the tank for Obama.
|
|
In the interest of journalistic integrity, which most MSM news outlets do not honor, I would like to offer the following quote:
“I cheated a little bit. I looked into this.”
That was OBAMA, in response to a specific question on adoption! What's that? Was Obama revealing that he somehow received Warren’s questions in advance and had time to prepare answers while McCain did not?
|
|
|
The same old platitudes that McCain spouts are why the country is in as bad a shape it is today and why it will be in even worse shape very soon. The people and countries from which McCain, Bush, and other Washington elites have borrowed money will get their pound of flesh one way or the other...IF NOTHING IS CHANGED. China in particular is well on the way to eating America's lunch and McCain, a shallow thinker if ever there was one, is helpless to stop it. |
|
ROY, YOU CAN'T BE THAT PREJUDICED OR BRAINASHED?!
YOU SEE THE SPLINTER IN MCCAINS EYE BUT OVERLOOK THE LOG IN OBAMAS EYE! GET A DOSE OF REALITY, YOUR IGNORANCE AND POOR JUDGMENT IS TELLING! |
|
CORRECTION ROY, YOU DON'T LISTEN WELL AND TOOK THE 5 MILLION $$ REMARK OUT OF CONTEXT. MCCAIN FOLLOWED WITH, AN AMOUNT CANNOT BE SET, TO THAT AFFECT! MCCAIN OUT TALKED THE "GIFT OF GAB" OBAMA MAN AND STOLE HIS THUNDER! WHILE THE GREAT PRETENDERS WORDS WERE GUARDED, JOHNS FLOWED FREELY. NO, MCCAIN DOESN'T NEED TO CHEAT BECAUSE HE IS EXPERIENCED WITH A LIFETIME OF SOLID CORE VALUES, WHILE THE ROOKIE IS STILL MATURING AND FINDING HIMSELF! EX DEMOCRAT
|
|
|
your boy has done nothing except make friends with known felons bombers, and America haters. |
|
5 million a year is all it takes to be rich.
McCain has been in Congress for 26 years but takes NO responsibility for anything Congress has done and not done during his tenure.
Lowering taxes raises revenues. |
|
If you really wanted the truth it would be easy to find. Here are just a couple of samples:
"Members of the McCain campaign staff, who flew here Sunday from California, said Mr. McCain was in his motorcade on the way to the church as Mr. Obama was being interviewed by the Rev. Rick Warren, the author of the best-selling book “The Purpose Driven Life.”
"Mr. Warren, the pastor of Saddleback, had assured the audience while he was interviewing Mr. Obama that “we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence” and that he could not hear the questions.
After Mr. Obama’s interview, he was joined briefly by Mr. McCain, and the candidates shook hands and embraced.
Mr. Warren started by asking Mr. McCain, “Now, my first question: Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?”
Mr. McCain deadpanned, “I was trying to hear through the wall.”
Interviewed Sunday on CNN, Mr. Warren seemed surprised to learn that Mr. McCain was not in the building during the Obama interview."
|
|
Matt Lewis called Rick Warren "a fat white goateed Oprah?" I am no great fan of Rick Warren, but from what little I know about the guy I do not think he equates the latest envirotrend with right to life issues. Matt may be right about Warren's inflated ego, but...
Rick Warren's abortion question was one of the better ones of the night (Ann Althouse reminds us that she is a law school professor):
Now, let's also look at Rick Warren's rhetoric. He asked, after a preface about abortion, "when does a baby get human rights in your view?" And, most obviously, his use of "baby" instead of "fetus" or at least "unborn baby" conveys a lot of opinion. But look at what else Warren is doing. He is not asking when does life begin?, a question that is much more susceptible to Obama's answer that only God knows. Warren is asking when do rights begin? That makes it a legal question. And Warren even appends the phrase "in your view."
So Obama's answer — that it's not for him to say — is inapt. Obama answered the question he expected to hear. But Warren had the wit to frame the question in terms of a legal opinion that Obama was fully equipped to give. When does the baby have legal rights?
And we know Obama's answer to that question, don't we? I think his answer is: When it is completely outside of the mother's body. Is it any more subtle than that? If it is, it's not much more subtle, and it's no wonder Obama chose not to answer the question asked.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/08/asked-at-saddleback-fo rum-when-does.html
So I have to give kudos to Rick Warren for asking an artful and sharp question. It was totally fair, should have been expected, but exceedingly tough for a guy who likes his waffels to answer. |
|
|
How the hell can you even dare accuse Mc Cain of being shallow when Obama could have written the book on being "shallow"? He is extremely superficial, naive, vain and egotistical. And he is a selfish, self-serving, self-involved, self-promoting, conceited, arrogant blowhard whose wife thinks this is a mean country. He is totally unprepared to lead a 'marching band', much less the country. He spent just one year in the Senate doing absolutely NOTHING before starting his campaigning with the Liberal Media backing his every move for most of the last two years. He is as far left as they get, and has a relationship with several nefarious characters, all of whom he used to promote his rise to the level of notoriety, but whom most honest Americans would never consider associating with. He is a Socialist, has a dubious background in the Muslim faith, and may not even be eligible to run for President anyway due to his mother and father not both being U.S. Citizens at the time of his birth, and the fact that she would have had to be 21 at the time he was born, but was only 18. ((See Thomas Sowell's research on this.)) It is fascinating, and I hope someone proves he is ineligible to run because I don't think anyone with a background in the hateful, so-called religion, (in actually 'cult') of the Muslim belief should have any place in any form of our government. THEY ARE OUR FREAKING ENEMY AFTER ALL! Can you rememeber 911?? How about the Qoran preaching "kill the infidel where you find them?" That's US, buddy! You and me; and Obama practiced that faith. Do you believe he has forgotten it all? If so, thing again. You are backing a person who would sell out this country in his first 4 years in office. |
|
|
How the hell can you even dare accuse Mc Cain of being shallow when Obama could have written the book on "shallow." And let me see, he is also, vain, egotistical, self-serving, conceited, arrogant |
|
This forum was for McCain and everyone knew it , ok ?? Nice Churchy people, however they agree to disagree agreeably, perhaps ?
I also believe they had the questions. My bsmeter
was in the red zone.Do you think Rev. Warren
would want tension in his tent ? I don't think so either.
McCain could take a lesson from Big Russ, leave
the war at the door. A lot of men suffered, all were heroes .
Obama needs to sit across from McCain, and be treated to some of his charm, sneers and snarls,
lets see if he can rise above it as well as Mitt. |
|
Obama came across as a follower. |
|
Obama's campaign and mainstream media. |
|
|
McCain is just one more shallow politician. In 2000 Roger Ebert, the famous movie critic, was asked to give his opinion on a Gore/Bush debate. Here is what he said about Bush: "I think he came across as a lightweight compared to the vice president. Watching the two of them I just didn't feel that Bush had the resources to be president." Right on the mark! Just like Bush, McCain just does not have the depth of reason to be president. All I heard from McCain was the same old tired platitudes. We have had 8 years of dumb. We need at least 8 years of smart to get us out of the hole Bush and his minions have dug for us. |
|
I just found out that Rick Warren lied (defined as intentionally misleading...) about McCain being in a cone of silence. Mr. Warren knew that McCain wasn't actually in the building when Obama's questioning began. Every time I think the evangelicals are finally worth listening to again something like this happens.
Also, why would Mr. Warren allow McCain to wrap his first marriage in a convenient euphuism about “failure”? The word adultery appears in the Bible hundreds of times and is one of the Ten Commandments as is the word: lying. If these words are good enough to appear in the bible they should have been good enough for this event.
|
|
Good Morning Amanda,
I think its Ridiculous that Obamas people said that McCain cheated,
McCain didnt answer Obamas questions for him,
I have to say McCain was awesome saturday night, McCain was right to the point, his performance was very impressive, McCain was comfortable in that setting, and I think McCain is a politican you can trust, the question on abortion, McCain said that life begins at conception, thats what I believe myself, Obama answered its above my pay grade, thats laughable,
McCain experience shows over Obamas inexperience on important issues, that why Obama doent want to do townhalls with McCain. |
|
|
is an inexperienced socialist with no reservoir of long term exposure to the American political system, what matters to Americans and why this country is great - he never gave any of that any thought. John McCain is a man with a long personal and political history of dedication to and deep love of country and he is what you see -he has core beliefs and a deep reservoir of experience on every political subject to draw upon. There is no comparison - for Obama everything is above his "pay grade" - there is no there, there. It is only going to get worse for him - his puppet strings have to be extended somehow but it will not work - the emperor has no clothes. |
|
CBN's David Brody, who also did the CNN interview with Obama after the forum, is as bad as anyone. I thought CBN was supported by evangelicals. This from the CBN Brody blog:
"The fact that Barack Obama would show up at an Evangelical Church and take the tough questions is a credit to him. I mean he knew he was the visiting team ...yet he handled these questions like he has in the past: with relative ease."
The one answer that he struggled with a little bit was when Rick Warren asked him: ““At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” He basically punted the answer by saying, “Well, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective answering that question with specificity you know is above my pay grade.” That’s not the answer conservative Evangelicals wanted to hear and I’m sure he didn’t score any points with pro-life Catholics either. .... But let’s remember for many others in the faith community who aren’t as conservative an answer like that may have been just fine. ... He’s trying to appeal to the broader faith community and the latest polling shows he’s doing a pretty god job of it.
Overall the night was a success for Obama. He didn’t get put on the spot too much with the abortion questions. He handled the “Jesus” question about his faith with ease and maybe most important he looked comfortable up there.
.. Obama has very little chance with die-hard pro-lifers anyway. Instead, Obama’s goal is to come across as a caring family man who takes his faith and set of values very seriously. That plays to the broader audience. A forum like this only helps him in that regard.
|
|
I don't even pause when channel surfing on any NBC station anymore. Occasionally, I'll watch CNN for a different take on things, but there regular broadcasts are increasingly making my blood boil.
Throughout the day today, they have gone from a clip of Obama where they artistically edited out his stammering and near slip into saying 'experience' when criticizing Thomas, to hours of teasers about Warren's conspiracy to cover up that McCain was offsite part of the time instead of sitting in a literal 'cone of silence'. In the 5 minute interview, Warren debunked the charge; only to have the interview repeatedly try to twist his words back and make it the charge stick. Finally the settled for a truce of using the honor system to prevent McCain from getting text messages; then cut to a Democratic commentator who and started all over again speculating.
The media rooting for Obama was has gone from a joke, to an annoyance to being outright infuriating.
I am thinking that a more vocal and organized boycott and protest of the MSM is needed. If the average person were only to get news from them, we are on a very misleading and potentially dangerous path. |
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Was John tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care.
Me: Oh pahleese! I know Barack had a bad night, but do we need to drag out this crap? I don't think this little tirade by Phillip Butler is going to persuade anyone. 2 years of torture vs. 5 years of torture... couldn't care less. |
|
This is pretty pathetic.
In my view, it's ALL above his paygrade.... |
|
Life begins at conception. Period. The unique DNA is present in the zygote. You can try to spin this all day long.
McCain had the answer conservative were looking for and BO swung and missed completely. McCains "patently campaign rhetoric" answer is backed up by 25 years of a Pro-Life record.
A higher power decides when life begins is the most rediculous statement I've heard on this issue. Your statement applies only to those that rationalize poor planning followed by a poor decision. In my mind, it doesn't hold water. |
|
|
Nice try. Obama is just being humble in the eyes of God? Since he cannot be sure when life begins, third trimester abortions are fine (as is leaving those babies who survive the initial proceedure to die). And McCain's treatment was not so bad because he was only tortured by the Vietnamese for two of his eight years as a POW? Other than a few Defeatocons, you might find a more receptive audience at the Daily Kos. |
|
The contrast was striking throughout each man’s one-hour time on stage. When Warren asked Obama, “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve ever had to make?” Obama answered that opposing 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 he meant America ill.” But Obama was a state senator in Illinois when Congress authorized the president to use force in Iraq. He didn’t have to make a decision on the war. That fact was a recurring issue in the Democratic primaries, when candidates Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, and John Edwards argued that they, as senators, had to make a choice Obama didn’t have to make. And now he says it’s his toughest call.
When McCain got the question, he was able to tell an old story with a sense of gravity and poignancy that he seldom shows in public. He described his time as a prisoner of war, when he was offered a chance for early release because his father was a top naval officer. “I was in rather bad physical shape,” McCain told Warren, but “we had a code of conduct that said you only leave by order of capture.” So McCain refused to go. He made the telling even more forceful when he added that, “in the spirit of full disclosure, I’m very happy I didn’t know the war was going to last for another three years or so.” In one moment, he showed a sense of pride and a hint of regret, too; he came across as a man who did the right thing but not without the temptation to take an easy out. In any event, the message was very clear: John McCain has had to make bigger, more momentous decisions in his life than has Barack Obama.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTBjN2RkY2Y3ODZhYmRmYT ZjYTI1NTQ4ZGNkM2Y2YmU=&w=MQ== |
|
Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain
Phillip Butler | March 27, 2008
John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States.
People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always "No - John McCain was a POW with me." The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.
Was John tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.
John was offered, and refused, "early release." Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to "admit" that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was "lenient and humane." So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept.
http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html |
|
|
When Obama was asked when does life begin he said, "Whether you're looking at it from a theoretical or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade." I read Obama answer as not seeing himself as being omnipotent– his answer was humble. He was leaving that to a greater power ! His response was authentic. He sought to answer the question honestly and personally. Whereas McCain responded with patently campaign rhetoric. He simply said that life begins at conception. McCain’s answer was trapped in campaign jargoned. |
|
When Obama was asked when does life begin he said, "Whether you're looking at it from a theoretical or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade." I read Obama answer as not seeing himself as being omnipotent– his answer was humble. He was leaving that to a greater power ! His response was authentic. He sought to answer the question honestly and personally. Whereas McCain responded with patently campaign rhetoric. He simply said that life begins at conception. McCain’s answer was trapped in campaign jargoned.
|
|
|
in advance, boy did Obama's answers really suck. Whoever thought up Obama's "above his paygrade" line should be shot. |
|
Obama did what he has promised to do, to be a different kind of leader. He took the questions as they were asked and answered them honestly and personally. McCain did what he was used to, politicking and pandering. Of course, he stayed on message, because he gave his stump speech. So, McCain rehearse performance was better. We shouldn't be surprised, Hillary did the same thing. But after awhile people began to see that the sound bites aren’t sufficient and they drifted toward the more complete answers and solutions that Obama offers. I have confidence, the American people are smarter than they are treated!
|
|
http://thepoliticalcarnival...
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Did John McCain "Borrow" His "Cross In The Sand" Story?
I report, you decide. Transcript from the forum last night here.
It just sounded so fake and so contrived, so I did a little research about it. Someone on here said it sounded like a scene from Ben-Hur, so I did a google search about Ben-Hur and cross in the sand and such. No dice. But I searched around a little bit more and here is what I found. A story about Alexander Solzhenitsyn from his times in the Soviet Gulags.
As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.
As Solzhenitsyn stared at the Cross drawn in the dirt his entire perspective changed. He knew he was only one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire. Yet he knew there was something greater than the evil he saw in the prison camp, something greater than the Soviet Union. He knew that hope for all people was represented by that simple Cross. Through the power of the Cross, anything was possible.
Excerpted from "The Gulag Archipelago" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, three volumes published 1973-1978.
|
|
http://thepoliticalcarnival...
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Did John McCain "Borrow" His "Cross In The Sand" Story?
I report, you decide. Transcript from the forum last night here.
It just sounded so fake and so contrived, so I did a little research about it. Someone on here said it sounded like a scene from Ben-Hur, so I did a google search about Ben-Hur and cross in the sand and such. No dice. But I searched around a little bit more and here is what I found. A story about Alexander Solzhenitsyn from his times in the Soviet Gulags.
As he waited, head down, he felt a presence. Slowly he looked up and saw a skinny old prisoner squat down beside him. The man said nothing. Instead, he used a stick to trace in the dirt the sign of the Cross. The man then got back up and returned to his work.
As Solzhenitsyn stared at the Cross drawn in the dirt his entire perspective changed. He knew he was only one man against the all-powerful Soviet empire. Yet he knew there was something greater than the evil he saw in the prison camp, something greater than the Soviet Union. He knew that hope for all people was represented by that simple Cross. Through the power of the Cross, anything was possible.
Excerpted from "The Gulag Archipelago" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, three volumes published 1973-1978.
|
|
The "above my paygrade" pat answer reinforces Obama is underqualified for the highest paygrade job of all.
But most pro choice people hate to argue when life begins, because they know quiet well that human life begins at conception. Funny how arguments about intellegent design are shot down as being unscientific, well how unscientific is to to acknowledge a human life starts when the egg and sperm successfuly unite? But many on the pro choice side fear any termination of their "right". Of course that right is to terminate another life, hence the hypocrisy.
Obama's answer should be--I agree life starts at conception (because scientifically it does), but I believe that government should not prevent the termination of pregancies under certain circumstances--even though that means taking life. It will not win over pro choice voters, but it is the honest answer for Barack. Instead he danced around it.
|
|
Mr. obama was stud-bodysurfing in Hawaii a few days ago. Maybe he just had jet lag? I gave up our vacation (high gas prices) so BO can take his family to hawaii. You can thank me later.
|
|
...both candidates had the questions in advance. Is this so? I believed they did as I watched it. But even if not, anybody with half a brain should have anticipated them.
There were no surprises or gotcha questions.
Even if Mack heard everything, how he could he have "cheated?" His answers were from his own. He certainly didn't copy BO; nobody in their right mind would have.
This is just wacked unless I'm really missing sumpin'. |
|
|
when the liberal media starts bellyaching like that. |
|
|
I think you are exactly right, Amanda. Andrea Mitchell is not only about the worst left wing hack in broadcasting, but the most obviously biased. She doesn't even make efforts to coverup how in the tank she is. Excellent post, IMHO. |
|
|
McCain does not need to cheat. And why MSNBC reports whining by the Obama campaign is beyond me. Was there no "real" story? Oh well, that network won't be around much longer. |
|
What else can the left blogosphere announce now?
Surely, it can't be that the junior Sen. from Illinois is an intellectual and presentational marginal can it? McCain must have cheated, he must have, must have ... must ...
When the likes of David Geffen and Arianna Huffington and that wee fay Marcos Moulitsas at Daily Kos are hauled before the post mortem committee of the DNC and asked how the election that couldn't be lost was, their response will be ... the Republicans must have cheated, must have ...
The Democrats had a strong, viable, fun, historic candidate in Sen. Clinton and the likes of Geffen, Huffington, Moulitsas, Move-On, etc, slaughtered her in the Democratic Primaries with their organized campaign of political denigration of her and her campaign.
Why did they do it? Well, that's for the Democrats to understand. No cheating allowed.
|
|
|
Obama should have had his do boy Jimmy C baby sit McCain because we all know the only reason Obama looked so bad is because McCain cheated.Hey,isn't that the way it always is?Obama can get his endorser John Edwards to sue Warren for fair and indifferent questioning. |
|
|
BO said he cheated onone of the questions and said he did some research. It is obvious that both Mc and BO had advance info on the questions. BO was not prepared for anything and tried to pander to the religous group and Mc killed him by answer straight, quick and no I, uh etc. Bo was lost. |
|
|
Obama got CRUSHED! All hope he had to win some of the Evangelical vote is gone! |
|
|
The Democrats always believe that their guy is a supergenius who can do no wrong and the other guy is a bumbling fool. And their friends in Big Media tend to agree. The myth is so powerful and such a distortion that to be suddenly hit with reality in these debates is quite jarring. And the reality is that McCain is usually quite likable and personable, while Obama doesn't think on his feet very well and has Bush-like struggles in trying to be articulate when not reading from a script. And when these realities smack them in the face, Democrats will cry foul and invent conspiracy theories about wired ear pieces and text messages rather than accept the truth. |
|
|
That is the big new in this, Andrea Mitchel is the first member of the MSM to admit Barack lost this forum. |
|
Now I know why Rush makes so much fun of Andrea Mitchell... she's twitter painted with BO.
|
|
|
|