This spring, it was bizarre accusations against Barack Obama: he's a closet muslim, his wife is a black nationalist, etc. Now, suddenly, the Democrats are the one frantically hunting for buried treasure.
First, the solemn questions about a trivial anecdote from John McCain's time as a prisoner of war:
McCain's been getting a lot of mileage out of his "Christianity-in-captivity" story. It's been in ads, and speeches, and his talks from the pulpit. And for good reason: It's extraordinarily affecting. In it, McCain is spending another Christmas Day locked in a Vietnamese prison. A guard walks up to him and, with his foot, etches a cross in the dirt. McCain and his captor stare at the symbol for a moment, before the guard scratches it away and leaves McCain to his thoughts. "To me, that was faith," says McCain. "A faith that unites and never divides, a faith that bridges unbridgeable gaps in humanity."
What's peculiar about this story is that, as a DailyKos commentor noticed, it precisely echoes a tale from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago:
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.It's quite a coincidence. A couple bloggers have started looking for some further evidence that this story actually happened to McCain.
What, exactly, is the point of this exercise? Gulag Archipelago was published in 1973, the same year that John McCain was released from the POW camp. There is no way of proving what the bloggers hope, which is that no mention of this story was made until after the book's publication. And even if that were the case, all it would prove is that John McCain didn't tell this story until after the book's publication, not that it didn't happen. Vietnam is a country with pretty rich Catholic tradition; tracing a cross in the dirt at Christmas is not something so unthinkably bizarre that it could only have happened in one communist dictatorship.
The only way this would actually hurt McCain is if you found a signed letter from him saying that this never happened. Since it's very unlikely that such a letter exists, the very best that this effort will achieve is sowing seeds of doubt in a few minds, making themselves look desperate to almost everyone else (and thereby making people wonder what's wrong with Obama, that they're this desperate), and outraging a number of people that you would call McCain's honor into question with absolutely no evidence, or hope of obtaining same.
Then there are the insinuations swirling around McCain's performance at the Rick Warren event, which his supporters are calling a win, and which Obama's supporters are calling a draw, from which I infer that he won. Since we all know this is impossible, of course he must have cheated:
ohn McCain reportedly was somewhat more coherent than average at Rick Warren's forum. But there's now some doubt about how he achieved that. The two
But he wasn't; he was in his limo on the way to the church. His staff says he didn't listen; maybe that's true. But nothing would have prevented a staff member from listening and calling McCain on his cell phone. (I believe that he does know how to use a cell phone.) McCain didn't bother to correct Warren when he told the audience about the "cone of silence," and Warren seemed surprised to learn that McCain hadn't been in the communications-free room.
This was a serious misstep on the part of the Obama campaign, and his supporters could best help him by never mentioning it again. Sure, it's conceivable that this could have happened. Is there any way to get any evidence that this happened? No. There are two possible scenarios:
- After a bad showing, they make an accusation they can't possibly prove, thereby looking like bad sports.
- After a bad showing, they make an accusation they can't possibly prove, and the McCain campaign produces his cell phone records, thereby making them look like jealous toddlers.
Huzzah for good analysis on a Monday morning.
My puter must be b0rken, I'm never 1st on the these intranets...
Yeah, Tyler Cowen made a similar observation. And frankly I don't know that I get the depth of ferocity here: Obama looks like a lock to win. But I think Cowen hits it right: if, somehow, he does not win, then, a lot of us on the left -- well, hell, I don't know what it means for us. Nothing good. So people are over-bloviating.
If it could somehow be shown that McCain fabricated the cross story after reading about it in the Gulag Archipelago, it might indeed reflect badly on his character and as such is something we need to know about. People who lie about minor points may do the same about more serious matters.
Nonetheless, I'm willing to give McCain the benefit of the doubt absent compelling evidence otherwise. And as you have pointed out, it'll probably be impossible to prove anything.
In all honesty, I thought McCain knew the questions beforehand, but I agree that it will be nearly impossible to prove- unless, of course, one of McCain's close advisors blows the whistle.
And McCain did win. Obama's answer to the Supreme Court question was mindboggingly stupid. A much better answer would not have implied Thomas was too dumb for the court.
If I win a game, I don't really care if the other guy cheated or whine too much about it. I only cry foul when I lose. When the Obamabots claim that McCain cheated they are admiting the chosen one lost. Otherwise, why complain?
I am with you Megan. When your guy has a bad performance, you shut up and move on and let people forget it. Whining about cheating just means that more people will think that Obama lost the exchange. This allegation is another example of how inexperienced the Obama people are. McCain is looking more and more like the US swimmer in the relay last week, lurking in the faster French swimmers wake using experience to beat flash.
Obama is looking desperate? Really? And I love it how you conflate Obama and the netroots. Since the "who love God more" farce just happened, the tightening polls might be more a reaction to the new McCain strategy of defining Obama. You know where Obama is either Paris Hilton or a terrorist (or maybe both). That would suggest that conspiracy theories and bizarre accusations work very well.
If you don't have anything insightful to say about politics, then why say anything at all?
Megan, are you missing a second block quote? Or is a split personality manifesting itself or something?
As for Saddleback: I agree, the complaints are laughable. Best of all, not having watched the show myself, the first news rundown of it that I heard said that Obama won the coin toss and opted to go first! So for the Bambots to cry foul in retrospect seems all the more ludicrous.
"Vietnam is a country with pretty rich Catholic"
You're retarded if you think this matters to the discussion. McCain was in the norther part of Vietnam, and the amount of Catholics there at the time were near nil.
If both sides stick to accusations they can prove this will certainly be an election for the ages.
Rickm,
You are sputtering again. Slow down, and you won't leave out letters and entire words.
As far as I can tell, no one from the Obama campaign has publicly said that McCain cheated. I think this wouldn't be an issue if Rick Warren hadn't attempted to put forth a story about the "cone of silence" that simply wasn't true.
As for the McCain/Solzynitsyn story, yes, it's impossible to prove OR disprove. It's just awfully coincidental, and McCain has already demonstrated his capacity to misremember details of his POW experience at convenient campaign times (remember his Pittsburgh Steelers/Green Bay Packers mistake a few months ago?) If he's going to make his POW experience his central narrative, then he's opening himself up to the same scrutiny that Kerry did when he played the Vietnam card in 2004. I don't think that McCain deliberately appropriated the story as his own, I think he's demonstrating false memories (probably reinforced given this same story was repeated in a few Solzhenitsyn obituaries this month).
I'm substantially more troubled by his repeated invocation of Georgia as a "Christian" country, somehow justifying possible military intervention. Notice McCain hasn't been too eager to intervene in Darfur, presumably because it's NOT a "Christian" nation. If India and Pakistan broke out in war, would McCain proclaim "we are all Indians"? Somehow I doubt that.
Finally, theologically speaking, the purpose of "Christian" virtue isn't primarily to "DEFEAT" evil. Most mainstream religions consider mankind to be inherently sinful, thus only God can actually DEFEAT evil. The comingling of theology with comic book bravado is a very ominous sign of a possible McCain presidency.
Dear American Citizens and the media
Challenge to Media.
As a disabled American Veteran and concerned American citizen.
"We the citizens of the United States of America have the ultimate responsibility to elect the " Right Candidate with the right temperament" to lead our nation'
Our nation is and will be facing many present and future critical internal and external challenges as well as opportunities to address those challenges.
In order to prevent any probable prolong recession and diminished world standing as the sole superpower in the world' Whether it is the moral, democratic, economic, military, and other issues.
I impress upon voters to vote after considering following " qualities and characteristics" of our presumptive presidential nominees.
In my firm professional opinion that the media should help the common voter to explore and discuss following attributes of Hon. Senator McCain and Obama:
1. Calm, cool, and collected " temper " [ Presidential Temperament ].
2. Sound and sustained "Judgment and Caliber".
3. "Thought-fullness and togetherness" of purpose and positions.
4. Minimum "ex-poser and exploitation" around "Washington and Washington insiders".
5. Renewed " Vigor and Vision " for our Great-grand Nation.
6. Foreign policy based on " American Values, Virtuous, Vastness".
7. The campaign based of facts and free of fiction, deception, seduction, and attacks.
I plead to common voter to stay informed, stay involved, and stay engaged.
Do not allow some partisan media, pundits, pollsters, and perpetual political opinion makers effect your vote in the wrong direction.
Please do not be deceived and duped by "Psychological Terrorism" that is being directed at you without your consent and awareness.
Long live U.S.A and its diverse but democratic people.
Col. A.M. Khajawall [Ret] MD., Colonel, USAR / MC Combat Stress Control[Ret], Disabled American Veteran and Iraq Freedom team.
PS: It is 100 % true.
If McCain did indeed steal this it means one of two things. He's so addled that he read a story that sounded good and he now thinks it happened to him. Or he's a thief.
The more suspicious aspect is that McCain first told the story in 1999, a full quarter century after it may have happened. McCain participated in quite alot of interviews about his time in captivity over the years and wrote a book or two about it also. One interview became a book that had a chapter about Christmas in prison, and McCain didn't think to include this anecdote. Whether he (or his speechwriter) got it from Solzhenytsin is a side issiue.
So McCain went to a debate amongst evangelicals and gave simplistic answers which basically are the same answers that Bush would have given. Sure, that probably wins among the 19% of Americans who think Bush is doing a good job -- and Evangelicals are probably vastly overrepresented in that 19%. But how does it play with the other 81% who are looking for change?
I think you are mistaking annoyance at Mccain's changing stories and an obvious inconsistency with his campaign...yet a similarity in things that happened in 2004.
Don't confuse a newly found strength to call out the fabrications that gave us George W. Bush and Dick Cheney...as desperation. It is actually the opposite... ...it's confidence there won't be any funny business like the stuff that got us here...8 years later.
To be cynical at cynics does not mean you are being above the line...sometimes when facts don't add up...chances are the cynics are right.
You point about the desperation of the left is amusing. I just got off a FOX site re"\: Obama/Thomas comments. The right seems pretty darn conspiracy oriented to me. The comments show an alarming feeling that there is a vast conspiracy to turn America socialist. I don't believe it any more than I believe that the Bush 8 years have been a fascist regime.
America
Okay run with this…. would you let a twelve year old kid who has absolutely no experience in flying an airplane fly the largest most powerful plane in the world? Yeah, he is great at x-box but he can’t even drive a car yet. Would you let a 2 year medical student perform your open heart surgery? Yeah some day he might be a good doctor, but probably not since his goal isn’t to practice medicine just get the degree. Why in the hell would anyone consider making Obama the leader of the most powerful influential country in the world? He has absolutely no experience in governing. He has no experience in Law which his degree is in. He has absolutely no experience in leading anything. Sure he is a second year senator, but he has absolutely no experience in politics. He has spent his entire tenure, if you can call it that, running for president. He has no real idea what anything, pertaining to the government that he wishes to lead, is all about. As much as I dislike the Clintons, they are right, Obama was given a pass because he is Black (huh) but nobody will come out and say it. The man is half white. As a white person I am offended, where is my half? Most Americans have better credentials to be President then this guy.
This is such a joke I can’t believe it. I honestly hope to God that this country isn’t stupid enough, idiotic enough, blind enough to elect this false profit as our next President. He has absolutely no resume to be anything. I honestly wouldn’t hire this guy to work for me. I don’t need a mouth, I need someone who can actually do something. Someone who has the experience. I’ll take the crazy old man who knows what he is talking about, he has been there and done it (got the tee-shirt and scares), over the youngster who has absolutely no idea what is really going on. Don’t let this silver tongue fool, fool you.
Obama's people made a mistake here. After an event like this, they should come out giddy with excitement for how well their candidate did. The media, who desperately want Obama to win, will follow that narrative.
By whining about the other side cheating, they are admitting they believe their guy lost.
Plus, is it so hard to believe that someone with decades of experience in politics (and who is really best in this type of setting), could do a bit better than a neophyte?
The only difference between the bumbling McCain who gave a confused explanation of the Surge in front of a grocery cheese display and the McCain who answered Warren’s questions at Saddleback before they were asked is that he was thoroughly coached ahead of time. Anybody who believes the McCain campaign wouldn’t cheat still believes in the Tooth Fairy and Weapons of Mass Destructio
I think he probably had a better idea of what sort of questions he might be asked at such an event as McCain was probably more likely to travel in evangelical circles or know evangelicals than Obama. Obama has by his previous comments demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn’t really have any understanding of how non-leftists think or what they believe in. Which is why he did so poorly trying to answer a question from one and why IMO he’s scared of a town hall-style debate.
I particularly like the bit where he tried to liken himself to Scalia in claiming that they both taught law at the UC law school. Of course Scalia taught actual substantive legal courses whereas Obama never “taught” a class that wasn’t embroiled in racial politics.
McCain cheated on his badly-injured first wife before he dumped her for Cindy (because Carol was badly disfigured from a car accident). That is something McCain admits. That is much worse than lying about religious events in a POW camp. If McCain can't honor his vow "in sickness and in health," then he can't be trusted with the oath of office for president. He has a major character flaw. No need to dig any dirt there. His divorce proceedings are a matter of public record. Most Catholics fled North Vietnam when Vietnam was partitioned in the 1950s (read the books by naval officer Tom Dooley). I doubt a Vietnamese Catholic would be working in a Comunist-run POW camp. Seems like prison camp staff would be ideologically vetted by the Communists for a position like that. Regardless, John McCain --in terms of failed policy-- would be a third Bush-Cheney term, a disaster.
I would be more impressed with this story if Megan had included information about the scandalously untrue book about Barack Obama that is now on the New York Times best seller list.
Why is the Obama camp looking desperate but not the McCain camp? Because Mr McCain says he had nothing to do with the book, and besides, where's Mr Obama's sense of humor about being falsely denigrated in the book??!!
There is a one-sided discussion blooming in which the media, having spent most of the past 6 months building up Mr Obama, is now doing it's turn around and tearing him down.
It would be WONDERFUL if the media would stop these nonsensical articles that add nothing to the political debate, and concentrate on Mr Bush, what's left of him, and the abysmal condition of the American economy, the world situation in general and the actually relevant aspects of the current presidential race.
Of course, there would far fewer catchy headlines, and commentators like Megan might actually have to go out and get a real job.
Oh please, some bloggers might have an interest in this conspiracy, so what. Seems a weak argument on your part.
McCain's cross in the sand story is creepy, that's all. He's trying to go now for the christian fighter emblem-- the Armageddon voters. His imprisonment= the imprisonment of Christians, he becomes a Christ like figure. War becomes a christian war. That's not conspiracy, it's analysis. Who cares what is true?
McCain is a creepy creepy man.
America
Okay run with this…. would you let a twelve year old kid who has absolutely no experience in flying an airplane fly the largest most powerful plane in the world? Yeah, he is great at x-box but he can’t even drive a car yet. Would you let a 2 year medical student perform your open heart surgery? Yeah some day he might be a good doctor, but probably not since his goal isn’t to practice medicine just get the degree. Why in the hell would anyone consider making Obama the leader of the most powerful influential country in the world? He has absolutely no experience in governing. He has no experience in Law which his degree is in. He has absolutely no experience in leading anything. Sure he is a second year senator, but he has absolutely no experience in politics. He has spent his entire tenure, if you can call it that, running for president. He has no real idea what anything, pertaining to the government that he wishes to lead, is all about. As much as I dislike the Clintons, they are right, Obama was given a pass because he is Black (huh) but nobody will come out and say it. The man is half white. As a white person I am offended, where is my half? Most Americans have better credentials to be President then this guy.
This is such a joke I can’t believe it. I honestly hope to God that this country isn’t stupid enough, idiotic enough, blind enough to elect this false profit as our next President. He has absolutely no resume to be anything. I honestly wouldn’t hire this guy to work for me. I don’t need a mouth, I need someone who can actually do something. Someone who has the experience. I’ll take the crazy old man who knows what he is talking about, he has been there and done it (got the tee-shirt and scares), over the youngster who has absolutely no idea what is really going on. Don’t let this silver tongue fool, fool you.
First of all...what is a "win"? Both men were asked questions about their faith...how could there be possibly a win or lose there. I actually watched it and thought both men did well.
Next, Plagiarism is a pretty big deal. I guess I can copy your text and use it as I want? Oh wait you have a Copyright clause at the end of this page.
Seems like there was a pretty big deal about a President lying about a sexual encounter to make himself look good. I'm sure you were all for that. So looking into whether a Presidential Candidate ripped off a story to make himself look good (kind of like using a song without permission) might be an interesting and revealing line of questioning to ask.
Let me start by saying I vote as an independent, and I don't support either candidate anymore.
I told my husband, McCain seems to have his answers already. And then, here came the education/teachers question, and before Rick Warren asked it, he interrupted (very RUDE) with yes, yes, and yes.
Confirmed my suspicion that he knew his answers before the questions were asked. I think that took a solid week of coaching.
What a pep-rally he created. I guess that's his talent, he can rally the people. But not a thinker, stem cells yes, human rights begin at conception yes? How can he have it both ways?
And he rudely interrupts. He looked like an arrogant ROOSTER crowing to me.
The Elephant (Obama) and the Rooster (McCain).
Yuk. Wish they hadn't intimidated Ron Paul out of the race.
McCain dominated on Saturday night. With the exception of a bounce for a week or two by Obama around his convention, this will shape into McCain's race.
Right... and Solzhenitsyn stole it from the Bible.
Right... and Solzhenitsyn stole it from the Bible.
I don't think anyone is saying the supposed POW story fabrication is a big deal or makes McCain unqualified for office (unlike the peddlers of the smears against Obama you mentioned). And it's very odd to call it a "conspiracy theory," as you do. Rather, it is very apparent to anyone with a grain of sense that McCain very likely read the Solzhenitsyn story and interpolated it into his own narrative, probably unconsciously. This is a well-known psychological phenomenon that happens all the time, and is not a sign of mendacity, senility, or anything else. Reagan was famous for "remembering" episodes remarkably similar to movie scenes. This is a far more plausible explanation than mere coincidence, which only the most gullible would subscribe to.
The question is, now that this has been pointed out, will McCain do the honorable thing and admit that he made a mistake in relaying this story as his own. It is hard to imagine that this would not be received sympathetically. However, continuing to use this false memory as a campaign gimmick will reflect poorly on him. It will be interesting to see which way he goes. Given the way his campaign has gone so far, sadly it is more likely that it will be used as a club to beat opponent supporters, with gullible types like Megan gleefully joining in. But we will see.
First of all...what is a "win"? Both men were asked questions about their faith...how could there be possibly a win or lose there. I actually watched it and thought both men did well.
Next, Plagiarism is a pretty big deal. I guess I can copy your text and use it as I want? Oh wait you have a Copyright clause at the end of this page.
Seems like there was a pretty big deal about a President lying about a sexual encounter to make himself look good. I'm sure you were all for that. So looking into whether a Presidential Candidate ripped off a story to make himself look good (kind of like using a song without permission) might be an interesting and revealing line of questioning to ask.
The new Obama nation. Hello Socialist Tyranny, Goodbye America. And it will all happen with smilling faces on the morons who elected the Grifter!
I worry a bit that Obama looks a bit lame in this exchange. I agree with those who suggest he may need to get more concrete and detailed in his policies, rather than just the change thing...
From the transcript of the interview with McCain:
MCCAIN: ARE WE GOING TO GET BACK TO THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.
McCain had not talked at all about Supreme Court justices with Warren. That question had only been asked of Obama at that point. So how did he know?
McCain told the Pittsburgh press that he gave the names of the Steel Curtain defensive line to his captors when he has written and stated that it was the Green Bay offensive line.
I doubt either story is true. He likes to play the POW card, it is all he has.
He long ago forfeited any claim to honor or integrity when he let Bush kiss him after what Bush did to McCain in 2000.
Here is a novel suggestion: Maybe the press can ASK McCain about these 2 matters. No, it is much easier to pontificate and criticize Obama because some of his supporters are asking them. The press has completely forgotten its purpose and is an utter disgrace. Worse, the corruption of the media is very bad for American democracy. I suppose that would make the press Un-American. Now, there's a story worth covering!
The author asks rhetorically "What is the point of this exercise?" As if it were some great mystery. But there is no mystery, the answer is rather obvious: The point is to determine if Mr. McCain suffers from either an unreliable memory or a lack of honesty. Is he telling the truth, imagining things, or simply making up an sweet sounding lie? Given the magnitude of the job he is applying for, taken with his age and profession, these possibilities cannot and should not be casually dismissed.
really the only thing that matters here are the policies that ea. candidate endorses...do u want budegt surpluses or deficits, environmental sanity or lunacy, a social net or a big divide, universal health-care or huge profits for hmo's, peace or war, democrat or republican, get the drift?
Here is a novel suggestion: Maybe the press can ASK McCain about these 2 matters. No, it is much easier to pontificate and criticize Obama because some of his supporters are asking them. The press has completely forgotten its purpose and is an utter disgrace. Worse, the corruption of the media is very bad for American democracy. I suppose that would make the press Un-American. Now, there's a story worth covering!
As a very young man, I toured with a band almost constantly. Given my youth, and absence from my family and things familiar, I was homesick a lot.
I can recall playing a club in Panama City Florida on Christmas eve. After the show, I found myself sitting in a lawn chair drawing Christmas tree's and a Cross in the sand, It comforted me, and I never read the Gulag, still haven't to this day!
*yawn*
McCain and Obama are virtually identical except
the military and the rich will suffer under Obama. The military will likely do well under McCain, but the poor will suffer. Their tax cuts are identical until you get to the >600k/yr range - then Obama raises taxes and McCain drops them dramatically.
Living in a redneck town, but at the same time knowing a few large business owners,there seems to be two major types of McCain suporters here; the large business owners and wealthy people who want to pay less taxes (understandably) and the people who only vote on abortion/guns/Jesus - yeehaww
It is plausible that the CIA uses training exercises that teaches pilots what to expect if they are captured and made prisoners of war by the enemy. I published my theory that the video that McCain is using for his campaign showing him suffering at the hands of the enemy on the Columbia student newspaper website, and rather than investigate a good lead about a fake prisoner of war video, Dr. Mangler Rice removed and the cub reporters there at Columbia University had removed the free speech comment from the forum.
It the press doesn't care to prove a falsehood and expose a CIA, John McCain lie, the accusation does not have to be proved directly. The Stalinist revisionists at Columbia have proved the fact for me. John McCain is a criminal CIA politician and a Stalinist revisionist of history.
Here is a novel suggestion: Maybe the press can ASK McCain about these 2 matters. No, it is much easier to pontificate and criticize Obama because some of his supporters are asking them. The press has completely forgotten its purpose and is an utter disgrace. Worse, the corruption of the media is very bad for American democracy. I suppose that would make the press Un-American. Now, there's a story worth covering!
This is ridiculous.
McCain pandered shamelessly, whored his dubious POW-hero status, and gave knee-jerk, simplistic answers to an audience not comfortable with nuance. Obama clearly thought through his answers, not throwing out red-meat phrases, not repeating the same talking point McCain did ad nauseam ("serving a purpose greater than ourselves") yet Obama displayed a far greater understanding of that concept.
Obama also didn't list all the right-wing SC judges as the ones he would not have on the court. McCain did exactly that with the so-called leftist judges. Even though he voted to confirm several of them. Now THAT was a stupid answer.
And anyone who watched thinks McCain "won"?
The premise of this article says alot...implying that the democrats are relying on conspiracy throerie that can't be proven. It is no conspiracy theory that this administration, whose foreign policy disasters has unravelled the goodwill of the rest of the world in their premeditated occupation of Iraq for their oil. It is no conspiracy that this administration was completely ineffective in helping the citizens of Louisiana in the run up to, durinhg and after Katrina, and are still ignoring these pople, thousands of which are still displaced. It is no conspiracy theory that the rich have become richer, the poor poorer and the middle class evaporating under the stewardship of the GOP. Its is no conspiracy that billions of opur dollars have been wasted in the middle east due to the stupifying incompetance of this administration, and still is being wasted. I maintain that the democrats hardly need to rely on conspiracy theories. What the american people need is a news media tha gives a damn about the truth instead of being the propoganda arm of the GOP. It boggles the mind how, after these last 7+ years, that so many people are still willing to vote for a party that has steadfastly always supported buisness and consistantly never supported the needs of the people. A party that has goose=stepped behind every destructive decision made by the Bush/Cheney administration.
stan cooper - The comments show an alarming feeling that there is a vast conspiracy to turn America socialist
Well, given that the % of GDP spent by the US Gov has increased dramatically this century (even ignoring millitary spending) it seems clearly and objectively demonstratable that we've moved closer to socialism. I'm not sure what the % of GDP spent by the Government has to be before you say we're there. But it doesn't seem like a conspiracy to say that there are people who want to increase the size of government and social spending.
Your call on who is responsible for this, of course.
As a Christian voter, it means a whole lot if McCain is making up his Christmas story because he's making it up to manipulate me and those like me. Bush did that when he rewrote his conversion story (http://www.slate.com/id/2186343/entry/2186344/). I mean who in the world lies about their conversion story?! Oh - that's right, a politician who knows we Christians are a bunch of suckers whose votes are bought with dishonest stories and campaign promises.
@Bill, that someone with "absolutely no experience in flying an airplane fly the largest most powerful plane in the world? "
...is John McCain.
nothing he has done makes him qualified to be President, and bis actions as of late nake him even less qualified. Experience is relative, as we have seen with George Bush, an ex-Governor
What is sad is that you have posted what seems like an informed post, yet you completely ignore all of the grass-roots, neighborhood organization, community volunteer work, fundraising, teaching roles, et cetera that Barack Obama has done for the United States.
McCain gets tax free income the FED, and you think he should be President? Why?
All this is about for the GOP, is not electing Obama. They have vetted him and found nothing, they throw lies at him that don;t stick.
Their last resort, some pathetic plea based in fear and uncertainy.
Why weren't you making the saem claim about laxk of experiecne for Ronnie Raygunz? Why? Because its all a game for the GOP. Get if office and then forget about the people.
Are you worried your candidate might be SwiftBoated like the GOP SwiftBoated Kerry? At least Democratic bloggers aren't stooping to couched and outright racism and lies. Given how McCain has been all over on the issues and his recent conversion to evangelical Republicanism, I think we all should question the veracity of anything that comes out of his mouth.
Even if this IS true I doubt that many of the evangelicals that support him would change their minds. They're already locked in and short of McCain sprouting horns and exclaiming he's the devil they'll still be voting for him.(and prob still would if he did)I attend a mixed race church in GA and yesterday for the 2nd time in about 3 months I was seated next to an older white woman. When the pastor said to turn to your neighbors and greet them she would not even make eye contact much less shake my hand. And I consider my church to be a very tolerant one. Obviously there are folks who aren't totally against the whole "Change" thing.
America
Please run with this... would you trust the most important position in the country to a person who has repeatedly betrayed the people that he claims to hold most dear? After cheating on his wife, John McCain used his position in the government to participate in the most notorious financial scandal of the 1980s. Despite the incredible wealth that he married into after his cheating, he apparently needed to unethically participate in that disastrous plan.
As much as I dislike GWB, he was right, McCain was given a pass because he is POW who crashed 5 different airplanes (huh) but nobody will come out and say it. Most Americans have more integrity to be President then this guy.
This is such a joke I can't believe it. I honestly hope to God nobody is serious enough to believe a man that should have no more credibility. I honestly wouldn't hire this guy to work for me, because I wouldn't have to keep checking the cash register he might raid to help him pay for a twelfth house. I'll take the young man with the good ideas and no record of abusing the trust that the most important people in his life have placed in him.
Who cares. Obama is a socialist and he will lead us into the apocolypse. that is the only thing you leftist sheep should be concerned with.
I'm not voting for President this time, so lacking, in somewhat different ways, I find both candidates. However, I think an Obama loss would prove more entertaining than any since the Republicans lost a lot of Congressional and Senate seats in '98, after they impeached Clinton. I'd vote for McCain, just to help ensure that Obamabots would go into a frenzy of agony, if not for the fact that I think McCain will likely be a lousy President, and I'm tired of voting for guys who I think will be lousy Presidents.
Who cares. Obama is a socialist and he will lead us into the apocolypse. that is the only thing you leftist sheep should be concerned with.
LISTEN, ALL US OLD GI'S KNOW THAT MCCAIN BLEW UP THE USS FORRESTAL AND HIS DADDY BAILED HIM OUT. WE ALSO KNOW THAT MCCAIN SPILLED HIS GUTS IN 32 PROPAGANDA FILMS FOR THE COMMIES. HE WAS CALLED THE SONGBIRD, TOLD THE VIETS ALL OUR COUNTER-MEASURES FOR THE HANOI-HAIPHONG SECTOR.L THAT'S A FACT. THE MAN'S A TRAITOR.
I worry a bit that Obama looks a bit lame in this exchange. I agree with those who suggest he may need to get more concrete and detailed in his policies, rather than just the change thing...
I know your name is Megan, but it's a little disconcerting to see the reference Megan's Law in a politcal column.
Anyone who is unsure if the Iraq war was a mistake need only look at Afghanistan. We dropped the ball there because of our preoccupation with Iraq and Saddam. John McCain was one of the Iraq war's biggest cheerleaders.
Go ahead and support him if you want to continue squandering American prominence and authority while the real threats to our prosperity (economic, environmental, and social) are ignored.
Megan, before I can take your claim seriously I am interested in your take on the McCain campaign's recent screechathon against Obama. If you have a legitimate point to make, I would expect you to turn your laser beam 360 degrees in the search for truth.
Otherwise, you are merely adding to the Repugnican blather.
The anger from the Obama people confirms it: McCain had a great night (who would have thought?!)
While Obama was long winded and monotone, McCain by contrast was concise, energetic, and funny.
Plus, the visual contrast between Obama and McCain didn't provide the Kennedy/Nixon contrast most Democrats were looking for. Obama was taller, but looked gangly and puerile next to McCain.
The question as to why the Obama people didn't want to do a town hall debate tour with McCain was answered Saturday night.
Megan, before I can take your claim seriously I am interested in your take on the McCain campaign's recent screechathon against Obama. If you have a legitimate point to make, I would expect you to turn your laser beam 360 degrees in the search for truth.
Otherwise, you are merely adding to the Repugnican blather.
Who cares. Obama is a socialist and he will lead us into the apocolypse. that is the only thing you leftist sheep should be concerned with.
This is the part of the interview that made me never want to give up on McCain...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
Imagine if we lived in a country where Republican operatives limited their accusations to provable facts.
What McArdle seems to be expecting is for the Left to promise never to sink so low as to use the same tactics that Republicans invented and perfected.
Believe it, cuz I'm one of those who supported Clinton, and have since switched to McCain.
Obama is in deep sh*t, and everyone knows it. Why d'you think everyone's coming out turning down the VP offer preemptively (except that loser Bill Richardson and the now-history John Edwards)? That's because no one wants to be associated with a loser when it happens.
Obama has never been able to translate his big crowd rally into poll numbers because he doesn't have the stuffs. I'd rather have a moderate GOP McCain whom I know where he stands, than a liberal Dem Obama who shifts positions every other day. Obama is pathetic.
I’m just tired of all this supposed Christianity… where is the Christ in the greed? Where is the Christ in concentrating most of a nation’s wealth and power in the hands of just a few? Marx was right: "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes”. Why so much pandering to upright citizens who seek heaven by the numbers? Why, because if you make them feel secure in their illusion they will turn a blind eye to rampant corporatism and ethical abuse. These people will send their sons and daughters to die for oil or the military industrial complex. Scare’em with a boogie man (or gay marriage) and they will sacrifice most anything. Congratulations: its not love and devotion that defines marriage…it’s your genitalia. Since when is God, lower taxes and off-shore drilling synonymous? There are days I just get sick to my stomach of all the B.S. Lord save me from your followers!
I agree that the cross in the dirt story is a non-starter. . . with no way to prove or disprove its veracity, it just makes one look petty bringing it up.
But on the cone-of-silence gate, a little love for the netroots. There was immediate speculation on several sites about McCain having a heads-up on questions based on some curious responses during the live conversation. Many people who posted speculated that McCain couldn't have been in the C.o.S. Lo and behold, news organizations later noted that McCain did arrive late, and Warren himself was forced to admit that McCain was not in the C.o.S. despite his assurances at the start of the forum.
Did he cheat? Who knows, but we are told that Warren resorted to the "honor system" when the C.o.S. didn't work. The most telling response to this whole kerfuffel was from McCain's spokesperson, Nicole Wallace: "The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous."
Parse this for a moment. CNN (Rick Sanchez) and MSNBC (Andrea Mitchell) reported the fact that McCain was not in the C.o.S. There is no evidence that anyone from Obama's campaign said he cheated. What does being a POW have to do with this? Ifyou're released from a prison camp 35 years ago, you get a free pass on cheating? The overreaction of the McCain camp - making allegations, accusing bias by NBC, using the POW card - demonstrates at best thin-skin, at worst guilt.
The Warren thing and the reax from both sides will prove to have been nothing in the wake of the first real debate.
This is all just noise. No one is really paying attention to this other than the wonks and political bloggers.
You say you're changing your view on who has a weak campaign, but, based on the comments, most people on either side seem to be entrenched. Not much movement among those paying attention will translate to even less movement among those who are paying more attention to the Olympics or who are trying to get in just a little more fun as summer ends.
Isaac, you are dead on. Obama is a clueless baboon. He wants to take a microphone to war rather than a gun. He is naive and doesn't realize that in our current vulnerable state that Bush and the socialist congress put us in, we are a prime target for another superpower to annihilate us. The world is evil. Russia has proven that. They have been waiting for this day for 25 years. Our military is strapped, our economy is hosed, and now we will have a smooth talking nobody get elected as leader. TAX ME more!!! yeah! Obam, you are a fraud!
I doubt that McCain needed to be given the questions in advance. He and his handlers knew his audience, and knew exactly the type of questions AND answers they expected. Just because you give your audience the standard right-wing talking points, without any nuance whatsoever, doesn't mean you've won the night. It just means you're a panderer.
As for questioning McCain's honor, the man left any honor he ever had back in Hanoi. He proved that with his treatment of his first wife.
Re Obama's inexperience:
Let's look at the most experienced people around this administration, and see whether you/we like them. Like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, etc.
Other inexperienced leaders fm our past: Roosevelt, Kennedy, Lincoln, etc.
Not much of an argument, pipple!
Memo to Bill: Calling Obama a "false profit" undermines your case. if you don't know the difference between profit and prophet, maybe you don't know the difference between qualified and unqualified for holding the office of President of the US. Our current prez had 8 years governing a huge state, but no one would accuse him of being competent.
The Atlantic Online is a little behind on their news coverage. It is already a known and verified fact that John McCain was not in a CONE OF SILENCE during Obama's part of the debate...... Which means that whether he wanted to or not , He CHEATED. Now that this new information is out, go back and look at McCain's answers and you will prove that point.
How exactly does one answer a question before it is asked if one does not know the question beforehand?
Just asking...
Okay, here are some points on the cross in the dirt anecdote (thanks to those who raised some of these before me): When and in what circumstance did McCain first mention this? What are his reasons for not mentioning it immediately upon his release? Were there occasions over the years when it would have been very logical and compelling for him to discuss the incident, but he didn't? Can anyone identify the guard? Can the guard, or anyone else who was there, confirm the story? What about other prisoners who either spoke with McCain while in confinement or who discussed the confinement with him after their release? When and in what way did McCain pay any attention to Solzhenitsyn or speak about him before? Can you think of any other good questions on this?
"All you need is love," sang the beatles in one of their psychodelic love songs. "All you need is "change," says Obama, everywhere he goes. If Obama is elected and Americans start singing, "where's the beef," Obama will only have to say, "I promised change and I changed your tax rates to a higher percentage of your dollar earned. Now get out of here with that "change crap" because Michelle and I are meeting Reverend Wright and some chick for dinner and dancing after we leave a south Chicago black-activist association endoctrination.
Memo to Obaminites:
"Change" is just a word with an ever-changing definition. It can be good bad and indifferent. For example, a stroke can leave a person drastically changed - and that ain't good!
Why did McCain pretend he was in the "cone of silence" if it's not a big deal that he wasn't?
Why was there a cone of silence at all if it didn't matter whether there was one?
What does McCain do in his limo on the way to appearances? Does he just sit there? Does he get briefed by his handlers on what he's up against?
It doesn't matter if he listened to the broadcast. One of his handlers was in the limo saying, "Ok, John, here's what we think you're going to have to answer ..."
If his handlers are not that savvy, they shouldn't be his handlers. They should have realized they (1) had an opportunity and (2) faced a moral dilemma and I wonder how they reacted. The stonewalling about "How dare they?" just makes me think they thought, "Hey, it's an opportunity! Let's go!"
I found it telling that Obama did not mention AL-Qaeda when asked about evil in the World.
I am also relieved to read that some people actually thought that McCain got the better of the debate. If you had to go by the media commentary afterwards, one would have gotten the impression that demi-god Obama had once again enlightened us. Even Fox news, which generally can be counted on to twinkle on the Obama’s parade, was marginally positive in its Obama coverage.
To be fair, though, Obama was far from enjoying a home field advantage; the contemptuous way that reverend kept looking at him was disrespectful. I thought that part of his answer on the evil question, in where he says that we must have humility in order to avoid doing evil when we think we are doing good, was a salient point that was naturally lost on a tele-evangelist. Nonetheless, that he was remiss in mentioning AL-Qaeda, an organization that recently killed 3000 of our citizens, just gave credence to the assumption that he is a blame-America first liberal. If I know Obama’s campaign modus operandi: look for Obama to give a speech within the next two weeks in where he unequivocally labels Al-Qaeda evil.
The fact remains, however, that the media is enamored with Obama. Thus, Obama has the ultimate home field advantage. Despite this misstep Obama is still ahead of the narative game.
The right is fretting that Obama will turn America into a socialist country, but it's the left that's paranoid?
The right looks at their results as the majority party for most of the past 3 decades, yet they declare that putting the Democrats in charge will ruin the nation?
Look, I understand the desire for low taxes and minimal government interference, but there comes a point where you have to stop believing what people tell you and start looking at what they've done. Did government shrink under any GOP president in the last 30 years? No. In fact it expanded the least under the sole Democratic President. The Bush administration has consolidated power in the executive and transferred more states' rights to the federal domain. In other words, the Republicans are doing exactly the opposite of what they say they are doing, but many of you vote for them anyway. What other situation in life would you do this willingly, repeatedly, and openly?
Ok either people complain because you don't want Obama to answer tough questions or you complain that he got his butt kicked. The fact of the matter is he's still on a learning curve in the senate how could you possibly believe he is ready to lead a country let alone win a debate or forum. If you are a supporter of Obama ask yourself this:
If I associations with people like Wright or Aires and had no experience (like Obama) would I feel comfortable leading a country in economic collapse and on the verge of getting sucked into a war with Russia?
Basically what I'm trying to say is as black man I'm disappointed in my people for willing throwing a candidate under the bus to vote for a black man with no knowledge of politics or his policies. If he were to become president and do no better than Bush, Mr. Obama will forfeit the chances of another black man or a women (of all races) of becoming president probbaly for another two decades. That's why even though I'm a democrat I intend on supporting McCain. He;s ready to lead from day one and it wont be a learning process that could further jeapordize this country. When I do vote for a black man it will be because he knows what he is talking about and not what he thinks he knows. Arrogance got us in the mess we are in, not a specific party. Are you willing to vote arrogance right back into office and if so is that patriotic?
Megan conveniently fails to mention that the Obama campaign has nothing to do with this controversy. It's been stirred up by liberal bloggers.
Megan also fails to mention that McCain is a huge fan of Solzhenitsyn--seriously, he wrote an article about the guy... McCain began circulating his cross story AFTER he became familiar with Solzhenitsyn, and AFTER he wrote his incredibly detailed memoir which contained no poignant cross story.
This blogger has no BS detector. And no spell checker, for that matter. Who is "ohn McCain"?
Oh please! If Obama had concocted a story like this which was obviously just made up for the consumption of this audience, you and a chorus of others would be right on the story. Then Obama would be "desperate" because he made up the story in the first place. No mention of McCain's ridiculous, schizophrenic worldview which seems to shift seismically every few days or so being 'desperate'. But you know, we hold these elections with the media we have, not the media we want to have.
It's funny how when some bloggers make comments its "a serious misstep on the part of the Obama campaign" Oh really? I have not seen any talk of this from Obama.
And BTW, you "McCainobots" should really learn to spell, the usual comments you leave indicate about a 3rd grade level of writing at best. I'm sure if you cut and paste from the rightwing blogs you get your talking points from it will look better.
What's the point you ask? Good lord, woman, you've gotta get out of the Washington circle-jerk and get out amongst people. You all analyze anything and every thing about Obama while letting McCain slide with false stories, lies and missteps.
Of course McCain made it up. He has never once brought it up, until running for president. It goes to his authenticity.
I am concerned as well about the fact that McCain was sitting in a limo somewhere watching Obama with Rev. Warren before he went on. Why do you think he answered some questions that hadn't even been asked yet.
Of course, why he can't answer most questions should be alarming to members of the media, but since you've all forgotten (or were never taught) what journalism is, I doubt you'll even go there. I mean, every question, if it isn't a softball is met with McCain looking like a deer in headlights. Half the time he can't remember what the question is, so he mumbles, gives you a "my friends" and then turns it into a story about him being a POW.
With everything going on in the world, you go after a bunch of folks from the Daily Kos and somehow use that as an example of the "netroots looking desperate?" Give me a break.
Try looking at the desperation of a campaign (GOP) that has trouble raising money and is becoming increasingly dissatisfied with a candidate who looks on the verge of dementia.
Finally, if Obama had said something similar, you probably would have used it to run a negative story of it being just another example of Obama "clearly not being truthful."
Oh well, as they say, IOKIYAR
Sigh.
Its a bs story, even if true. This pandering to the religious right makes me urp. Who cares if faith sustained John McCain in prison camp? A lie is still a lie. The candidates are being imprisoned by their promises and obsequious servitude to the nut religious right.
The truth will set John McCain and Barack Obama free.
My husband's parents and grandparents were long-term development workers and missionaries in Vietnam before and during the French and US periods. His parents now travel to Vietnam frequently to work with those they had known prior to the fall of Saigon. There are many, many Christians there, and the story McCain relates is wholly plausible. Secret communication between Christians under pressure dates back to the Roman empire (e.g., the Icthus symbol), and has been noted under many situations. Assuming he lied is ridiculous, and only makes the accusers looks small.
Its a bs story, even if true. This pandering to the religious right makes me urp. Who cares if faith sustained John McCain in prison camp? A lie is still a lie. The candidates are being imprisoned by their promises and obsequious servitude to the nut religious right.
The truth will set John McCain and Barack Obama free.
"This spring, it was bizarre accusations against Barack Obama: he's a closet muslim, his wife is a black nationalist, etc. Now, suddenly, the Democrats are the one frantically hunting for buried treasure."
I see this as coming more from frustration at the free ride the press has given McCain over the years. I suspect the campaign is responding to its own critics on the left by going after McCain on this stuff, rather than acting in desperation at polling numbers that, at this point in the campaign, are pretty meaningless.
And, of course, the McCain campaign's rebuttal that any accusations against McCain are ridiculous because McCain was a POW doesn't exactly exude confidence either.
"I've obviously seen the tightening national polls, and what I'm starting to hear is that among likelies and battlegrounds, McCain's gaining a commanding lead. Since I'm hearing that from McCain supporters, however, I've been a little sceptical. Less so after this weekend's performance."
McCain winning this election, in light of the record of the current administration, would defy just about every predictive tool that's worked in the past. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen, of course. But a candidate running against the incumbent of his own party ("Washington is broken" - "things are worse than they were 4 years ago") has a very tough row to hoe.
Roddy, you are 100% correct. McCain blew Obama away. Even 4 of my friends who are Obama supporters called it out to me. I am fortunate enough to have friends who shy on the left and right but we all stay moderate enought to remain true Americans.
Its a bs story, even if true. This pandering to the religious right makes me urp. Who cares if faith sustained John McCain in prison camp? A lie is still a lie. The candidates are being imprisoned by their promises and obsequious servitude to the nut religious right.
The truth will set John McCain and Barack Obama free.
When McCain sat down for his turn with Rick Warren, both of them tossed around some light hearted, wink and nod BS about the McCain's stay in the "Cone of Silence" even though McCain wasn't even near the cone for half the hour. This whole thing just smacks of the hypocrisy and corruption the religious right and John McCain are known for.
Poor Obama,trapped in his own head without a Teleprompter.
Terrible analysis. Funny, though. You're actually trying to argue: "and thereby making people wonder what's wrong with Obama, that they're this desperate." Hold on, McFly. Is Obama trying to discredit this story? If so, then point to some links that verify that, not what some dumb bloggers have to say. You think that people are going to wonder what's wrong with Obama, because of something some bloggers on the www said? Fascinating...
Meanwhile, bloggers are bickering over the two candidates representing two factions of the same party (the Big Business party), and Ralph Nader is still campaigning, taking stances on issues that the majority of Americans agree with. You'd probably agree too, but you haven't taken the time to notice. So you'll probably push a button with either McCain's or Obama's name next to it, voting against your own interests. And we wonder why there're problems in this country...
Obama was AWFUL on Saturday.
Jihad Obama is scared of churches - he's used to ranting about Americans and Jews in mosques.
Louis: "Arrogance got us in the mess we are in, not a specific party. "
Biggest lie on the whole page. While they could not have achieved the level of damage they inflicted on the country without the eager assistance from many so-called Democrats, the Republican Party bears much of the responsibility for the mess we're in. Even the American public finally figured this out which is really saying something about how obvious it is.
The author of this blog is once again missing the forest through the trees. First of all, anyone with a brain knows that McCain lies through his teeth. Second, it's using Rovian tactics on McCain. McCain is supposedly a Maverickian straight talker. According to Rove, you attack the person's strong suit. Look at what they did to Kerry re: his Vietnam service. So you attack McCain's straight talk and sow enough doubt that he's not the straight talker he claims to be. It is fairly simple.
McCain's known to be quite good at thinking on his feet. That is why he proposed a series of ten town hall meetings with no moderator, where he and Obama would take questions from the audience on the issues.
Obama is known to not present well at all if everything is not set up just so. What he does, this speech making, is a performance art and he is very good at it. It is a performance art very similar to acting.
McCain's forte is also a performance art, but more akin to stand-up comedy than acting.
Now, personally, I prefer a president who (a) can think on his feet and (b) has a sense of humor. But this is off to the side of my main point, which is that it is not a surprise that McCain should come up with coherent answers on the spur of the moment. If Obama did, that would be a surprise.
Further. About half the population of Vietnam, North and South, considers themselves Catholic.
The scratching of symbols in the dirt by Christians who felt it dangerous to reveal themselves as Christians is recorded in the Bible.
Also, Solzhenitsyin was available in Russia long before there was an official Russian edition. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a Vietnamese translation was also circulating.
.
Obama was AWFUL on Saturday.
Jihad Obama is scared of churches - he's used to ranting about Americans and Jews in mosques.
The vast majority of the stories McCain relates in his accounts of his years in captivity are pretty reliable and match up reasonably well with the accounts of other ex-POWs. The cross-scratching story is not one of those stories. It's always seemed kind of weird. It's not impossible, but it's implausible, and seemed so long before anybody noticed that the same story had appeared in Solzhenitsyn. The fact that McCain never told the story for 30 years, while he was telling a lot of other stories about the camps, made it seem kind of odd. More important, the story clearly seemed designed to create the impression that Christianity was entirely underground in the camps, when in fact the POWs were at times allowed to worship openly (there was a bit of a tug of war over this) and Vietnamese priests visited on a number of occasions. McCain has said a number of contradictory things about Christianity in the camps: he's said that movies of POWs "enjoying a Christmas service" were fakes, but he acknowledges the fact that in fact the Vietnamese did arrange Christmas celebrations, and while the first one was apparently a guard-led charade, in subsequent years the prisoners were allowed to arrange their own celebrations. By 1971 POWs were allowed to hold their own prayer services and keep their own Bibles, as McCain writes in "Faith of Our Fathers".
The cross-in-the-dirt story became prominent at a point when McCain was trying to emphasize his Christian credentials in a Presidential race. You get the flavor of it because he also says the guy who drew that cross was "the only Vietnamese who ever treated me like a human being," which is clearly not what McCain actually thinks, since he also gratefully recounts a number of other incidents of presumably non-Christian Vietnamese being decent to him -- the nurse who in his account stopped the crowd from beating him after he was rescued from Truc Bach Lake, etc. McCain is trying to appeal to people who respond positively to stories in which human goodness turns out to be secretly bound up with being Christian, so he's gilding the lily a bit.
There's nothing so terrible about any of this. McCain may have had the cross incident happen to him, or something like it may have happened, or he may have invented it in memory -- it was a long time ago, and the ex-POWs and Vietnam vets I've talked to tend to "remember" very clearly a number of things that didn't quite happen the way they remember them. As does everybody, and especially everybody with trauma-induced memories, which tend to be crystal clear and often wrong. It never seemed particularly worthwhile to quibble with McCain about his war memories, even when they were wrong, because fundamentally the guy had a really bad 6 years and 'nuff said. The problem comes with the sense that the guy is getting a pass on this stuff and is simultaneously using his ex-POW status to claim immunity from all accusations of untruthfulness.
By the way it was a guard not a fellow inmate. Desperate is what desperate does. This guy is a war hero. Obombus hope is slipping away as people get to know he is a light weight in a nice suit. The Church interview made it clear who the President should be. McCain. I don't dislike Obama he is a nice guy but way over his head here.We need the experience now. Obama 's turn is when he gets some gray hairs.
I find it interesting that the fact that McCain wasn't in the building, as agreed, when Obama's interview began, is just brushed away as trivial.
I don't care who won, who lost, who anything... it's the appearance that McCain had the opportunity to cheat, that is the issue.
The McCain Campaign knew the Rules, they knew what time to be there, yet they weren't.
That isn't conspiracy theory, that is fact.
And had the situation been reversed, the Media & the GOP would be in an uproar, about Obama's failure to be on time. The sheer arrogance of Obama not being there on time, when he knew the rules, just shows what a presumptuous, elitist, celebrity, he thinks he is.
The hypocrisy of you, Megan, The Media, & the GOP, kind of makes one's mind explode.
When McCain sat down for his turn with Rick Warren, both of them tossed around some light hearted, wink and nod BS about the McCain's stay in the "Cone of Silence" even though McCain wasn't even near the cone for half the hour. This whole thing just smacks of the hypocrisy and corruption the religious right and John McCain are known for.
McCain has exhibited confidence in the campaigns, whereas Obama has come across as arrogant while reading his teleprompter. At the Rick Warren event, McCain simply expressed his beliefs in a non-hesitating manner, while Obama had to work on it. Obama is clearly out of his league in the Presidential race.
Gosh darn, I'm so confused now . . . I don't reckon I know who to vote on. Duh! Looks like no one actually watched the show at all. Try this: watch a re-run (preferably unedited . . .) or better still, get a copy from someone you trust and sit a watch it again. This time without so many preconceptions. And find the facts. And then (here's a novel idea!) make an unbiased analysis. Maybe if you act like an intelligent voter, you'll turn into one. Jeez! What a bunch of whinny kids.
To Posted by bill | August 18, 2008 11:40 AM
A better analogy will be ...
You have to marry a woman, the options are a old prostitute with a lot of experience (a lot of clients in her resume), and a relatively new one, with very few experience. Who will you marry ?
P.S. Apologies to prostitutes for the comparison.
Oh Mr John McSame, how best to continue the New World Order. If you believe John McSame didnt know what was being said as it was being said, then have I got a piece of land for sale, the Whitehouse. Sitting back and knowing the reality of the real truth of how the USofA is being manipulated reminds me of a time during the cold war, you know the big bad Soviets, when the truth was hidden at any and all cost. Keep believing your government is here to tell you the truth and help you, sadly they're not!!
Governments should be afraid of the people, not the other way around . . .
Good Luck
Jeez folks, this whole discussion is so pointless. First off, why would any candidate submit to such a non sequitur? Since when should some evangelist preacher have the chutzpah to take it upon himself to interrogate our country's presidential candidates? Absurd! If either candidate had an ounce of integrity, they would have told those self righteous evangelical fat cats to take a flying leap. Oh, but this is the Theocratic States of America so any potential candidate has to prove that his direct line to God has fewer dropped calls than the other guys. Obama had it right when he made his comments about the average American being stupid, gun mongering and superstitiously evangelically religious. But you can't win too many elections telling it like it is. But what fool thought he had a chance anyway? If being smart is a handicap to becoming president, being black is an absolute ban.
WAAAAHHHHH! I'M A CHILDISH IDIOT POSTING WHINY COMPLAINTS ON THE INTERNET AS IF IT'S GOING TO MEAN SOMETHING 100 YEARS FROM NOW! WAAAHHHHAAAAHHHHAAAAAHHHHHH
It's funny how peole are defending Obama yet they have no political bite to back it up. As a senator he has been running for president meaning he hasn't done anything. McCainn has a proven track record of not only going against the grain in his own party but reaching out to Dems. Prove to me with more than just " I didn't vote for the war" to show me that Obama is ready to lead. People wars happen...even if Gore wins the 2000 election 9/11 still happens and we still end up fighting. Stop being cowards, if this same generation that complains about war and choosing not to support their troops but bash them allday had to face Nazi germany I believe we lose and lose bad. As a former soldier yall disgust me...too scared to fight but want all the benefits of a feel country. I got an idea...if you don't like McCain who clearly is more presidential on so many levels and you believe that a rookie can get us there get the hell out of this country and take him with you. Go to Europe, oh that's right while yall what a liberal democrat the worlds going conservative. Look around we'll be in Iraq and Afghanistan with either in office only it will be shorter under proper leadership.
It's funny how peole are defending Obama yet they have no political bite to back it up. As a senator he has been running for president meaning he hasn't done anything. McCainn has a proven track record of not only going against the grain in his own party but reaching out to Dems. Prove to me with more than just " I didn't vote for the war" to show me that Obama is ready to lead. People wars happen...even if Gore wins the 2000 election 9/11 still happens and we still end up fighting. Stop being cowards, if this same generation that complains about war and choosing not to support their troops but bash them allday had to face Nazi germany I believe we lose and lose bad. As a former soldier yall disgust me...too scared to fight but want all the benefits of a feel country. I got an idea...if you don't like McCain who clearly is more presidential on so many levels and you believe that a rookie can get us there get the hell out of this country and take him with you. Go to Europe, oh that's right while yall what a liberal democrat the worlds going conservative. Look around we'll be in Iraq and Afghanistan with either in office only it will be shorter under proper leadership.
McCain has exhibited confidence in the campaigns, whereas Obama has come across as arrogant while reading his teleprompter. At the Rick Warren event, McCain simply expressed his beliefs in a non-hesitating manner, while Obama had to work on it. Obama is clearly out of his league in the Presidential race.
WAAAAHHHHH! I'M A CHILDISH IDIOT POSTING WHINY COMPLAINTS ON THE INTERNET AS IF IT'S GOING TO MEAN SOMETHING 100 YEARS FROM NOW! WAAAHHHHAAAAHHHHAAAAAHHHHHH
Amen.
I agree that the cross in the dirt story is a non-starter. . . with no way to prove or disprove its veracity, it just makes one look petty bringing it up.
But on the cone-of-silence gate, a little love for the netroots. There was immediate speculation on several sites about McCain having a heads-up on questions based on some curious responses during the live conversation. Many people who posted speculated that McCain couldn't have been in the C.o.S. Lo and behold, news organizations later noted that McCain did arrive late, and Warren himself was forced to admit that McCain was not in the C.o.S. despite his assurances at the start of the forum.
Did he cheat? Who knows, but we are told that Warren resorted to the "honor system" when the C.o.S. didn't work. The most telling response to this whole kerfuffel was from McCain's spokesperson, Nicole Wallace: "The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous."
Parse this for a moment. CNN (Rick Sanchez) and MSNBC (Andrea Mitchell) reported the fact that McCain was not in the C.o.S. There is no evidence that anyone from Obama's campaign said he cheated. What does being a POW have to do with this? Ifyou're released from a prison camp 35 years ago, you get a free pass on cheating? The overreaction of the McCain camp - making allegations, accusing bias by NBC, using the POW card - demonstrates at best thin-skin, at worst guilt.
It's funny how peole are defending Obama yet they have no political bite to back it up. As a senator he has been running for president meaning he hasn't done anything. McCainn has a proven track record of not only going against the grain in his own party but reaching out to Dems. Prove to me with more than just " I didn't vote for the war" to show me that Obama is ready to lead. People wars happen...even if Gore wins the 2000 election 9/11 still happens and we still end up fighting. Stop being cowards, if this same generation that complains about war and choosing not to support their troops but bash them allday had to face Nazi germany I believe we lose and lose bad. As a former soldier yall disgust me...too scared to fight but want all the benefits of a feel country. I got an idea...if you don't like McCain who clearly is more presidential on so many levels and you believe that a rookie can get us there get the hell out of this country and take him with you. Go to Europe, oh that's right while yall what a liberal democrat the worlds going conservative. Look around we'll be in Iraq and Afghanistan with either in office only it will be shorter under proper leadership.
one of your illustrious readers posted "You're retarded if you think this matters to the discussion. McCain was in the norther part of Vietnam, and the amount of Catholics there at the time were near nil.
Posted by rickm
Well, Sir, I served in Viet Nam, and you're dead wrong. And, I'll bet you were never there. Many militray personel wore the crucifix around their necks or a cross, many had tattoo's of crosses, and prayed for God's protection. Believe it or not the captors knew very well what those crosses represented. And believe it or not, most admired our faith and sympathized with Christians who were captured. Did they torture, certainly, but because it was their faith against ours. Just as we admire a worthy adversary, so do they. Even Senator McCain's former captors have gone on the record saying how they admired him, as well as the other prisoners. So get a life.
Here is another point, Megan, that is germane to the discussion of the purported 'cheating:'
This is from a comment I left at WashingtonPost.com:
Now, there are discredited reports floating around about McCain's supposedly having 'cheated.' Two things about this:
1. It is a tacit admission on the part of Obama's campaign that their charge was obliterated in the forum. Sour grapes, if you will
2. The charge loses all credulity when it is understood that McCain received more questions than did Obama (because Mac's answers were shorter). Thus, there was no way he had heard the questions ahead of time. However, McCain's answers to those questions NOT posed to Obama were just as succinct and commanding.
That is, his performance was the same throughout the 'possibly heard' and 'unasked to Obama' questions, completely discrediting any concept he had heard the first series of questions.
*
Here is even a further point on the matter that I picked up from Politico, I think:
Obama got a heads-up on the orphan question. McCain did not (unless you think he cheated). That was the question he answered about his and Cindy's adoption of a child when Cindy was traveling abroad.
Home run.
So, on an answer which, at best, was a 'mutual cheat,' McCain still destroyed Obama's answer.
There is no good way out of this for Obama. He's admitting to the world he got crushed at Saddleback.
"All you need is love," sang the beatles in one of their psychodelic love songs. "All you need is "change," says Obama, everywhere he goes. If Obama is elected and Americans start singing, "where's the beef," Obama will only have to say, "I promised change and I changed your tax rates to a higher percentage of your dollar earned. Now get out of here with that "change crap" because Michelle and I are meeting Reverend Wright and some chick for dinner and dancing after we leave a south Chicago black-activist association endoctrination.
Memo to Obaminites:
"Change" is just a word with an ever-changing definition. It can be good bad and indifferent. For example, a stroke can leave a person drastically changed - and that ain't good!
McCain plagarized from Wikipedia.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/2008/08/did-mccain-plagarize-his-speec.html
(GNU license requires adding a Copyright notice.)
He can plagarize from Solzhenitsyn as well.
ps. McCain said Putin has no soul. I wonder if there is a KGB file of McCain's "songbird" time. If yes I bet Putin will find an appropeate time to release.
Tim, I would ask you to prove where a specific party has been solely responsible for anything that has negatively affected this country. The fact of the matter is that congress truely decided where this country will go. In congress Tim, there are three parties and they all cast votes. So pick up about learn about how your country is run before you speak. You might learn something.
Obama and his supporters, in fact all the people surrounding Obama including Rev WRONG - play the RACE CARD on a daily basis.
McCain plays the POW card.
I'll go with the guy who has combat experiance and served his nation in uniform over the miserable, divisive race baiting wretches who have attempted to divide America for decades over race, age, sex, gender and all that other tiresome crap.
Tim, I would ask you to prove where a specific party has been solely responsible for anything that has negatively affected this country. The fact of the matter is that congress truely decided where this country will go. In congress Tim, there are three parties and they all cast votes. So pick up about learn about how your country is run before you speak. You might learn something.
Tim, I would ask you to prove where a specific party has been solely responsible for anything that has negatively affected this country. The fact of the matter is that congress truely decided where this country will go. In congress Tim, there are three parties and they all cast votes. So pick up about learn about how your country is run before you speak. You might learn something.
The entire production was a farce. It was SUPPOSED TO BE Warren asking each candidate alleged well-thought-out questions and each candidate answering Warren.
I lost count of how many time McCain turned to face the audience and his answers included the term, "My Friends." He was not following the format and answering the questions. He was using each as a springboard to revert to his stump speeches and "His Friends" lapped it up.
It was a dishonest way to respond and if Warren REALLY had any integrity he would have called McCain on his blatant pandering. (And if his McCain's minions had any integrity, they would have demanded answers instead of prepackaged speeches.)
But at least we know which candidate is more likely to follow the rules...oh, wait...we already did.
Megan, before I can take your claim seriously I am interested in your take on the McCain campaign's recent screechathon against Obama. If you have a legitimate point to make, I would expect you to turn your laser beam 360 degrees in the search for truth.
Otherwise, you are merely adding to the Repugnican blather.
God bless American because we need it.
What has happen to honor? What has happen to love your neigbor as yourself? i do not hear honor or respect here. I thought we are all american's here. It is time for pray. Pray and seek God's answer before we step into the voting booth.
The entire production was a farce. It was SUPPOSED TO BE Warren asking each candidate alleged well-thought-out questions and each candidate answering Warren.
I lost count of how many time McCain turned to face the audience and his answers included the term, "My Friends." He was not following the format and answering the questions. He was using each as a springboard to revert to his stump speeches and "His Friends" lapped it up.
It was a dishonest way to respond and if Warren REALLY had any integrity he would have called McCain on his blatant pandering. (And if his McCain's minions had any integrity, they would have demanded answers instead of prepackaged speeches.)
But at least we know which candidate is more likely to follow the rules...oh, wait...we already did.
Before I go into COS-gate and Solzynitsyn-gate, let me add that I don't recall McCain being asked the "if you could tell America something it didn't want to hear" question. Does anyone have a copy of the transcript?
McCain's excellent performance is for naught if he knew the questions ahead of time and cribbed that little cross story from Solzynitsyn.
Hillary's "under sniper fire when we landed in Bosnia" trip hit her hard. Sweet stories last 15 minutes.
Plaigerism lasts quite a bit longer.
As for the cone-of-silence, "oh dear, I hope not." I mean, that was the whole point of the debate. If it were a meaningless technical aside, I could see how it would be swept under the rug. But they ran commercials 6 times an hour on four major networks emphasizing that "Cone of Silence" out of all proportion. "THE CONE OF SILENCE, THE CONE OF SILENCE, THE CONE OF SIL-"
It was one of the major selling points of the debate. It's not just going to dissappear because conservatives want it to. For these questions to dissappear, the memory and impact of the entire night of debate would have to dissappear right along with it.
Megan,
I believe that it's very likely McCain will win any open forum debate in which Obama should be foolish enough to participate. If you look at the campaign styles of the two candidates, Obama prefers to give prepared speeches while McCain prefers the "town hall" format.
McCain will spend hours answering questions, and he doesn't get offended at anything people throw at him. That is what helped win me over, his willingness to answer any question, any time, and to tell you exactly what he thinks.
When the debates come, I think Obama is going to lose big.
Megan,
I don't know how this article showed up on my news feed but I have some feed back. I saw the video of McCain giving this speech in Lake Forest and thought it was sincere and from the heart. It wasn't until I saw this article of yours that I had any doubt that it was anything but genuine.
Your article reads more like a blog-flame than news and I find it ironic that you are feeding the very story that you are trying to shut down. That is to say, I think by sharing this story about Gulag Archipelago, you are hurting McCain's credibility more than Obama's.
Sincerely,
Phillip
A politician who might have exaggerated or even plagiarized a story? Who might have wire tapped...uh...listened in on their opponent when they weren't supposed to? REALLY? That is so shocking! Politicians never lie or cheat. How very unusual. Has this ever happened before in America?
Sheesh. Get a grip on reality. The 'cone of silence' shattered 36 years ago, the day the Watergate scandal went public.
I'm always surprised that there are still gullible people out there (reporters, perhaps?) who think this type of slyness is out of character for ANY politician.
Waitaminutewaitaminutewaitaminute.
McCain "won" the Saddleback forum? Sez who??
First off, I don't think it was structured as a contest, but as a chance for two men to share their opinions and positions with the American people.
Clearly the conservatives in the audience ate up McCain's black-and-white certainty (I saw one comment that raved, "He didn't even have to think!"), as liberals approved of Obama's thoughtfulness. But I think McCain's inability to avoid frequent lapses into Stumpish, and his tendency to play to the crowd rather than talk to Rick like he was supposed to, worked against him.
Questioning who you would or would not nominate for the SC is not the same as asking who you would vote to confirm. The POTUS has the privelege of deciding who to nominate. In principle, senators confirm that nominee unless they believe them unqualified (not whether they personally agree with their judicial philosophy). Of course, many senators (like Obama) use their vote for the latter. McCain was part of the small group of Senators (Democrats and Republicans) who attempted to limit filibusters on judicial nominess. On the other hand, Obama admitted not voting for SC nominees (Scalia and Roberts) he said were qualified by their experience and intellect.
What amazes me here is that so many reporters and commentators think that McCain must have had a preview of the questions to answer as pointedly as he did while some propose that Obama showed his 'contemplative' nature by pausing and eh um er ing with each answer. The fact is the questions were not gotcha like questions or factual quizes designed to test theologicial knowledge. They were in fact questions that any one of us would be carefully considering and any one pretending to be fit for public office would be expected to have carefully thought out.
The subject of when does human life begin may be argued in courts and pulpits but that does not excuse a presidential candidate for not having his or her own belief on that so basic subject. And being flip about it being above his paygrade was demeaning to those who consider it the most important question of our time. If Obama had said he believed birth was the time human rights be granted I would disagree with him but at least respected his position. To simply write it off as not his job showed his total lack of philisophical and moral base that starts young.
McCain seemed prepared for the questions because he was. I don't agree with all McCain's answers either but don't for a minute think he needed to cheat to answer them. Neither candidate gave a particularly good answer to the subject of evil as neither candidate seemed willing to acknowledge that good and evil co-exists within each of us. And the multiple choice answers presented by Rick Warren did not include the best answer by my view and that is evil should be recognized and acknowledge and then overcome with good. Resist not evil means to not empower evil by fighting against it nor by avoiding it but by keeping focused on the Goodness of God and ultimately letting God's Goodness overcome.
All in all I found McCain to be better prepared for the office of President of the US and his reasons for running more appropriate. Obama wants to make Americans kinder and nicer. That is really beyond the 'paygrade' of President of USA. It is beyond any one person to do that and my fear is that the Dems will try, as they are trying, to legislate and regulate niceness at the cost of liberty. It is called Liberal Fascism and it is well in the making.
I go with military experience also Bisexual person. Not to mention a couple DECADES in congress. Sure we can all agree McCain has made some poor choices but what congressmen hasn't. Obama hasn' thad the chance for his true colors to show because his what two years as a senator have been spent trying to prove he can lead without experience. As a dem there is nothing more I would love to do than support Obama but I can't jump on a bandwagon for the sake of doing it. Let's examine why people want Obama:
For most uneducated black voters it's a chance at sticking it to "white people".
He promise low taxes on lower income families and another round of rebates.
He wants to offer better health care even though it leaves out 15 MILLION people.
He panders to anti war people about something technically he had about as much control over as we do being that he couldn't even vote.
So with this in mind i also bring up the fact that while "working for the people" of Illinois he never once did anything to help poor black communties in particular where crime is up and jobs are down. If anything poverty and crime increased under him while he was making shady deal with Resko for land. So if that's the change we are looking for then I say McCain 08'.
God, what thumbsucking and whining! All the Democrats ever do is WHINE when they LOSE!
Everytime they lose an election, they can never admit they lost - it's always "stolen".
That is the exact mentality they use when they play the race card against fellow Americans on a daily basis.
First they love the Clintons, now they hate the Clintons.
First the love John Edwards now they hate the Edwards.
The dems are not even loyal to their own people let alone loyal to America.
What a bunch of self-absorbed kooks. Can you imagine these kooky America hating granola heads in charge of the country in these times?
The Democrats have the lowest approval rating in history. Giving these people any more power is the dumbest thing America could ever do.
I go with military experience also Bisexual person. Not to mention a couple DECADES in congress. Sure we can all agree McCain has made some poor choices but what congressmen hasn't. Obama hasn' thad the chance for his true colors to show because his what two years as a senator have been spent trying to prove he can lead without experience. As a dem there is nothing more I would love to do than support Obama but I can't jump on a bandwagon for the sake of doing it. Let's examine why people want Obama:
For most uneducated black voters it's a chance at sticking it to "white people".
He promise low taxes on lower income families and another round of rebates.
He wants to offer better health care even though it leaves out 15 MILLION people.
He panders to anti war people about something technically he had about as much control over as we do being that he couldn't even vote.
So with this in mind i also bring up the fact that while "working for the people" of Illinois he never once did anything to help poor black communties in particular where crime is up and jobs are down. If anything poverty and crime increased under him while he was making shady deal with Resko for land. So if that's the change we are looking for then I say McCain 08'.
I've yet to see any journalist or blogger note the fact that the shamdidates were not asked when LIFE begins, but rather, when human RIGHTS begin to fully apply and warrant absolute protection under the law. The answer is in Roe v Wade and consistent rulings of lower courts that doctors do not have the right to force women to give birth by cesarean against their will (even though hundreds are coerced into doing so every day). Having given the fetal rights question relative to forced or coerced surgical delivery a good deal of thought over the years, my view rests on the old adage that the RIGHTS of citizenship inherently linked with the responsibilities of citizenship. A person's rights and responsibilities are assumed incrementally, regardless of when life may or may not begin.
Questioning who you would or would not nominate for the SC is not the same as asking who you would vote to confirm. The POTUS has the privelege of deciding who to nominate. In principle, senators confirm that nominee unless they believe them unqualified (not whether they personally agree with their judicial philosophy). Of course, many senators (like Obama) use their vote for the latter. McCain was part of the small group of Senators (Democrats and Republicans) who attempted to limit filibusters on judicial nominess. On the other hand, Obama admitted not voting for SC nominees (Scalia and Roberts) he said were qualified by their experience and intellect.
As an agnostic American, I'm offended and disappointed that in the 21st century we evaluate our potential 'leaders' at a forum in the home of an evangelical community where the candidates are required to display their 'Christian' bonafides.
I can only hope (it looks like a slim hope) that my young granddaughter will live in an America where we choose our leaders based on reason and reality; instead of ancient tribal beliefs.
You people really don't get it, John McCain will do anything to win this election because he knows this is his last shot at it. McCain thought he had it back in 2K but, Bush swindled it from under him therefore, he is desperate and will do anything because he will be way too old in four years. So, you folks who think Mr. Straight talker will not do what ever it takes to win are just dreaming!!! He will lie, cheat and steal at this point!!! Don't be so naive people. McCain along with folks who believe that leadership in this Country should remain in the hands of Caucasian.
Christians and Catholics don't draw crosses. Everybody knows they draw fishes.
Questioning who you would or would not nominate for the SC is not the same as asking who you would vote to confirm. The POTUS has the privelege of deciding who to nominate. In principle, senators confirm that nominee unless they believe them unqualified (not whether they personally agree with their judicial philosophy). Of course, many senators (like Obama) use their vote for the latter. McCain was part of the small group of Senators (Democrats and Republicans) who attempted to limit filibusters on judicial nominess. On the other hand, Obama admitted not voting for SC nominees (Scalia and Roberts) he said were qualified by their experience and intellect.
Congratulations on making the front-page of Google news. I felt a tad jealous (?) that so many other people might read you ... I thought I only had to share you with, what, a billion readers?
Obama left a better impression on me than McCain in this forum. Obama's answers were well rounded and thought out, allowing us to get a better understanding about how he arrived at his positions and exposed his reasoned decision making process. McCain's answers were too concise. There were a number of times I wanted to ask him follow up because his empty, one word answers felt like he was brushing the questions off, then he would chew up time rambling off on anecdotal tangents. I don't think McCain was advantaged except to the degree that he was preaching to the choir, such as it is.
This is a lesser of two evils election plain and simple. The question is which of these two pieces of garbage smells less. It's a shame that our two political cults can only present two candidates that are more concerned about pandering for a vote, mis-leading the gullable voter, and pandering to there special interest fund raisers. I am still in awe that the only choices in this election is a Marxist socialist and a new world order globalist. It is also disgusting that the U.S. citizens tolerate this. It truly is a sign of the degradation that has occurred in our public education system. Common sense in this country's citizens has given way to stupidity. Neither candidate is worthy of holding public office let alone the Presidency of the United States.
CRYBABY DEMS: I'm a dem. but I agree with what you are syaing...the fact is most republican supporters are smarter and have a better grasp of our government. i think today has finally encouraged me to register republican next year. I can't be classified with these idiots any longer. They are disloyal and usually don't have clue about the world around. Maybe they're to busy cooking up conspiracies about the other party. I believe we all helped vote in a democratic congress that has done very little to turn things around in this country. I'm pretty sure I sent CNN a distasteful letter the day Pelosi decided she needed a bigger plane than the one already provided. We foot that bill and now gas is sky high and what does she do, approve a five week recess. Open your eyes people there are poor choice makers on both sides. But it is us who puts them in office so it makes us poor choosers. Let's start really engaging in politics and looking at our congressmen under a microscope. That's how we truely change America.
Can I add a 5th law of politics? If your candidate is a well known former POW, and he is accused of anything and your side keeps saying things like "it is outrageous to call him a cheater because he is a PO" , then you are probably losing. Isn't it enough to say he's not a cheater? People will realize that being a former POW does not prevent you from also being a cheater, a Senator who rubberstamps whatever the President wants, or a warmonger. You just can't keep saying "but he was a POW" and think people are magically going to elect him.
Why should ANYONE with half a brain trust the opinions of right wing evangelicals??? This is the same group of sanctimonious twerps that pushed Bush into office. Twice. And still, Bush performed lousily for them. Now they desperately want another Bush term via voting for John McCain??? Evangelicals and the people who think they have such terrific judgement and insight are truly stupid people. Please stay home in November.
Of course, marking the dirt with an x in front of a tortured POW of the Viet Cong would have been MOST reassuring for the captive.
Not.
Gee Megan, it sounds like you are auditioning for a job at The Corner. Could it be KLo envy?
I would have never guessed it in 2000 but McCain has morphed into George W. Bush. What is truly frightening is that he did it with such ease and rapidity. I liked him then. He scares me now.
The only place that this fraud Barry Soetoro belongs in is some rotten jail. That way he can have all the anal sex he wants. Is he still involved with his aide Nick? Is he still banging him?
And Megan, please get his name right!
really the only thing that matters here are the policies that ea. candidate endorses...do u want budegt surpluses or deficits, environmental sanity or lunacy, a social net or a big divide, universal health-care or huge profits for hmo's, peace or war, democrat or republican, get the drift?
People believe that if McCain made up an anecdote about praying to a god with a North Vietnamese soldier this somehow reflects poorly on his character? Why does it not reflect poorly on his character that he believes in and prays to a made up supernatural being who lives in an imaginary place called Heaven? After swollowing this whopper, why does it matter what other whoppers the man tells?
The "was he listening" question was put forward by Andrea Mitchell and a few blogs, not "the Obama campaign." Megan is almost always behind the curve when discussing politics.
The cross in the dirt story has smelled from the beginning, and now that it's being revealed that it was a Billy Graham/Jesse Helms/Chuck Colson staple for years and that it first shows up in McCain's 1999 book, I think the stench of convenient suck-up-to-SuperChristians lie is overpowering. Revolting.
LOL, the reaction from the Dems smacks of real fear and desperation.
Lets face it folks, the Dems are terrified because according to them and all logic, Obama should be about 35 points ahead.
The problem is that the Democrats and their media have spun this election as a "slam dunk" for the Democrats and the Dems took on the air of inevitability from day one.
Now, with McCain doing even half as well as he is it is causing panic amongst the Dems.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. This wasn't supposed to happen.
Maybe all this time the Democrats have spent undermining America and the administration has finally come home to roost and America see's the party for what it is. And America doesn't like it. The Democrat congress, with the lowest approval rating in history, proves it.
Why does Obama look desperate? Only the audience won it for him. I didn't find any of his answers great but was confused as to how he was popping his answers off as if he was in his prime. If he wasn't in the cone of silence, This whole debacle is a farce. He left his 1st wife because she was too ugly following a really bad car accident. Married a new Barbie but this time she is loaded. Now he's on his death bed and wants us to here how he can make this country better 1970s style. It's a new millenium and Americans are finally ready to tacle it. It's a sad era when we bring in a new millenium at the same time QUALITY, across this whole country, has gone to hell in a handbasket. McCain is a huge part of this destruction of the American dream/s. Obama will do great. He's already broken multiple records and will continue. He's ready to put this country on track as his Campaign is dead on track when it comes to how to keep our economy going.
GO OBAMA!!!
Okay, here are some points on the cross in the dirt anecdote (thanks to those who raised some of these before me): When and in what circumstance did McCain first mention this? What are his reasons for not mentioning it immediately upon his release? Were there occasions over the years when it would have been very logical and compelling for him to discuss the incident, but he didn't? Can anyone identify the guard? Can the guard, or anyone else who was there, confirm the story? What about other prisoners who either spoke with McCain while in confinement or who discussed the confinement with him after their release? When and in what way did McCain pay any attention to Solzhenitsyn or speak about him before? Can you think of any other good questions on this?
Okay, here are some points on the cross in the dirt anecdote (thanks to those who raised some of these before me): When and in what circumstance did McCain first mention this? What are his reasons for not mentioning it immediately upon his release? Were there occasions over the years when it would have been very logical and compelling for him to discuss the incident, but he didn't? Can anyone identify the guard? Can the guard, or anyone else who was there, confirm the story? What about other prisoners who either spoke with McCain while in confinement or who discussed the confinement with him after their release? When and in what way did McCain pay any attention to Solzhenitsyn or speak about him before? Can you think of any other good questions on this?
Megan's Fourth Law of Politics: The party that starts looking for implausible and unprovable conspiracy theories about the opposition candidate is in trouble.
This Law never came up during the months of ongoing "Obama's a secret Muslim" speculation? Maybe both parties are in trouble?
Good gravy, 150-plus posts, this quickly, over who "won" one of these media contests? Ugh.
Can we extend the Olympics for 12 more weeks?
America
Okay run with this…. would you let someone who graduated nearly last in his class run anything? Would you let someone who crashed a few multi-million dollar aircraft fly one of the largest most powerful planes in the world? (Yep) Would you let a man who can't be trusted to remember that he cheated on his first wife (documented in court but glossed over in his autobiography) take an oath of office? Or a man who admits he's not so good with economics as he should be, run one of the world's largest economies? Would you trust a man who promises to run a 'civil' campaign, but laughs when one of his opponents is called a 'bitch'? Would you let a man who can't tell the difference between Shia and Sunni make foreign policy decisions in a part of the world where that knowledge is critical?
Why the hell would you let a man who graduated in the bottom of his class, cheated on his first wife, went to work for his second wife's father, and then went into politics since he wasn't qualified for anything else, run the country?
Sure, he's been a Senator, but he has absolutely no experience in leading anything, except the little peace-time office he ran in the military. There's a qualification for you. The only reason he was chosen as the candidate was because he was the best of a bad lot. (An ex-actor, a governor whose religion is considered by some questionable, a born-again nutcase who thought Chuck Norris should keep our borders, and a governor whose multiple divorces made the current choice look good.) Sure he is a multi-year senator, but he no longer completely supports the only two bills with his own name on them! Who actually thinks that military experience translates into Presidential qualifications? (News to FDR, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, oh, and Ronald Reagan - no active duty service.)
The worst he can call his opponent is 'elitist', which, coming from the son and grandson of Admirals, and a dismal career at one of the most elite military academies in the world, is pretty funny. Especially considering that his opponent was raised by a single mother.
Most Americans have better credentials to be President then this guy.
This is such a joke I can’t believe it. I honestly hope to God that this country isn’t stupid enough, idiotic enough, blind enough to fall for all the misrepresentation necessary to elect this guy as our next President. He has absolutely no resume to be anything. I honestly wouldn’t hire this guy to work for me.
Don't give me this crazy old guy who might decide to fire the missiles because of Georgia! Who doesn't get that we pissed off Russia because of those damn missile bases proposed for Poland. (Echoes of the Cuban Missile crisis, from the other side. Sheesh, why would Putin be mad because we want to do what we wouldn't let them do?)
I need someone who can actually knows something, who actually thinks before he opens his mouth, and doesn't make promises, or threats, he can't keep. Give me the educated guy with a head on his shoulders who knows what he is talking about, might actually have a rational point of view, and offers this country something different than what we have now.
Ms Meagan, now what is wrong with the democrats giving the republicans a little dose of their own medecine? do you not remenber the whole episode w concerning Kerry? doubting his valor as a
soldier? come on now Meagan do you take the whole
lot of us as dumb and dumber. Shame on you Atlantic for publishing this editorial..
By the way my mother cancelled her subscription a few month ago when you featured B. Spears on your
front cover
Regards,
It's 3:00 a.m. and a National Security decision is required. In McCain's Oval Office you have Gen. Petraeus, Congressman Lewis and Meg Whitman.
In Obama's Oval office you have Grandma and the wife!!
By the way, is this the same Grandma that he threw under the bus over the Rev Wright issue?
Dthomas
I follow the campaign through Obama's website, moveon.org and the evening television news.
I was shocked to see that McCain performed better than Obama. CNN Pundit David Gergen said it should be a wakeup call for Obama - McCain will be formidable in the debates.
But now that I read that McCain probably cheated. That explains everything, now I can go back to the comfort of following the campaign through Huffington Post, NYT and MSNBC coverage.
OK run with this: Would you let someone who helped the Savings and Loans criminals and has the architect of the mortgage crisis working for him manage the economy? Would you have someone who graduated at the bottom of his college class run the country? Do you think someone who cheating on his wife represents your values? Do you want someone who has blurted out "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" to have his finger on the button?
I thought that Obama performed much better than McCain at the Saddleback forum. To me, Obama came across as much more genuine, thoughtful, intelligent, and "in the moment" than McCain. He wasn't afraid to walk us through the reasons for his opinions or to outline the complexities of the problems presented. He showed us the logic behind his decision-making. He seemed much more comfortable and relaxed throughout the conversation and gave answers that were more natural. I felt Obama was more open and honest than McCain.
Meanwhile, John McCain looked very jittery and uncomfortable to me. His answers came across as canned rather than conversational. He did not elaborate to the same extent as Obama. Warren tried to hint at this to McCain several times, in an attempt to get more substantive answers, but McCain seemed to prefer yes or no responses without acknowledging the complexities of many of the issues discussed. Perhaps some people just don't appreciate learning about the thought process behind a response and will hold it against Obama for trying to flesh out his reponses, but I appreciate the elaboration, and I think our candidates should be able to provide them.
Also, McCain frequently resorted to the same tired war stories that he's been telling for years. While some people like to listen to stories, it was too much for me. I felt it took McCain out of the moment and back into the past. Often his stories didn't squarely address the question. It's like he had been told "tell this story if the topic is X, tell this story if the topic is Y." You often see seniors do this in their declining years as a way to cover-up their confusion and slowed processing.
For me, McCain's utterly failed when it came to discussing his faith. The question presented was essentially how does his faith effect him in his daily life and this was a major theme of the forum. Obama gave a complete response to the question. I particularly liked his comment on marriage where he said that "god is in the mix." Rather than talking about how his faith effects him in his daily life, McCain resorted to one moment from decades ago. And then he wanted to move on asap. A huge purpose for that forum was to talk about faith, and McCain really didn't have much to say.
On a final note, McCain really showed his true colors with regard to the "cone of silence." The "cone of silence" was a major condition of the forum. It was intended to prevent one candidate from gaining an unfair advantage over the other by learning of the questions ahead of time. With this as a major condition of the forum, a responsible candidate would have made sure that he was there on time in order to abide by the rules of the forum. Instead of showing up on time and honoring the rules of the forum, McCain showed his slacker ways by not being there on time. Even worse, when Warren told everyone that McCain had been in the "cone of silence," McCain didn't correct Warren. In doing so, he essentially allowed Warren to make a liar of himself. In essence, McCain, right there in front of everyone, made the conscious decision to allow the pastor, the audience, and everyone watching to be misled. Regardless of whether you believe that McCain abused the situation to learn the questions ahead of time, McCain's failure to speak up and tell the truth when Warren told everyone that McCain had been in the "cone of silence" was dishonest and it was dishonorable. It is highly reminiscent of the manipulative, misleading, and secretive ways of the Bush administration.
LOL, the reaction from the Dems smacks of real fear and desperation.
Lets face it folks, the Dems are terrified because according to them and all logic, Obama should be about 35 points ahead.
The problem is that the Democrats and their media have spun this election as a "slam dunk" for the Democrats and the Dems took on the air of inevitability from day one.
Now, with McCain doing even half as well as he is it is causing panic amongst the Dems.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. This wasn't supposed to happen.
Maybe all this time the Democrats have spent undermining America and the administration has finally come home to roost and America see's the party for what it is. And America doesn't like it. The Democrat congress, with the lowest approval rating in history, proves it.
I follow the campaign through Obama's website, moveon.org and the evening television news.
I was shocked to see that McCain performed better than Obama. CNN Pundit David Gergen said it should be a wakeup call for Obama - McCain will be formidable in the debates.
But now that I read that McCain probably cheated. That explains everything, now I can go back to the comfort of following the campaign through Huffington Post, NYT and MSNBC coverage.
I thought that Obama performed much better than McCain at the Saddleback forum. To me, Obama came across as much more genuine, thoughtful, intelligent, and "in the moment" than McCain. He wasn't afraid to walk us through the reasons for his opinions or to outline the complexities of the problems presented. He showed us the logic behind his decision-making. He seemed much more comfortable and relaxed throughout the conversation and gave answers that were more natural. I felt Obama was more open and honest than McCain.
Meanwhile, John McCain looked very jittery and uncomfortable to me. His answers came across as canned rather than conversational. He did not elaborate to the same extent as Obama. Warren tried to hint at this to McCain several times, in an attempt to get more substantive answers, but McCain seemed to prefer yes or no responses without acknowledging the complexities of many of the issues discussed. Perhaps some people just don't appreciate learning about the thought process behind a response and will hold it against Obama for trying to flesh out his reponses, but I appreciate the elaboration, and I think our candidates should be able to provide them.
Also, McCain frequently resorted to the same tired war stories that he's been telling for years. While some people like to listen to stories, it was too much for me. I felt it took McCain out of the moment and back into the past. Often his stories didn't squarely address the question. It's like he had been told "tell this story if the topic is X, tell this story if the topic is Y." You often see seniors do this in their declining years as a way to cover-up their confusion and slowed processing.
For me, McCain's utterly failed when it came to discussing his faith. The question presented was essentially how does his faith effect him in his daily life and this was a major theme of the forum. Obama gave a complete response to the question. I particularly liked his comment on marriage where he said that "god is in the mix." Rather than talking about how his faith effects him in his daily life, McCain resorted to one moment from decades ago. And then he wanted to move on asap. A huge purpose for that forum was to talk about faith, and McCain really didn't have much to say.
On a final note, McCain really showed his true colors with regard to the "cone of silence." The "cone of silence" was a major condition of the forum. It was intended to prevent one candidate from gaining an unfair advantage over the other by learning of the questions ahead of time. With this as a major condition of the forum, a responsible candidate would have made sure that he was there on time in order to abide by the rules of the forum. Instead of showing up on time and honoring the rules of the forum, McCain showed his slacker ways by not being there on time. Even worse, when Warren told everyone that McCain had been in the "cone of silence," McCain didn't correct Warren. In doing so, he essentially allowed Warren to make a liar of himself. In essence, McCain, right there in front of everyone, made the conscious decision to allow the pastor, the audience, and everyone watching to be misled. Regardless of whether you believe that McCain abused the situation to learn the questions ahead of time, McCain's failure to speak up and tell the truth when Warren told everyone that McCain had been in the "cone of silence" was dishonest and it was dishonorable. It is highly reminiscent of the manipulative, misleading, and secretive ways of the Bush administration.
McCain was SOOoo rehearsed at that forum..He'd OBVIOUSLY been given the ?s ahead of time...
He was pandering to the far right and it was shameful. Only an idiot couldn't see through the set up. McCain should change his name to McCheater.
It seems the question has evolved from "Does the Left seem desperate" to "Why did McCain need to lie?"
If Obama or anyone in his camp accused him of cheating it would simply be seen as the guy who "lost" the discussion (apparently that's possible in today's politics) having sour grapes and being desperate.
As an agnostic American, I'm offended and disappointed that in the 21st century we evaluate our potential 'leaders' at a forum in the home of an evangelical community where the candidates are required to display their 'Christian' bonafides.
I can only hope (it looks like a slim hope) that my young granddaughter will live in an America where we choose our leaders based on reason and reality; instead of ancient tribal beliefs.
It seems the question has evolved from "Does the Left seem desperate" to "Why did McCain need to lie?"
As a Christian, I am surprised to hear people say John McCain "won." I didn't see it that way at all. I found Obama's answers honest, thoughtful and nuanced. McCain's seemed rehearsed. After being used by the GOP the last two elections, I am NOT going to buy into their nonsense any more. I am partly to blame for George Bush, and I humbly accept that mistake.
I will not make it again.
It was glaringly evident at the end of the Rick Warren special that what we feared was true. Obama is in over his head. McCain has had a longer and richer life and 25 years in the Senate serving his country. He has a quick and solid grasp of world affairs and undestands this country. Obamas people knew he did not do well and that is why they will not let him do town hall meetings where the audience askes the questions and there is no teleprompter.
We have heard these answers from McCain before in his book and in person.
Accusing a person of Rick Warren's stature of doing anything under handed is rediculous. The Obama people see that this elaborate creation of thiers is starting to crack. Obama is no where near qualified to hold the job of leader of the free world. A gifted tongue will not be enough.
Experience and wisdom that comes with age does matter.
McCain was SOOoo rehearsed at that forum..He'd OBVIOUSLY been given the ?s ahead of time...
He was pandering to the far right and it was shameful. Only an idiot couldn't see through the set up. McCain should change his name to McCheater.
As an agnostic American, I'm offended and disappointed that in the 21st century we evaluate our potential 'leaders' at a forum in the home of an evangelical community where the candidates are required to display their 'Christian' bonafides.
I can only hope (it looks like a slim hope) that my young granddaughter will live in an America where we choose our leaders based on reason and reality; instead of ancient tribal beliefs.
LOL, the reaction from the Dems smacks of real fear and desperation.
Lets face it folks, the Dems are terrified because according to them and all logic, Obama should be about 35 points ahead.
The problem is that the Democrats and their media have spun this election as a "slam dunk" for the Democrats and the Dems took on the air of inevitability from day one.
Now, with McCain doing even half as well as he is it is causing panic amongst the Dems.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. This wasn't supposed to happen.
Maybe all this time the Democrats have spent undermining America and the administration has finally come home to roost and America see's the party for what it is. And America doesn't like it. The Democrat congress, with the lowest approval rating in history, proves it.
It's 3:00 a.m. and a National Security decision is required. In McCain's Oval Office you have Gen. Petraeus, Congressman Lewis and Meg Whitman.
In Obama's Oval office you have Grandma and the wife!!
By the way, is this the same Grandma that he threw under the bus over the Rev Wright issue?
Dthomas
McCain was SOOoo rehearsed at that forum..He'd OBVIOUSLY been given the ?s ahead of time...
He was pandering to the far right and it was shameful. Only an idiot couldn't see through the set up. McCain should change his name to McCheater.
When you post a comment, you are taken to a strangely formatted comments page (at least you are in IE), but don't refresh from this page, or your comment will be posted again. Just go back until you are on Megan's front page and reenter the comments section.
Of course, this advice is predicated on the belief that the multiply posted comments are accidents and not an attempt shout people down.
Was McCain in the cone of silence? No.
Did McCain have a chance to cheat? Yes.
Is there any reason to think that a presidential campaign would not cheat if it had the chance? No.
But what does it matter? Obama went into the lion's den and survived.
As an agnostic American, I'm offended and disappointed that in the 21st century we evaluate our potential 'leaders' at a forum in the home of an evangelical community where the candidates are required to display their 'Christian' bonafides.
I can only hope (it looks like a slim hope) that my young granddaughter will live in an America where we choose our leaders based on reason and reality; instead of ancient tribal beliefs.
Thanks for the heads-up, Yancey. sorry for the inadvertent multiple posts.
bluecedars said "I can only hope (it looks like a slim hope) that my young granddaughter will live in an America where we choose our leaders based on reason and reality; instead of ancient tribal beliefs."
The vast majority of those who claim to be agnostic really mean that they hate Christianity exclusively.
I bet you are one of the first people to pay deference to, and make excuses for Muslims, Buddhists, Earth Worshipers, and primative peoples who actually practice "ancient tribal beliefs" and every other "tribal belief" - except Christianity.
In your world is it only Christianity that should be outlawed or do you want an "Imagine There's No Religion" world regarding ALL religions?
Tell you what, why don’t you start with outlawing Radical Islamic Fundamentalism – then come back when you have accomplished that one, to start shutting down the rest of the "tribal belief systems".
There is certainly a way to wipe a religion off the face of the earth – it’s just that few have the real cajones to do what it actually takes to make it happen. Short of that, you will never get rid of "ancient tribal beliefs".
Megan,
I am amazed at how much rage your clear eyed straight forward observations have generated. The Sadddleback venue was one everybody knew was better suited to McCain's style. I'm sure Obama would wipe the floor with McCain if they had to each give a 45 minute address to the Harvard Faculty Club. On the questions and his answers, I don't think McCain got a single question he had not answered a dozen times before over the past few months.
What is it that the left has to demonize its opponents? I'm old enough to remember that Adlai was a genius and Ike was a dumb bell, same for Reagan and both Bushes. The left must see the other side's candidate as a criminal or a dope if not both plus being crazy at the same time. There is something sick about this, self delusion. I didn't vote for Mondahl or Dukakas but I never doubted they were serious honest intelligent guys with different politics than me. And Bill Clinton, well, he was a scamp and seemed to admit it himself.
John Kelly
Obama's main appeal is to change the gotcha politics of today and I will support him for that. That said, he has to get elected and if it means fighting fire with fire by casting doubt on his opponent where ever he can, fine. Get elected, then set about changing the system so it works better for all of us.
I personally could care less about the cross story with the huge exception of if it's ok for McCain to keep repeating it ad nauseum, then it's ok for Wes Clark to question whether that experience qualifies a person to lead the free world.
The cheating thing is pretty dumb as well with the one exception of IF McCain did hear the questions beforehand, why was it he could only muster his well memorized stump speech stories and jokes?
And why is Obama constantly called out for being non-specific about his *plan* when McCain is lauded for answering questions with these stoogy war stories and more jokes?
Keep the footing equal and folks won't complain so much...on either side. Better yet, limit our conversation to the serious problems we have facing us rather than all this fluff and we'd all be better for it.
It's just another lie from another Republican.
Is the press going to cover it? Why start now? McCain just does and says whatever he wants and the media lays down for him.
I can hardly blame superrich people for trying to trick the rest of us into voting for their candidate. They are good at making and keeping more than their share... it's how they got rich in the first place.
John McCain is too old to remember any qusetions even though he might have secretly heard it. Forunately, he was asked questions dear to Conservatives and right wing Christian groups and seems he had parrotted that questions and answers.
In reality, Obama is much greater than this old man, who has almsot passed his useful life without making a dent in the human life of any American and he would like to continur the failed Bush-cheney policies to kill more human beings, waste more billions of wealthy tax cuts and wedge wars with many other Nations. McCain is not good for democrats, Republicans and 90% Americans. On the other hand, Obama has real human agendas which will not change only America but the entire world, more peaceful, resourceful, just and fair for all.
I thought that Obama performed much better than McCain at the Saddleback forum. To me, Obama came across as much more genuine, thoughtful, intelligent, and "in the moment" than McCain. He wasn't afraid to walk us through the reasons for his opinions or to outline the complexities of the problems presented. He showed us the logic behind his decision-making. He seemed much more comfortable and relaxed throughout the conversation and gave answers that were more natural. I felt Obama was more open and honest than McCain.
Meanwhile, John McCain looked very jittery and uncomfortable to me. His answers came across as canned rather than conversational. He did not elaborate to the same extent as Obama. Warren tried to hint at this to McCain several times, in an attempt to get more substantive answers, but McCain seemed to prefer yes or no responses without acknowledging the complexities of many of the issues discussed. Perhaps some people just don't appreciate learning about the thought process behind a response and will hold it against Obama for trying to flesh out his reponses, but I appreciate the elaboration, and I think our candidates should be able to provide them.
Also, McCain frequently resorted to the same tired war stories that he's been telling for years. While some people like to listen to stories, it was too much for me. I felt it took McCain out of the moment and back into the past. Often his stories didn't squarely address the question. It's like he had been told "tell this story if the topic is X, tell this story if the topic is Y." You often see seniors do this in their declining years as a way to cover-up their confusion and slowed processing.
For me, McCain's utterly failed when it came to discussing his faith. The question presented was essentially how does his faith effect him in his daily life and this was a major theme of the forum. Obama gave a complete response to the question. I particularly liked his comment on marriage where he said that "god is in the mix." Rather than talking about how his faith effects him in his daily life, McCain resorted to one moment from decades ago. And then he wanted to move on asap. A huge purpose for that forum was to talk about faith, and McCain really didn't have much to say.
On a final note, McCain really showed his true colors with regard to the "cone of silence." The "cone of silence" was a major condition of the forum. It was intended to prevent one candidate from gaining an unfair advantage over the other by learning of the questions ahead of time. With this as a major condition of the forum, a responsible candidate would have made sure that he was there on time in order to abide by the rules of the forum. Instead of showing up on time and honoring the rules of the forum, McCain showed his slacker ways by not being there on time. Even worse, when Warren told everyone that McCain had been in the "cone of silence," McCain didn't correct Warren. In doing so, he essentially allowed Warren to make a liar of himself. In essence, McCain, right there in front of everyone, made the conscious decision to allow the pastor, the audience, and everyone watching to be misled. Regardless of whether you believe that McCain abused the situation to learn the questions ahead of time, McCain's failure to speak up and tell the truth when Warren told everyone that McCain had been in the "cone of silence" was dishonest and it was dishonorable. It is highly reminiscent of the manipulative, misleading, and secretive ways of the Bush administration.
The biggest question is this:
Why was the first personal exchange between the two major party presumptive nominees held in a Church?
Rick Warren.....
"Senator How did you like the CONE OF SILENCE ?"
John McCain.....
"I tried to put my head to the wall to see if I could hear any questions" Laugh Laugh
It's not about the crime..... it's all about the cover up.
Jon posted: From the transcript of the interview with McCain:
MCCAIN: ARE WE GOING TO GET BACK TO THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.
McCain had not talked at all about Supreme Court justices with Warren. That question had only been asked of Obama at that point. So how did he know?
Posted by Jon | August 18, 2008 11:48 AM
A more important question is Rick's response:
MCCAIN: ARE WE GOING TO GET BACK TO THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES.
WARREN: WE'LL GET TO THAT.
MCCAIN: ALL RIGHT. OKAY.
WARREN: YOU GOT ALL MY QUESTIONS, GOOD.
Okay, so was McCain the only one who got the questions before hand? Did Obama? Was it ten minutes before or 2 weeks before?
I don't care if either him or Obama had the questions ahead of time. Of course, the questions weren't "out there". They were very predictable given the forum. And if McCain did listen and had an hour to prep, seriously, do you think it helped him so much? He already had answers for these types of questions. An extra hour wouldn't give him time to come up with an answer. He might have polished his answer a little more, thats it.
Nailer;
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." - Mark Twain
You'd lose your bet! I have studied several of these magical beliefs, and there all the same: Show Business. i.e., suspension of disbelief. I don't want to go into the obvious hoax of some guy going to the mountain, desert, cave, etc, and coming home with the claim that 'God' spoke to him. That's fine for him, don't ask me to believe it.
I refer you to Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, etc, for a more detailed refutation of this nonsense.
Obama should challenge McCHEATER to a Do-OVER Faith Debate in an open air venue (no tickets open to everyone)and a progressive MCC minister as MC.
Put a big glass sound proof box on stage and make McCheater sit in it for an hour.
if McCain refuses...let Americans make up their own minds WHY.
I thought that Obama performed much better than McCain at the Saddleback forum. To me, Obama came across as much more genuine, thoughtful, intelligent, and "in the moment" than McCain. He wasn't afraid to walk us through the reasons for his opinions or to outline the complexities of the problems presented. He showed us the logic behind his decision-making. He seemed much more comfortable and relaxed throughout the conversation and gave answers that were more natural. I felt Obama was more open and honest than McCain.
Meanwhile, John McCain looked very jittery and uncomfortable to me. His answers came across as canned rather than conversational. He did not elaborate to the same extent as Obama. Warren tried to hint at this to McCain several times, in an attempt to get more substantive answers, but McCain seemed to prefer yes or no responses without acknowledging the complexities of many of the issues discussed. Perhaps some people just don't appreciate learning about the thought process behind a response and will hold it against Obama for trying to flesh out his reponses, but I appreciate the elaboration, and I think our candidates should be able to provide them.
Also, McCain frequently resorted to the same tired war stories that he's been telling for years. While some people like to listen to stories, it was too much for me. I felt it took McCain out of the moment and back into the past. Often his stories didn't squarely address the question. It's like he had been told "tell this story if the topic is X, tell this story if the topic is Y." You often see seniors do this in their declining years as a way to cover-up their confusion and slowed processing.
For me, McCain's utterly failed when it came to discussing his faith. The question presented was essentially how does his faith effect him in his daily life and this was a major theme of the forum. Obama gave a complete response to the question. I particularly liked his comment on marriage where he said that "god is in the mix." Rather than talking about how his faith effects him in his daily life, McCain resorted to one moment from decades ago. And then he wanted to move on asap. A huge purpose for that forum was to talk about faith, and McCain really didn't have much to say.
On a final note, McCain really showed his true colors with regard to the "cone of silence." The "cone of silence" was a major condition of the forum. It was intended to prevent one candidate from gaining an unfair advantage over the other by learning of the questions ahead of time. With this as a major condition of the forum, a responsible candidate would have made sure that he was there on time in order to abide by the rules of the forum. Instead of showing up on time and honoring the rules of the forum, McCain showed his slacker ways by not being there on time. Even worse, when Warren told everyone that McCain had been in the "cone of silence," McCain didn't correct Warren. In doing so, he essentially allowed Warren to make a liar of himself. In essence, McCain, right there in front of everyone, made the conscious decision to allow the pastor, the audience, and everyone watching to be misled. Regardless of whether you believe that McCain abused the situation to learn the questions ahead of time, McCain's failure to speak up and tell the truth when Warren told everyone that McCain had been in the "cone of silence" was dishonest and it was dishonorable. It is highly reminiscent of the manipulative, misleading, and secretive ways of the Bush administration.
Wow,
The Obamabots are out in their full brown shirted fury today.
Sadly, we've come to the place where too many people think cheating is ok if you get away with it. Perhaps part of the fault for this is sports, where commentators will note when a wily old pro gets away with a cheat by doing it where the ref doesn't see. McCain has learned a lot about how to cheat over the years and obviously the right wingers love that about him.
Louis: all the proof you need about who was to blame lies right in your own post - "I believe we all helped vote in a democratic congress that has done very little to turn things around in this country. "
Why, Louis, did things need "turning around" when the Democrats were elected in 2006? The answer to that question counters both of your arguments. Republicans controlled Congress from 2002-2006 and didn't veto or even oppose anything the President did for 4 full years. That includes no opposition to the President's unprecedented use of signing statements that neutralized Congress' role as it was described in the Civics course you still think applies. What we have today is the direct result of Republican actions and failure by the Democrats to reverse those actions. If you feel that makes both parties equally to blame, then I feel sorry for you.
I thought that Obama performed much better than McCain at the Saddleback forum. To me, Obama came across as much more genuine, thoughtful, intelligent, and "in the moment" than McCain. He wasn't afraid to walk us through the reasons for his opinions or to outline the complexities of the problems presented. He showed us the logic behind his decision-making. He seemed much more comfortable and relaxed throughout the conversation and gave answers that were more natural. I felt Obama was more open and honest than McCain.
Meanwhile, John McCain looked very jittery and uncomfortable to me. His answers came across as canned rather than conversational. He did not elaborate to the same extent as Obama. Warren tried to hint at this to McCain several times, in an attempt to get more substantive answers, but McCain seemed to prefer yes or no responses without acknowledging the complexities of many of the issues discussed. Perhaps some people just don't appreciate learning about the thought process behind a response and will hold it against Obama for trying to flesh out his reponses, but I appreciate the elaboration, and I think our candidates should be able to provide them.
Also, McCain frequently resorted to the same tired war stories that he's been telling for years. While some people like to listen to stories, it was too much for me. I felt it took McCain out of the moment and back into the past. Often his stories didn't squarely address the question. It's like he had been told "tell this story if the topic is X, tell this story if the topic is Y." You often see seniors do this in their declining years as a way to cover-up their confusion and slowed processing.
For me, McCain's utterly failed when it came to discussing his faith. The question presented was essentially how does his faith effect him in his daily life and this was a major theme of the forum. Obama gave a complete response to the question. I particularly liked his comment on marriage where he said that "god is in the mix." Rather than talking about how his faith effects him in his daily life, McCain resorted to one moment from decades ago. And then he wanted to move on asap. A huge purpose for that forum was to talk about faith, and McCain really didn't have much to say.
On a final note, McCain really showed his true colors with regard to the "cone of silence." The "cone of silence" was a major condition of the forum. It was intended to prevent one candidate from gaining an unfair advantage over the other by learning of the questions ahead of time. With this as a major condition of the forum, a responsible candidate would have made sure that he was there on time in order to abide by the rules of the forum. Instead of showing up on time and honoring the rules of the forum, McCain showed his slacker ways by not being there on time. Even worse, when Warren told everyone that McCain had been in the "cone of silence," McCain didn't correct Warren. In doing so, he essentially allowed Warren to make a liar of himself. In essence, McCain, right there in front of everyone, made the conscious decision to allow the pastor, the audience, and everyone watching to be misled. Regardless of whether you believe that McCain abused the situation to learn the questions ahead of time, McCain's failure to speak up and tell the truth when Warren told everyone that McCain had been in the "cone of silence" was dishonest and it was dishonorable. It is highly reminiscent of the manipulative, misleading, and secretive ways of the Bush administration.
bluecedars said "I can only hope (it looks like a slim hope) that my young granddaughter will live in an America where we choose our leaders based on reason and reality; instead of ancient tribal beliefs."
The vast majority of those who claim to be agnostic really mean that they hate Christianity exclusively.
I bet you are one of the first people to pay deference to, and make excuses for Muslims, Buddhists, Earth Worshipers, and primative peoples who actually practice "ancient tribal beliefs" and every other "tribal belief" - except Christianity.
In your world is it only Christianity that should be outlawed or do you want an "Imagine There's No Religion" world regarding ALL religions?
Tell you what, why don’t you start with outlawing Radical Islamic Fundamentalism – then come back when you have accomplished that one, to start shutting down the rest of the "tribal belief systems".
There is certainly a way to wipe a religion off the face of the earth – it’s just that few have the real cajones to do what it actually takes to make it happen. Short of that, you will never get rid of "ancient tribal beliefs".
If McCain had answered his questions in the debate like Obama does with ah, oh, ooh, hum, ah, oh, etc. etc. you know the media & left wingers would have said "see he is senile, he has Alzheimers" What will kill this guy is when the public finds out his stand on partial birth abortion. Let the baby die if it survives an abortion. How cold is this guy, bitter cold? Shame on Barack Hussein Obama & he calls himself a Christian??
Obama, starts with a Zero, not an O.
RW
Colorado
I believe McCain. He was a POW for 5 years and it would not surprise me that at least one guard would have gained some respect for this man during those 5 years and yes ....drawn a cross.
What democrats need to remember here is that John Kerry came very close to selecting John McCain as his VP in 2004. So if McCain was good enough to be considered as Kerry's VP as a Republican, on the democratic ticket 4 years ago, then what changed? In the past 4 years McCain was responsible for insisting on a surge that worked.....is that why dems are now so against McCain? Or is it the Bush taxcuts that McCain originally opposed but now favors because of the ecconomic crisis we are in?.........Those Bush taxcuts could not have passed without many democrats voting for it.
Read Andrew Sullivan's column in The Atlantic. In it, OBAMA admits to 'cheating'--his words--by doing some advance research for the debate!
"In his official correspondence to both campaigns, Pastor Rick Warren provided both candidates with information regarding the topic areas to be covered, which Barack Obama acknowledged during the forum when asked about Pastor Warren's idea of an emergency plan for orphans and Obama said, "I cheated a little bit. I actually looked at this idea ahead of time, and I think it is a great idea;"
I thought that Obama performed much better than McCain at the Saddleback forum. To me, Obama came across as much more genuine, thoughtful, intelligent, and "in the moment" than McCain. He wasn't afraid to walk us through the reasons for his opinions or to outline the complexities of the problems presented. He showed us the logic behind his decision-making. He seemed much more comfortable and relaxed throughout the conversation and gave answers that were more natural. I felt Obama was more open and honest than McCain.
Meanwhile, John McCain looked very jittery and uncomfortable to me. His answers came across as canned rather than conversational. He did not elaborate to the same extent as Obama. Warren tried to hint at this to McCain several times, in an attempt to get more substantive answers, but McCain seemed to prefer yes or no responses without acknowledging the complexities of many of the issues discussed. Perhaps some people just don't appreciate learning about the thought process behind a response and will hold it against Obama for trying to flesh out his reponses, but I appreciate the elaboration, and I think our candidates should be able to provide them.
Also, McCain frequently resorted to the same tired war stories that he's been telling for years. While some people like to listen to stories, it was too much for me. I felt it took McCain out of the moment and back into the past. Often his stories didn't squarely address the question. It's like he had been told "tell this story if the topic is X, tell this story if the topic is Y." You often see seniors do this in their declining years as a way to cover-up their confusion and slowed processing.
For me, McCain's utterly failed when it came to discussing his faith. The question presented was essentially how does his faith effect him in his daily life and this was a major theme of the forum. Obama gave a complete response to the question. I particularly liked his comment on marriage where he said that "god is in the mix." Rather than talking about how his faith effects him in his daily life, McCain resorted to one moment from decades ago. And then he wanted to move on asap. A huge purpose for that forum was to talk about faith, and McCain really didn't have much to say.
On a final note, McCain really showed his true colors with regard to the "cone of silence." The "cone of silence" was a major condition of the forum. It was intended to prevent one candidate from gaining an unfair advantage over the other by learning of the questions ahead of time. With this as a major condition of the forum, a responsible candidate would have made sure that he was there on time in order to abide by the rules of the forum. Instead of showing up on time and honoring the rules of the forum, McCain showed his slacker ways by not being there on time. Even worse, when Warren told everyone that McCain had been in the "cone of silence," McCain didn't correct Warren. In doing so, he essentially allowed Warren to make a liar of himself. In essence, McCain, right there in front of everyone, made the conscious decision to allow the pastor, the audience, and everyone watching to be misled. Regardless of whether you believe that McCain abused the situation to learn the questions ahead of time, McCain's failure to speak up and tell the truth when Warren told everyone that McCain had been in the "cone of silence" was dishonest and it was dishonorable. It is highly reminiscent of the manipulative, misleading, and secretive ways of the Bush administration.
My apologies for the multiple posts. I was hitting "refresh" trying to follow the conversation and apparently this was re-posting.
I believe McCain. He was a POW for 5 years and it would not surprise me that at least one guard would have gained some respect for this man during those 5 years and yes ....drawn a cross.
What democrats need to remember here is that John Kerry came very close to selecting John McCain as his VP in 2004. So if McCain was good enough to be considered as Kerry's VP as a Republican, on the democratic ticket 4 years ago, then what changed? In the past 4 years McCain was responsible for insisting on a surge that worked.....is that why dems are now so against McCain? Or is it the Bush taxcuts that McCain originally opposed but now favors because of the ecconomic crisis we are in?.........Those Bush taxcuts could not have passed without many democrats voting for it.
jodi writes: "Or is it the Bush taxcuts that McCain originally opposed but now favors because of the ecconomic crisis we are in?.........Those Bush taxcuts could not have passed without many democrats voting for it."
Are you an idiot, jodi? The Bush tax cuts could have passed without a single Democrat voting for them. The Republicans had control of both the House and the Senate at the time. Go back to Civics class. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
"So if McCain was good enough to be considered as Kerry's VP as a Republican, on the democratic ticket 4 years ago, then what changed?"
This proves it really can't be said often enough that the "Maverick" McCain is a distant memory of better times, replaced by a shell of a politician willing to say anything and change any deeply-held position to ingratiate himself with the GOP party leadership. This is the same leadership, mind you, that presided over the destruction of the Republican "brand" such that no credible observer expects them to make any gains this election. While GOP Congressional leadership advises their rank and file to break with the party line if necessary to win votes, McCain has been laboring to win their blessing and approval by becoming one of the extremists. That, my friends, is leadership we can count on... to dig us further into this ditch.
The truely telling thing is that Warren said that he gave both men the first 2 questions and Obama?Soetoro came up with MEchelle and his Granny? This should concern all American citizens!! I do not want MEchelle making ANY decisions about anything American!! This is the kind of "Judgement" that Soetoro puts forth as superior? Give me a break!!
WWW.BARRYSOETORO.COM
SURPRISE!!
wow, I think andrew sullivan has lot it.
You write: I've obviously seen the tightening national polls, and what I'm starting to hear is that among likelies and battlegrounds, McCain's gaining a commanding lead. Since I'm hearing that from McCain supporters, however, I've been a little sceptical. >>>>
You ought to be. If you look at the Gallup tracking poll, Obama has maintained a small but consistent lead for the entire summer, including today, when he is up by 46-43. Realclearpolitics and Pollster.com, which chart polls in the aggregate, show a similar pattern. Both of them also project a lead for Obama in the Electoral College, based upon state polls. If anyone should be worrying, it should be McCain supporters, since almost all the battlegrounds are in what used to be red states.
Patrick,
Just looking at the state polls on RealClearPolitics suggests the EC projections are already out of date. McCain leads in Colorado, Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. Without any of those, there is no way Obama leads the EC.
The truely telling thing is that Warren said that he gave both men the first 2 questions and Obama?Soetoro came up with MEchelle and his Granny? This should concern all American citizens!! I do not want MEchelle making ANY decisions about anything American!! This is the kind of "Judgement" that Soetoro puts forth as superior? Give me a break!!
WWW.BARRYSOETORO.COM
SURPRISE!!
Conspiracy my ass, McCain cheated. Why couldn't McCain be at the meeting on time? That alone is cheating.
To recap:
1. McCain promised to be in the cone of silence. He broke that promise.
2. When asked about the cone of silence by Rick Warren, the pastor of the church whose debate he was attending, McCain lied about having broken his promise to be in the cone of silence.
3. When exposed as having broken his promise to be in the cone of silence and lying about it on national television, McCain's campaign insisted he could not have cheated because he is a war hero, notwithstanding the fact that he had just been caught breaking a promise and lying about it on national television to man of faith in his own church.
4. Whether he cheated or not, it is a fact that McCain had the opportunity to cheat.
Isn't this obviously a loss for McCain? This doesn't look like straight-talk to me. Frankly, I didn't get to catch the Saddleback debate when it first happened, and I watched it after hearing McCain may have cheated. His performance didn't look so good when I suspected the performer was a cheating liar.
I agree with the conclusion that there is no way the Saddleback Controversy ever be proven one way or another and it needs to go to bed. I don't, however, think that one needs to be a conspiracy nut to realize that inconsistencies abound in the explanations given on all sides. To ask these questions is not unreasonable and the defensive responses from Warren and the McCain campaign don't help matters.
The Bush tax cuts could have passed without a single Democrat voting for them. The Republicans had control of both the House and the Senate at the time.
Not quite true. The first round of tax cuts were in 2001, when the Senate was in Democratic hands. Only the second round passed in 2003 when both houses were controlled by Republicans.
But even for the second round, the Reps did not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, so both rounds of tax cuts required some amount of bipartisan support to be passed.
Megan, you're conflating two points here.
First, did McCain actually cheat, in the sense that one of his staffers listened to Obama and sent another staff an email with some of the questions? As you say, we can't know the answer to that question. (And no, cell phone records couldn't prove McCain's innocence, unless somehow you could know that you had all of the cell numbers.)
Second, did McCain deliberately break the rules that were supposed to make it impossible for him to cheat? There the answer is simple: Yes, he did. He hadn't even left his hotel when Warren started to question Obama.
It's like a dealer refusing to cut the cards: maybe he's not cheating, but you have only his word for it.
This from freerepublic........
Hmmmm. Looks like McCain has been reading Solzhenitsyn.
From The Mayor's daily posts at FR's Finest and The Canteen from the devotional "Our Daily Bread" comes Sunday's reading...
World-famous Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was sent to a Siberian prison because he criticized communism. Languishing there under intolerable conditions year after year, he decided to end his life. But suicide, he firmly believed, would be against God's will. He thought it would be better for a guard to shoot him.
So at a public assembly of the prisoners, he sat in a front row, planning to get up and walk toward an exit, compelling a guard to kill him. But to his surprise, another prisoner sat down, blocking his exit. That unknown man leaned over and, to Solzhenitsyn's astonishment, drew a cross on the dirt floor.
Here's a direct link to that response:
http://www.freerepublic.com/...
The cross-in-the-dirt story turns out to be as true as Reagan's tale about how he personally helped liberate a concentration camp.
Do we really need another senile president?
This from freerepublic........
Hmmmm. Looks like McCain has been reading Solzhenitsyn.
From The Mayor's daily posts at FR's Finest and The Canteen from the devotional "Our Daily Bread" comes Sunday's reading...
World-famous Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was sent to a Siberian prison because he criticized communism. Languishing there under intolerable conditions year after year, he decided to end his life. But suicide, he firmly believed, would be against God's will. He thought it would be better for a guard to shoot him.
So at a public assembly of the prisoners, he sat in a front row, planning to get up and walk toward an exit, compelling a guard to kill him. But to his surprise, another prisoner sat down, blocking his exit. That unknown man leaned over and, to Solzhenitsyn's astonishment, drew a cross on the dirt floor.
Here's a direct link to that response:
http://www.freerepublic.com/...
One: Most Christians know that the persecuted Christians in Rome would identify themselves by idly scratching a sign (usually a fish) in the sand.
Two: The back story to the guard is that this guard would come in and release the tight painful cords that tightly bound McCain trying to break his will ; at the end of the shift he would reapply them. This deed was an act of pure charity, and the "cross" was a silent reason to tell McCain why he did it.
Three: McCain led prayer services, so the guard would know McCain was a Christian.
Four: This is the only guard that McCain went out of the way to visit when he helped Clinton reestablish relations with Viet Nam. The guard's charity helped McCain forgive his captors.
The real question is not the scratched cross, but the entire story...of kindness and forgiveness.
My question: Why isn't the press familiar with the story?
Miguel Zambrano writes: "This is the only guard that McCain went out of the way to visit when he helped Clinton reestablish relations with Viet Nam. The guard's charity helped McCain forgive his captors.
The real question is not the scratched cross, but the entire story...of kindness and forgiveness.
My question: Why isn't the press familiar with the story?"
They are. McCain has been pimping that story out for years, even though it's pure bullshit. As he was about to launch into it during the debate I said out loud, "Here comes the cross-in-the-dirt" story."
As for this supposed visit to the Christian guard, document it.
I believe all of the service acadamies have the honor code: 'I will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do.' There was a female midshipman who murdered a rival before entry in to the Naval Academy a few years ago. She told her roommate she had killed somebody; the roommate ignored this. Later she told somebody else. It was reported. Eventualy she and her boyfriend were given life in prison. By the way, the first person she told the story to was dismssed from the Academy 'for not abiding by the Honor Code.' By incidents perhaps not as dramatic as this, the Senator has been trained not to make the minor infraction he is suspected of; he managed not to do so or he would not have graduated Annapolis. I doubt that he did so here. He was joking with the pastor when he said 'He was straining to hear.'
With regard to the cross, the Emperor Constantine said he saw in the heavens, in 311, a cross and the words 'In Hoc Signo Vinces' prior to a battle with another tetrarch who he killed. He later imposed a Christianity that made the crucifixion the central event in the religion. Pagans gave up the old religion not because they got smarter but because the Emperor was abandoning the traditional Roman policy of tolerating religious pluralism; it was accept the cross (version Constantine 1) or die; Jews were partially exempted. Constantine wasn't Christian at the time of 'seeing the cross.' Ho Chi Minh had Catholic villages massacred in the North; so any remaining Catholics or their associates knew 'what formula to utter' but would remember the cross.
I didn't see the debate, but judging by the tenor of the comments here, the lefties obviously themselves consider that McCain wiped the floor with Obama to generate this much spittle-flecked (and puerile) ranting.
Michael writes: "By incidents perhaps not as dramatic as this, the Senator has been trained not to make the minor infraction he is suspected of; he managed not to do so or he would not have graduated Annapolis. I doubt that he did so here."
I have seen many, many extremely stupid things written in these comments, but the notion that McCain doesn't lie because he went to Annapolis is perhaps the dumbest yet.
Robert McFarlane and Oliver North, both notorious liars, went to the Academy, too. They both did better there than McCain, in fact.
Occam's Dingleberry says: "I didn't see the debate, but judging by the tenor of the comments here, the lefties obviously themselves consider that McCain wiped the floor with Obama to generate this much spittle-flecked (and puerile) ranting."
Ah, conservative syntax! It never ceases to amuse me.
Megan, I might suggest the implementation of a "user ignore" option, so as to allow those so inclined not to lose IQ points by reading the pointless drivel of, e.g., GrouchoHarpoAndKarl.
Re: I've obviously seen the tightening national polls,
The polls have been "tightening" for months, but this seems to be an asymptomtic movement: McCain never manages to quite catch up. Electoral victories are not usually pulled off by candidates who can't climb out of the low 40s in a two way race.
Well, yes, if you want ironclad proof that if you'd been hovering above the spot on Christmas Day, you'd not have seen a foot or stick or whatever drawing the cross--you don't have it and never will.
But if you apply ordinary standards of evidence to the incident, it seems unlikely to have occurred. When the first and most reliable accounts of McCain's imprisonment appeared, the cross incident was absent. Subsequently, it became a staple of evangelical lore. Then, decades later, in a campaign biography, the incident in its now canonical form (or something close) is reported.
One has to have a tender regard indeed for McCain's powers of recall, and a disregard for the ordinary path rumor and myth follow, to credit the report.
Maybe McCain has now come to believe the story as he now tells it, in which case it's not quite a lie. But McCain isn't a man of much faith, and to bolster his credentials for evangelicals, he has resorted to a falsehood. Or so the balance of the evidence suggests.
I'm not surprised that the ploy succeeds among the faithful, so strongly desirous as they are to determine how a pregnant woman spends the rest of her life. I am a little surprised at others' credulity--or is it that some falsehoods of some candidates, even though they're central to candidate's case, are to overlooked?
Mark Salter and Orson Swindle both confirm that the cross-in-the-sand story is true. Swindle heard it from McCain while they were both still POWs.
Maybe I should say that I believe that politically to challenge either the cone of silence story or the cross drawn in the sand story is a fool's errand.
But they're both untrue, and both instances of evangelicals credulity being taken advantage of.
(I thought it odd that a busy man like McCain would tolerate being incommunicado for an hour. But I thought he used the time to catch up on the reading. How naive of me.)
Here's Swindle's "denial" in it entirety:
"I recall John telling that story when we first got together in 1971, when were talking about every conceivable thing that had ever happened to us when we were in prison" Swindle told me a few minutes ago. "Most of us had been kept apart or in small groups. Then, in 1970, they moved us into the big cell. And when we all got to see each other and talk to each other directly, instead of tapping through walls, we had 24 hours a day, seven days a week to talk to each other, and we shared stories. I vaguely recall that story being told, among other stories."
"I remember it from prison," Swindle continued. "There were several stories similar to that in which guards — a very few, I might add — showed compassion to the prisoners. It was rare, and I never met one, but some of the guys did."
As for the people who are questioning McCain's account, Swindle said, "That's garbage. These people are desperate."
Maybe, in this situation, from a staunch friend, a "vaguely recall" satisfies some. Not me, and, more important, not anyone skilled in sifting evidence. (Not McCardle, I should hope.)
As for Salter, he's not a witness at all, let alone a disinterested one.
Joan H writes: "Mark Salter and Orson Swindle both confirm that the cross-in-the-sand story is true. Swindle heard it from McCain while they were both still POWs."
You've got to be kidding. Both of them are deep in McCain's pocket. Salter can't confirm ANYTHING, he just says McCain told him about it while he was writing McCain's book for him in 1998-1999. And Swindle said this May that he didn't recall them discussing their faith. Now he says he has a vague memory of it.
These two are about as credible here as Jerome Corsi is.
Fact: For years McCain has said that under torture he "confessed" the names of members of his unit, but that he gave his torturers the names of the Green Bay Packers offensive linemen.
Fact: In Pittsburgh this year he pandered to his audience shamelessly by claiming he gave the names of the Pittsburgh Steelers linemen instead.
Conclusion: McCain is willing to prostitute his POW experience and has lied about it for votes. Why should the cross-in-the-dirt story be taken seriously?
Whether or not you believe the story's veracity, Salter at least confirms that this story was not manufactured for the civil forum.
Two points can be taken from the debate and this discussion:
McCain won.
The left is insane.
Paging MoeLarryAndJesus. This one's right up your alley.
You people are nuts. McCain was telling a story, not defending a doctoral dissertation. To add a colorful detail (if he did, or if Obama might) to a fundamentally true story is not dishonest. And what conceivable difference does it make which team's linemen he named, or whether he tells the story different ways at different times. None of this impairs the reality of the experience or the integrity of the man. I think the Left has no concept of an honorable man, doesn't know one when they see him, and has a substantial investment in convincing people that there isn't any such thing. As usual, the people know better.
For all you folks who claim that McCain must have known the questions beforehand because his answers were so much better prepared than Obama's ... Remember, Warren has stated that he told both men the first two questions -- who are the three wisest people that you turn to for advice, and what are your own personal failures -- several days before the forum. They both had time to prepare their answers to these two questions. And Obama still gave that smarmy answer about his wife and his grandmother.
Face it, lefties -- the fact that McCain cleaned Obama's clock is not evidence that he cheated. Obama just wasn't as good as you thought he would be.
I just saw Megan on Bloggingheads TV for the first time talking with some other intellectual hottie.
BHTV is porn for geeks. Awsome!!
Obama is the classroom bound prof engaged in an endless loop of philosophical mondering.
McCain is the old dude who's spent a lifetime pulling his ass out of the fire and grappling with the realities of the world.
Academics like Obama don't care about the plumbing or the wiring...I'd be surprised if the guy could work a plunger.
You libs are so pathetic. McCain kicked Obama's ass Sat. night. Of course when you lefties get beat at anything you cry foul play.
Memo to Democrats......get your bottles of Excedrin Migrane and tums ready because come the morning of Nov. 5th our gonna need them.
Hussein O looked like the dofus he always does without a teleprompter loaded with answers by the white guy behind the curtain. Forget the cross story. Other prisoners at the Hanoi Hilton have already verified it as true. Forget the cheating angle, it wasn't McCains answers that made Hussein look like a 4th grader, it was Hussein's poor cover up answers, lies, or failure to answer. I'm above the pay grade to make a decision and will never set a record for voting 'here' to avoid making a decision. McCain has gave the same answers for years so didn't have to try and remember who he told what lie to like Hussein does every time he's off the teleprompter.
Liberal can prove it all. Just demand Hussein follow through on his primise to debate anywhere, anytime, not only at three canned debates ran by left wing liberal news hacks. Open town hall meeting as he promised or put that on the list of over 100 verified lies he's told in the past couple of months.
There is no surprise in the fact McCain outperformed Obama by a mile. If you look at Obama's gaffes throughout the campaign when he is unscripted the trend is there. Obama with a teleprompter sounds confident and imposing, without it he is bumbling and inarticulate. Why? Because Obama is the most inexperienced, unqualified and unaccomplished major party nominee EVER. He is propped up by Obamabots and media sycophants and would crumple like a house of cards without them. His aura is evaporating fast and he is trying to run out the clock as moderates and centrist voters abandon him.
Joan H writes: "Whether or not you believe the story's veracity, Salter at least confirms that this story was not manufactured for the civil forum."
No one ever claimed it was, dingbat. It was in McCain's 1999 book and in the movie based on the book. McCain tells the story at the drop of a hat. He just never told it before 1999 or so.
Mahon writes: "You people are nuts. McCain was telling a story, not defending a doctoral dissertation. To add a colorful detail (if he did, or if Obama might) to a fundamentally true story is not dishonest. And what conceivable difference does it make which team's linemen he named, or whether he tells the story different ways at different times. None of this impairs the reality of the experience or the integrity of the man. I think the Left has no concept of an honorable man, doesn't know one when they see him, and has a substantial investment in convincing people that there isn't any such thing. As usual, the people know better."
Oh, he was just telling a STORY. That must be the new conservative word for "lie."
So if he tells the same story next week and he names the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who didn't even exist in 1968, that's fine with you?
You people are lunatic cult members and your new leader is a senile, lying, warmongering bastard. And his wife is a junkie and a homewrecking whore. Meanwhile you're all still claiming Dumbya has been a good president!
Insane, all of you!
I have a copy of "Faith of My Fathers" sitting here next to me, and as far as I can tell the cross anecdote does not appear in it. Can somebody give me a page reference?
I see the Dungeons and DKos crowd are out in force. Why won't the media drill McCain with your take on his captivity? Megan already laid it out--best case, you still can't prove he's lying, and worse case (admittedly unlikely) he can prove he isn't.
Face it, basement boys, the American people love guns, they love the military, they love drilling for oil, and they hate you.
Not hate as in, "are irritated by your BS."
Hate as in, look your IP addresses up.
Oh, and I somehow doubt that you'd be so aggressive face to face as you are on the Net, Three Stooges boy. (Are you saying you're fat enough to count as three people?)
A gun nut says: "Face it, basement boys, the American people love guns, they love the military, they love drilling for oil, and they hate you. "
There sure are a lot of stupid people out there. Of course the deployed members of the military are donating to Obama 6-1 over the senile shitbag McCain.
And I don't call him a shitbag lightly. The guy actually has a fecal incontinence problem. That's why he was late to the Saddleback event. He had an accident and his attendants had to hose him off and change his Depends.
Since one of his fellow POWs remembers him telling him that story in 1972 it's pretty much a non-starter as an attack on Senator McCain.
A KOS poster noticed a similarity between McCain's story and one Solzhenitsyn related in a book he wrote in 1973. Well, I recall the story from the 1962 film Barrabus, where a fellow slave in the Colosseum drew the sign of Pisces in the dirt for Barrabus's friend Sahek to see, to show that he was a Christian, too. Does that mean Solzhenitsyn cribbed the story from THAT???
Get real - Christians have had secret signs since they got driven out of Jerusalem by the Sanhedran. Anywhere the faith is driven underground by the local authorities you can count on them drawing either fish or crosses in the dirt to signal each other. Before the French were driven out of Vietnam there were Catholic communities up and down the country. The ones in the North had to go to ground after the Communists took over. It's perfectly reasonable that an NVA guard who remembered his Catholic upbringing would signal a fellow Christian with a cross draw in the sand there.
To say John McCain made up the story for political gain would require evidence that he routinely does so. Everyone who's ever dealt with the man, even his critics, says he's a straight arrow. They may disagree with his politics but they take him at his word. This is just another ridiculous, STUPID attack from the KOS kiddies.
BAAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAAA - You unhinged moonbat FOOLS picked a third rate intern who hasn't so much as run a lemonade stand, written a law review article, or accomplished anything other than convince a bunch of RUBES to send them their minimum wage paychecks!!!! He couldn't get a job in the mailroom at half in any of the industries he claims to know how to "fix". He has NO sense of humor, and is an empty suit gaffe machine that is affirmative action's answer to Dan Quayle (and that's an insult to Quayle considering we're talking about Mr. 57 states).
BAAHAHAHAHaAHahHAAa - He didn't even win the popular vote in the Dem. primary!!! He had to beat Shrillary the same way he won his State Senator seat: Pack the board with operatives and subvert the will of the voters to cheat!
It is going to be F'n hilarious to watch these ankle-biting losers go absolutely bat sh*t in November when O'Wanna B. loses BIG TIME. I thought 2000 and 2004 was entertaining, but this is just a perfect storm of identity politics idiocy. The race baiting Chickens are coming home to roost.
Just FYI, "gun nuts," if you mean 2nd Amendment supporters, make up over 70% of the population now. If you mean people who actually view the NRA favorably, it drops to "only" about 55%.
Sure sucks being a gun fearing wussy, doesn't it?
Oh, but I forgot, you said "shitbag," so obviously you're tough. Now go to bed, little boy.
More McCain bullshit. Does he EVER tell the truth?
"During Saturday's presidential forum at Rick Warren's California megachurch, John McCain was asked to name the "three wisest people" he would "rely heavily on" if elected president. He didn't cite close confidantes Phil Gramm and Randy Scheunemann, possibly because they have gotten McCain into trouble politically. Instead McCain chose Gen. David Petraeus; former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, one of his economic advisers; and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leading figure in the civil rights movement.
This is not the first time McCain has invoked Lewis' name on the campaign trail. Earlier this year, in Selma, Alabama, he told the story of civil rights marchers trying to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in a 1965 march from Selma to the state capital of Montgomery. Waiting at the crest of the bridge were a brigade of police and state troopers who meted out an attacks so violent that the day is known today as Bloody Sunday.
Central in McCain's telling was John Lewis, a man of just 25 who was at the front of the march and absorbed the first blow. Millions of Americans, McCain noted, "watched brave John Lewis fall."
But even though McCain has now repeatedly cited Lewis as a role model and potential adviser, McCain has not established a relationship with the Georgia Democrat in the 22 years they have served in Congress together. At the time of McCain's Selma speech, a Lewis associate told my colleague David Corn that McCain has never been close to Lewis. Lewis was not told about McCain's speech in Selma in advance, nor was he invited to attend.
In response to McCain's latest invocation of his name, Rep. Lewis said in a statement requested by Mother Jones, "I cannot stop one human being, even a presidential candidate, from admiring the courage and sacrifice of peaceful protesters on the Edmund Pettus Bridge or making comments about it." But, he added, "Sen. McCain and I are colleagues in the US Congress, not confidantes. He does not consult me. And I do not consult him."
It took McCain years to fully embrace the goals that Lewis was fighting for on Bloody Sunday. In 1983, McCain voted against making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday, in opposition to most members of Congress, including many of his Republican colleagues. In 1987, the governor of Arizona repealed the state's recognition of King; McCain supported the move. It was only in 1990, 25 years after Lewis marched in Alabama, when Arizona reversed its decision that McCain changed his own stance on the issue.
And there are, of course, the fundamental differences between John McCain's political philosophy and the goals of Lewis and his fellow marchers. Lewis hoped that the federal government would use its influence to protect the rights of disenfranchised individuals; he sought an expanded role for government because of what he believed was government's power to do good. It explains, in part, why Lewis is a Democrat today and supports Barack Obama for president. McCain, on the other hand, is a fanatical enemy of government spending and has said, "I've found over time that less government involvement is better." It's a philosophy that would have left Lewis and his cohorts out in the cold.
So why does John McCain promise to consult a man who he is not close to and has never consulted before? I put the question to the McCain campaign. If and when they respond, I'll update the post. "
You people do realize that the term "cone of silence" is a joke taken from the television show Get Smart. It's a figure of speech. They didn't mean that McCain was actually sitting in some isolation cone. Senator Obama had a good night and McCain had a better one. Big deal.
Orion writes: "To say John McCain made up the story for political gain would require evidence that he routinely does so. Everyone who's ever dealt with the man, even his critics, says he's a straight arrow."
This is a complete falsehood. As I said up above, he falsified another story about his POW experience while he was in Pittsburgh. His critics are well acquainted with his documented history as a liar. (So is his first wife.)
His campaign also likes to pretend that he's loathe to bring up his time in captivity. Nothing could be further from the truth. He seldom goes more than a few minutes when he's on the stump without bringing it up. He brought it up CONSTANTLY on Saturday night.
Ken writes: "Just FYI, "gun nuts," if you mean 2nd Amendment supporters, make up over 70% of the population now. If you mean people who actually view the NRA favorably, it drops to "only" about 55%."
I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter. I'm not a gun nut, though, because I don't feel the need to join a club of lunatic lobbyists who have circle jerks over cop-killer bullets.
Actually, RickM, as a person with a fair amount of Vietnamese blood still in him, you're ignorant. Personal note: my grandfather came to the South from the North after the Geneva Accords.
Like a lot of Vietnamese ALL OVER Viet Nam, he was Catholic. Actually, most of his children describe themselves as Catholic-Buddhist (also like a lot of Vietnamese), which is the sort of thing you get when you go converting the locals.
In case you thought there was some detachment between Catholicism and Communism, you might want to spend some time looking at a globe and examining the countries where Socialism/Communism have had a foothold. You'll find a peculiarly large number of traditionally Catholic (and Orthodox) countries in that data set. Start in Latin America for a good, easy head of steam.
++
MoeLarryandMohammed,
(Sorry, I just find it interesting - as an atheist, mind you - how Progressives never have the stones to insult Mohammed), have you got some evidence for your statement about deployed members donating to Obama 6-1 over McCain?
Please cite.
Barry's minions have watched their idol fail
again in extemporaneous dialogue. They realize
that he dare not say what he really believes
lest 65% of the electorate drop him like a
bad habit.....so he is forced to "nuance" his
way through any answer he gives. It is painful
to watch him calculate every word before its
utterance. Barry is either hiding something
hideously out of kilter with the majority of
the voters, or there is no core value whatsoever
in this candidate. You tell me which is worse.
This is a complete falsehood. As I said up above, he falsified another story about his POW experience while he was in Pittsburgh
Uh, huh...and what if he was asked more than once, and gave them more than one answer? Are you complaining because he DIDN'T give the NVA accurate information, or simply because it would be inconvenient for him not to be a serial liar? Don't answer: We all know your true answer.
As I said, anyone who's dealt with Senator McCain as an officer, as a POW captive, and as a politician will tell you that he's a straight shooter and doesn't lie or prevaricate in any way. The only people peddling the "MCCAIN IS A LIAR!" story are Obama supporters, desperate to boost their candidate at any cost.
rickm,
as others have pointed out, you are dead wrong about catholic influence in Vietnam. Catholic missionaries 1st came to Vietnam in the 1600s, nearly 200 yrs before the official organization of colonial Indochina (capital Hanoi). As with many other nations where the popular religion in general, Christianity in particular, was outlawed (Rome, USSR, China, Europe during the religious wars) the believers just went underground. I don't see why McCain's story seems so far fetched as for some to think he stole it from Solzhenitsyn? This kind of think has been going on since Christians made up one of the four food groups of Rome's lion population.
amos quotes and writes: "MoeLarryandMohammed,
(Sorry, I just find it interesting - as an atheist, mind you - how Progressives never have the stones to insult Mohammed), have you got some evidence for your statement about deployed members donating to Obama 6-1 over McCain?
Please cite."
Mohammed can eat my shorts. Happy now, nitwit? By the way, progressives are bright enough to know that no one claims Mohammed was divine, so he's in a different category. And Allah can eat my shorts, too. So much for your "never" bullshit.
Here's your cite: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/08/military_abroad.html
Dismiss it now.
I believe the cross story was confirmed by one or more of McCain's fellow captives who say they heard it in '71.
I wonder whether perhaps covertly drawn, simple signs such as the Cross and the ichthus have been widely used, all along, by Christians undergoing persecution. Maybe the easy life of freedom and toleration have made us obtuse in such matters.
Orion is basically insane: "This is a complete falsehood. As I said up above, he falsified another story about his POW experience while he was in Pittsburgh
Uh, huh...and what if he was asked more than once, and gave them more than one answer? Are you complaining because he DIDN'T give the NVA accurate information, or simply because it would be inconvenient for him not to be a serial liar? Don't answer: We all know your true answer."
I guess we know because his campaign said the Steelers reference was a MISTAKE. Don't be stupid.
"As I said, anyone who's dealt with Senator McCain as an officer, as a POW captive, and as a politician will tell you that he's a straight shooter and doesn't lie or prevaricate in any way. The only people peddling the "MCCAIN IS A LIAR!" story are Obama supporters, desperate to boost their candidate at any cost."
Hosanna! John McCain is the ONE GUY in America who never lies. Sure, he fucked around on his crippled wife, but he has HONOR!
He did once. A long time ago. He sold it to suck up to scumbags. It's a tragedy.
M. Simon writes: "I believe the cross story was confirmed by one or more of McCain's fellow captives who say they heard it in '71."
One or more? Hey, why not make it 50?
I believe one or more of McCain's fellow captives say he used to offer his captors backrubs with happy endings in exchange for extra rations! I forget where I saw it but it must be true!
Sheesh.
Orion is basically insane:
"By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable."
Just in case you missed the blurb at the bottom of the form, right above the Preview and Post buttons. HTH.
One constant in this universe: The left can't handle opposition and swiftly resorts to mudslinging and vulgar personal attacks even when it's likely to get them banned from a forum.
Hmmmmm.
@ Pete
"As far as I can tell, no one from the Obama campaign has publicly said that McCain cheated. I think this wouldn't be an issue if Rick Warren hadn't attempted to put forth a story about the "cone of silence" that simply wasn't true."
No that would be far too honest.
Instead they told Andrea Mitchell who then passed it on uncritically as a "Obama's campaign said ...".
Hmmmmm.
@ Pete
Jeesz.
1. "As for the McCain/Solzynitsyn story, yes, it's impossible to prove OR disprove. It's just awfully coincidental"
I'm not a McCain supporter but what really strikes me is the ridiculous nonsense over a very minor story.
But hey go right ahead and attack McCain for it. I could talk till I'm blue in the face but I've always felt that you can't make a horse drink water and you can't prevent someone who is intent on making a fool of themself.
2. "If he's going to make his POW experience his central narrative, then he's opening himself up to the same scrutiny that Kerry did when he played the Vietnam card in 2004."
O.o
Good luck with that one. John Kerry spent 3 months in a combat zone, accumulated 3 purple hearts in questionable circumstances and then, --THEN--, used an obscure rule that allows anyone who accumulated 3 purple hearts to transfer out of combat.
All without any permanent disabling injury -and- the infamy of being the -only- member of the US military to have evoked this obscure rule.
O.o
On the other hand John McCain was tortured for years, given the opportunity to go home but abandon his fellow soldiers still in captivity and -CHOSE- to stay and endure even worse torture for another -3 years-.
Oh yeah. Compare John Kerry with John McCain?
You go man. You go hard.
3. "I'm substantially more troubled by his repeated invocation of Georgia as a "Christian" country"
*shrug* that's because they are.
4. "Notice McCain hasn't been too eager to intervene in Darfur, presumably because it's NOT a "Christian" nation."
Actually it's half Christian and half Muslim, with the Christian half being the ones getting hammered in Darfur.
Why isn't John McCain eager to intervene in Darfur? Because it's a total mess there and American troops will not accomplish anything.
5. "Finally, theologically speaking, the purpose of "Christian" virtue isn't primarily to "DEFEAT" evil. Most mainstream religions consider mankind to be inherently sinful, thus only God can actually DEFEAT evil."
What amuses me is when non-religious liberals start acting like they're theologians.
But hey go right ahead and attack McCain for it. I could talk till I'm blue in the face but I've always felt that you can't make a horse drink water and you can't prevent someone who is intent on making a fool of themself.
True: One should never stand between a zealot and a brick wall. They make a much more satisfying "SPLAT!" sound w/o you to cushion the blow.
Re: Face it, lefties -- the fact that McCain cleaned Obama's clock is not evidence that he cheated. Obama just wasn't as good as you thought he would be.
The GOP candidate was better received at a rightwing Christian event-- that's a dog bites man story and I am surprised so much Sturm Und Drang is being wasted on it. If McCain and Obama were hosted by, say the ACLU or the HRC, it's a safe bet that Obama would come out on top there. Ho-hum.
Hmmmmm.
1. "Why is the Obama camp looking desperate but not the McCain camp? Because Mr McCain says he had nothing to do with the book, and besides, where's Mr Obama's sense of humor about being falsely denigrated in the book??!!"
A recognition of irony isn't strong with you lefty types is it?
Can I point out that you guys have been denigrating McCain over a minor, pointless story?
2. If you lefties would do some very very basic research, i.e. Google, you'd find out that both candidates were given the broad outlines of every category of question.
Neither candidate went into this uninformed as the purpose, which should be rather logical and apparent to the most foaming-at-the-mouth rabid of you, wasn't some sort of engineered gotcha.
It was an attempt at getting clear answers and detailed view of how the candidates think, how they viewed the world in an unscripted manner.
3. I like visting the Atlantic every now and then because it reminds me just how whacked out you people are.
Seriously. You're deranged. Get an ointment for that.
Did I ever tell you about the time I was at Ground Zero and George Bush drew a 2 by 4 in the dust while relieving himself?
That was when I first came up with the idea of beating to death anyone who disagrees with Bush.
"The GOP candidate was better received at a rightwing Christian event-- that's a dog bites man story and I am surprised so much Sturm Und Drang is being wasted on it. If McCain and Obama were hosted by, say the ACLU or the HRC, it's a safe bet that Obama would come out on top there. Ho-hum."
McCain did get a polite reception at the NAACP meeting a few weeks back. But "McCain" and "Religious Right" have never been a good fit. If you go back a few months they were supporting Guilliani over McCain in the primaries - crossdressing and all. I think Obama seriously thought he had a shot with this crowd. Unfortunately, he dissembled too much - the errs and ahhs made it painfully obvious he was chosing his words instead of speaking his mind.
Peter's right - character does matter. So when Obama lies about Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko and the "house deal" and his legislative votes this indeed means a lot.
It's fascinating how the MSM is willing to report on any possible affair or lie that McCain might have told based totally on speculation but is unable to report on the John Edward's affair due to their scruples.
This should help sink the "McCain got an advantage" slur:
From the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802434.html
"Candidates Got Advance Look at Questions: Spokesman for Minister Says McCain, Obama Were Told..."
The view of a Kos Kid:
Mav cheated.....He didn't lay down and let Obama win the election!!!!
(Stomping feet madly while crying tears of Anger) It's our year man, you know the rules....We keep repeating ad hominem; Chimpy McBusHitlerBurton McSame, and we win!!!!!WAAAHHHH!
The Dali-bama is very glib, charismatic, and handsome. But, he's also narcissistic, calculating, conniving, and a liar when necessary; and without his magic teleprompter providing Herr Goebbles--I mean Axelrod's--speeches he also vapid, vacant and reduced to the "Wizard of Uhhs".
God willing, people are starting to see through his act and view him as the self serving poseur that he is. Let's hope that his performance at Saddleback was simply a waypoint to historical oblivion for the liberal messiah.......
...as a DailyKos commentor noticed, it precisely echoes a tale from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago
Except that it does not PRECISELY echo anything of the sort.
The only thing echoed is that it's a cross in the dirt.
In the case of John McCain, it was a guard and the cross was brushed away. In the case of Alexander, it was a prisoner who squatted.
Besides, I thought all the Ruskies in the gulag were Jews.
McCaine did not have to have the questions beforehand, and it wouldn't have helped to get them an hour or so before the "debate". There would not have been time to prepare the answers. I would guess that his advisor in charge of such stuff, met with His advisors days before this event and prepared a list of two dozen question that were likely to be asked. The candidate was then drilled for as many hours as was necessary to answer them plainly and effectively. Obama, on the other hand, doesn't have this kind of people around him. He depends on his fantastic intelligence and silver toungue, and expected to rout the old fart. Talk about the tortoise and the hare. Incidently, the libs who posted concerning McCaine answering questions before they were asked, should have explained why this isn't proof of pre-knowledge.
posted by pjsv
Both Rick Warren and John McCain couldn't be more scupulous when it comes to straight talk. The Secret Service guarantees no less.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/yet-another-conegate-thread.html
Megan's Fourth Law of Politics: The party that starts looking for implausible and unprovable conspiracy theories about the opposition candidate is in trouble.
Since it was those boys over at Free Republic that first questioned the cross in the dirt story, I guess that's good news for Obama?
I suppose this is what were going to get over the next 4 years if Obama wins. Anybody who competes with Obama is going to be a scurrilous 'enemy of the people.' Reminds me of the treatment of the honest, industrious Kulaks in the Ukraine.
Hmmmmm
@ Katablog
"Peter's right - character does matter. So when Obama lies about Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko and the "house deal" and his legislative votes this indeed means a lot."
Actually the one single thing that's going to hammer Obama to his knees is something so new that political junkies like myself hadn't even ever heard of it.
"Obama's been getting a lot of heat for opposing the Illinois version of the federal Born Alive Act, which would have provided protections for babies that survived an attempted abortion."
--(copied from Ace of Spades)
Basically Illinois law, at the time, allowed that an infant that *survived an abortion attempt and was born alive* could be denied healthcare if the mother chose for the infant to die.
Consider this in the light of most pro-abortion logic. The infant is no longer dependent on the mother for life, has been born, is fully expelled from the womb and is now fighting for life in some extreme circumstances.
And Barack Obama lied his ass off both to the Evangelicals and to the interviewers on CBN about his position on abortion. Because Obama has a solid voting record, fully documented btw, that shows that in fact he is in favor of allowing these infants to die.
It took the passage of a *federal* law to finally accord these children any basic rights at all because Barack Obama lead the charge to disrupt or prevent passage of every single Illinois bill intended to accord these children rights.
How will this go over with Christians?
Not well.
Michael writes: "I suppose this is what were going to get over the next 4 years if Obama wins. Anybody who competes with Obama is going to be a scurrilous 'enemy of the people.'"
Anyone who has disagreed with Dumbya turning the US into a torture state has been vilified by you wingnuts as "traitors." You're an enemy of decency.
1. Democrats hate McCain because he served in the military.
2. Democrats hate the military. All the mass war protesters are Leftist Democrats who hate the military and protest them.
3. Obama and the Democrat America haters are attacking McCain because that is what they love to do - attack an old war hero who never bad mouthed his fellow soldiers or threw his medals over a wall as a way of hating on the military and soldiers serving.
Democrats have a long history since the 60's, of having a real problem with the military and everyone knows it.
Yes, we can question their patriotism.
Over and over again.
I'd like to be in the room when Michelle asks Barry, "Honey, explain to me again why you approved a floor vote at the convention?".
This will be the day after the vote takes place, of course...
If you can't keep trolls like these out of the McCain threads, maybe it's a good idea not to post on the guy.
The "cross in the dirt" story does NOT appear in any published work of Solzhenitsyn's. It was mentioned, in a different form than told by McCain, in a book by Chuck Colson.
Col. Swindle, who was also a POW with McCain, recalls McCain telling the story to him and others before they were released.
As far as the whole Saddleback appearance, Warren gave two questions to each man in advance in the exact phrasing to be used, and a general outline of the areas other questions would deal with. McCain was better prepared because he doesn't have to hide his true beliefs from the public.
This is why Obama ducks press conferences and town hall settings. He's great with a teleprompter, but hems, haws, and evades without it.
The formulaic and predictable questions from MSM talking heads in "debates" are easily anticipated and handled, especially since they are mainly softballs with no tough follow-ups.
Bill said "America
Okay run with this…. would you let a twelve year old kid who has absolutely no experience in flying an airplane fly the largest most powerful plane in the world? Yeah, he is great at x-box but he can’t even drive a car yet. Would you let a 2 year medical student perform your open heart surgery?"
First of all, *nothing* prepares you completely for the big chair. Secondly, who wants to bet that Bill here voted for Dubya (twice), in spite of that man's constant failures and demonstrated incompetence? This is an especially stupid argument coming from those who voted for Dubya over Gore, who by any metric of experience was a far better man for the job.
From Sienkiewicz's 1896 novel about first-century Christianity, Quo Vadis: