Monday, August 18, 2008
|
|
Rick Warren's Big Day ...
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
11:36 AM
|
|

Now that it is apparent John McCain "won" the Saddleback town hall, conservatives are likely to view the event as a good thing. In truth, though it was a net positive for McCain, the overall event was not good for conservatives.
I always hesitate to speak disparagingly of any a man of the cloth. My reasoning is that one can be forgiven for wrongly criticizing a politician, but it is another thing altogether to be guilty of wrongly criticizing someone ordained by the Almighty. But it is now clear that Rick Warren has moved from the latter category to the former; he is now essentially a politician -- or worse: a game show host.
As everyone knows, he is already an amazingly successful author, but the success of his forum the other night -- and the national coverage it garnered for him -- has propelled him to an even higher echelon. Regardless of how you feel about the involvement of religious leaders in politics (those on the right can argue for -- or against it -- in defense of religion), I can't help but have this gut instinct that Warren is a self-serving sort who has effectively manipulated the media.
But putting the self-promotion angle aside, there are substantive reasons to object to Warren. For one thing, he is among those "up-and-coming" Evangelical leaders who has encouraged his flock to focus on issues such as the environment (of course, this could also be considered a shrewd form of self promotion, as it is sure to lead to positive media coverage for Warren).
While being good stewards of mother Earth is always presented only as an addition to the list of concerns, I'm skeptical this is an effort to replace concern over issues such as the right to life. The ultimate goal of this, of course, is to artificially change the focus of Christian voters toward issues which favor Democrats.
And while McCain's performance the other night was superb, this was not fore-ordained. It might have gone the other way. Symbolically, hosting Barack Obama was a tacit admission by Warren that voting for Obama is, at least, a reasonable option for Evangelicals. This, of course, is problematic, due to his positions on a multitude of issues, not the least of which is the right to life.
|
|
Didn't you call 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. You may be right about Warren's inflated ego, but...
Let's take a close look at Rick Warren's abortion question (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. |
|
...but if he is a "game show host," Matt Lewis is a kindergarden blogger.
You might as well be writing in crayon....
Time for Townhall to replace you with a grownup. |
|
|
Becuase Obama does not like to offend. And they are delicious! |
|
Is Warren promoting Obama as a reasonable choice for evangelicals, or is he simply recongnizing the reality that many are considering voting for him? And for those who are, what better way to inform them than by letting him speak directly to them? After all, didn't he just hand us our greatest weapon yet for persuading evangelicals with his "above my pay grade" nonsense?
And anyway, we cannot be in the business of trying to simply ignore and silence those we disagree with. That is what the left does, because they cannot win a debate. We can, and should not be afraid to engage. |
|
|
in 90 minutes Warren got more clear info outta these guys than the Press has in 2 years. I don't care if Chuck Woolery had been the host. He asked the questions that reporters refuse to ask. |
|
If Warren accomplished anything this weekend, it was he showed how out of touch Obama is with Christian/Faith voters.
Despite liberal talking head, Obama was not really making any inroads with Christian/Faith voters. Rather many were not yet sold on McCain. After this weekend, you will see the Evangelical vote strongly behind McCain. |
|
All the talk of Christian / Faith voters and Evangelical voters, I see McCain capturing about 62% to 38% for Obama in November. I am serious. McCain will not capture more than 70% ... no way. And he needs to capture 85% or more to stand a chance. Huckabee, in the January 2008 debates, saw to it that even with Huckabee's support, the Christian / Faith voters and Evangelical voters will not support McCain or Romney. Far too many were put off by Huckabee's remarks that they will not listen to Huckabee or GOP. Many change the TV channel the minute a McCain ad goes on the air or a pro-GOP ad goes on the air.
And I know of hundreds of voters in Florida, New York, and New Hampshire (in my web-circle) and even more in other web-circles who are not going to vote for President - even if their "blank" vote gives the White House to Obama. They will not vote for McCain... and I am one of them.
|
|
|
OK by me! But if you don't vote you have no right to complain about who gets elected. |
|
Free speech guarantees one's right to complain, even if they elect to not vote. You don't like that, tough on you!
What this country needs is a NONE OF THE ABOVE box on all ballots in every category. Then, politicians will see the real measure of how many citizens are really unhappy.
But the RNC has recently opposed such proposals - saying voters must decide from the choices on their ballot. Sounds alot like USSR in the 1970's... What if one votes in the primary and then does not like the choices on the final ballot? Is it "tough on them?" If it is, a revolution is brewing...
|
|
|
evangelicals watching that forum, a lot of undecided voters who have no interest in religion or a religious forum watched it also. Warren did a good job of asking direct questions that did not allow much room for skirting or spinning. He was more successful at getting direct answers from these two politicians then any moderator in recent history. I think it was successful because Warren asked the candidates the exact same questions which allowed for a side by side comparison. And if they were coached before hand, as some have suggested, how is that any different than the debates? I think the forum may go a long way to resolve some unanswered questions in the mind of undecided voters. For that reason it was a success. |
|
It's apparent to whom that McCain won?
Sure, on Townhall. But try reading a few other sites and blogs and you'll find that most seem to call it a draw. Obama did ok, McCain did much better than expected.
That's hardly a TKO, but nice try. |
|
|
|