The Jed Report: Spokesman Admits McCain Broke Forum Rules
mrspeel2
· 1 year ago
You must admit McCain did start answering some of the questions before Rick Warren was even finished asking them. I thought perhaps he was given a heads-up what they were going to be, but then I figured a man of God Rick would never do that. that. Now, it all makes sense! You are very correct in your assessment that McCain thinks he's above the rules!!
MaryE
· 1 year ago
Who needs a broadcast feed with the technology we have today? They are liars. They got the questions and then told him what to say. Ever heard of cell phones? dah! No wonder all the shock and surpise about " how well" mccain did. I hope this blows up big time in their cheating faces!
chandrablog
· 1 year ago
McBush is lying again . He is a liar. MSM should report this, why he was not in the cone of silence, when Pastor Warren told publicly, that he was in a cone of silence. He cheated american public.
mypolitics
· 1 year ago
Yea MaryE wouldn't it be the right thing to happen, to have it blow up in their cheating faces. But we know it won't. MSM will ignore this as they do everything with McCain. Let it slide with hardly a mention. Maybe a word on MSMBC but it won't make the sound bytes like it would if the tables were turned and it was Obama. (although I can't see Obama doing a dirty trick like this - this is purely McCain style - lie and cheat knowing you will get away with it)
blkr00t
· 1 year ago
Cone of Silence not withstanding, I have not heard any pundit to date mention the fact that McCain also pretty much just recited his stump speech. If Rick Warren is to be respected here, someone MUST ask him why he admonished Sen. Obama to not give a stump speech while time after time after time he allowed McCain to do precisely that with no admonition whatsoever.
It is easy for some to feel that McCain did better, was more precise etc, when he didn't have to do any thinking, he just simply recited...Come on now, drill, here, drill, now...that is stump speak!
However, My Candidate, Sen. Obama answered the questions in the spirit that he thought the forum would be conducted. I'm sure that had he be allowed to give his stump speech he would have be just as precise and we would not have gotten to see the man as we really saw him last night. What I saw last night, I like. With Sen. McCain, what I saw I also liked though. Last night he was more reminiscent of the John McCain of 2000. Now whether or not he cheated, we'll never know but he did do well as far as a stump speech goes.
Pastor Warren knows better...We need to get this thought or line of questioning into the eyes and ears of Keith O and Rachel M. They will interrogate this properly.
ezpz
· 1 year ago
If they were on their way, it was being broadcast on CSpan Radio, and what modern vehicle carrying a politician today doesn't have satellite tv feed in the vehicle, or on their cell phones?
It was clear last night even before we knew this that McShame seemed to be answering questions that had yet to be asked.
And now they're trying to get in front of it because they know how damaging this is.
But of course, they'll blame it on Obama, just like the high gas prices and the Chicago crime are his fault. They'll find a Rovian way to shift this back to Obama and call him a whiner and sore loser, when in fact, he hasn't even said anything about it.
And.......the media will comply.
Next!
Rita5650
· 1 year ago
McCain had to have information about the questions because in one case He said yea I want to answer the one about the Supreme… when that was not the question he was asked. That question was to come later. Warren’s says, looking at his notes, “yea I want to ask you about that but that’s later. How did McCain know he was even going to ask about the Supreme Court. Police Detectives call that “jumping the questions“, that is how they can tell if criminals and witnesses are talking to each other when they are told not to. It is like the detectives have 15 questions they ask the first guy and then tell him not to talk to anyone. Then the next day they talk to guy #2 and he answers both #3 and # 6 questions for question #2. That is how they can tell if they are lying. I saw this on that show “the First 48 hours”. So McCain is a liar and did break the rules.
February
· 1 year ago
And yet the liberal media including Chuck Todd whom I respect were drolling all over McCain for giving mediocre direct, stump speech answers as opposed to a thoughtful conversation on issues that really matter by Obama. On Georgia its a wonder why anyone thinks having been in the military gives McCain any foreign policy credentials. There is a fundamental reason why the military command remains entrenched in the constitution to be under a civilian leader. And in this 21st century its the battle of the minds over might. The opening games in China were a show of force greater than any military tanks parade.
Bush has shown he only has a hammer in his foreign policy tool box and yet Pat Buchanan says McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi with his 20th century cold war mentality. Obama in Europe and middle east exuded power, cold and crisp, without a hint of military threat. And if anyone was paying attention and understood what was at stake its the GOP. The dems are yet to figure what is in the crystal ball they are holding.
eclecticbrotha
· 1 year ago
They are so full of themselves. They put Warren in a shitty position by breaking the rules and then try to deflect it by accusing Obama of "whining" because he lost. More evidence that Team McCain will say or do anything to win.
EDIT: Oh boy, it gets even better. I just browsed a Daily Kos diary and noticed the term "cone of silence" is taken directly from the "Get Smart" TV show from the 60's. Warren may have been on bullshit all along.
Hi Eclectic, Ohh yes, agreed. Whenever the McCian campaign is found wrongdoing, they complain that its 'sour grapes' on the Obama campaigns part. Its these horrible campaign managers negative campaigning from way back when, that is the cause of a lot of these problems. Im very disappointed in the American people for believing what they're told "about" a candidate, rather than reading what they did for themselves . Maybe it's human nature, as I have little knowledge of how other countries handle these matters. The only country I do have some knowledge about is China. The Chinese government acts much like the negative campaigners. They tell you "just beleive what we tell you".
Fred Gardner
· 1 year ago
The other thing to remember about the Cone of Silence in Get Smart is that IT NEVER WORKED!!!!
ezpz
· 1 year ago
I didn't read the whole post when I made my above comment. How predictable those "sour grapes" are.
I'd like to think that Rick Warren wasn't 'in' on anything and even if he wasn't, I hope he wasn't covering for McCain after the fact.
jnail
· 1 year ago
Rick Warren is not the issue here. He gave each one a couple questions up front and admits it. His 'security' around the "cone of silence" was lacking.
The issue is NOT whether McCain heard anything personally - they have given him plausible deniability to this in my prior post.
Simply - Did anyone in or out of his campaign monitor the broadcast via computer, TV, radio or Internet and then transmit any information about the questions or answers in the interview via any written, oral, audio, video or electronic means prior to his appearance on stage with Rick Warren - either in his car or in the period he was sequestered before he stepped on stage?
Simple question - simple answer for the man who stayed behind in Hanoi. In those days the answer would be "Hell No"...today I am afraid it will be "Yes" which says it all.
Earl Allen Boek
· 1 year ago
I disagree...Rick Warren had everything to do with it...His show...
As far as McCain throwing Warren under the bus...He threw himself under it.
jnail
· 1 year ago
Could not deliver message to the following recipient(s):
Failed Recipient: jnail@theindustryradar.com Reason: Recipient spam or content filter rejected the message
-- The header and top 20 lines of the message follows --
Received: from disqus.com [74.86.107.154] by DS152053-1 with SMTP; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:06:07 -0400 Received: from fray.disqus.com (unknown [10.8.50.130]) by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E659140154 for <jnail@theindustryradar.com>; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:06:04 -0500 (CDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [jedreport] Re: Spokesman Admits McCain Broke Forum Rules
cristen79
· 1 year ago
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton played it totally straight up when they had their compassion forum during the primary. I've never seen John McCain so ready with answers - this is now becoming totally Rovarian Crap. So now if this one is not called on McCain - I'm stepping way back in my postcard writing, registering, defending. Sorry - but how gullible is the Obama campaign and the American public? I don't want to take meds to get through this election.
Ruth
· 1 year ago
Jed nails it, as always. McCain broke the rules. And very likely, with the help of his staff, cheated. I watched the forum and he jumped the gun on several questions.
2 standouts - Janet Folder with Faith 2 Action who needs some education on both Obama's abortion votes in the Illinois senate and on his campaign finance reform legislation while in the US senatee. She's someone we need to target.
On the plus side, check out the unexpected guest toward the end who asks who they think actually has faith.
debrazza
· 1 year ago
The worst part about that was the hesitancy to drop the subject completely and then refocus on Obama. It was en-captured perfectly when Sanchez just stopped and said "going back to Barack Obama".
Jed Lewison
· 1 year ago
Debrazza. Yup. Pathetic.
ezpz
· 1 year ago
I was watching MSNBC before the event, and Kelly O'Donnell, McCain correspondent, was giving an update. (She's totally in the tank for McCain.) Anyway, I remember her saying that he was being prepped by his staff, something like they were asking him sample questions.
Maybe it's standard practice, but I don't remember any correspondent reporting on this before. Knowing what we know now, it's a little curious now.
I'll look for the transcript on MSNBC
kay
· 1 year ago
McClone was prepared period, this guy is a walking gaffe, even prepared yesterday, he still made em, just the applause was so loud. He was like a kid with ADD almost jumping out of his seat with the supreme court question that Warren hadn't asked yet. I want to know why they panned to Cindy and Graham,,,in the audience? Especially when McClone unlike Obama never mentioned her name cept in Sturgis of course!!
chandrablog
· 1 year ago
They are doing karl rove politics. They are cheating american people. We need to fight and tell all ameircan people how miserable is john mccain. He is dangerous than Bush.
It is irony that, MSM is covering this up.
kay
· 1 year ago
by the way I mention the pan, because the interview, there was not a pan of Obama's supporters.
ezpz
· 1 year ago
Kay, I noted that last night too.
It was reminiscent of the sham ABC "debate" when they kept showing Chelsea and Clinton's supporters, but no Obama peeps, just a lot of shots of the back of his head in that ABC one, which I didn't quite understand the reason for.
Just Us League
· 1 year ago
Warren had given Obama a look at the "orphan" question.....and Obama was honorable in admitting that during the questioning.
All McCain had to say when Warren introduced him was, "By the way, we were held up and I didn't get to the green room on time. I was actually in a motorcade for the 1st half of Obama's hour." Instead, he made a lame joke about listening through the walls....to give the impression that he'd been in the green room for the entire hour. That's dis-honorable.
ezpz
· 1 year ago
I think Warren gave them both the topics of the questions. In fact, he said as much on CNN tonight.
Plus, Obama, being intelligent, curious, and probing, must have known that adoption was something near and dear to Warren's heart.
Get your questions ready to email to Larry King. Warren will be Larry King's guest tomorrow night.
Is this really an issue? It seems like a distraction or, worse, makes Obama partisans appear petty and/or paranoid. McCain performed well, or well enough, in this "debate" and not unlike his performances in the GOP primaries. Did he somehow know in advance what the questions would be? I wouldn't be surprised if he did and that sucks but politics is dirty like that. McCain is currently benefiting from the expectation that, not unlike Bush 43 in the Gore-Bush debates of 2000, he would do abysmally bad and that Obama's oratory would effectively end the presidential race in the minds of most observers. It didn't happen last night and, taking the lesson, it probably won't happen at all. This race is competitive, it will probably only become more so, and focusing on these sorts of tactical questions makes me think, more than anything else, that the McCain campaign is edging itself closer to victory.
ed from ga
· 1 year ago
J.C.:
I think you miss the point (or maybe not since "dirty" politics don't seem to bother you).
Mr. Straight Talk gave his word, and apparently went back on it. His word was to be in a position not to hear the questions. You may consider the desire for honesty and fairness from public officials petty, but it counts for something to me.
J.C.
· 1 year ago
Actually, dirty politics bothers me but I've yet to witness a political season without the dirt. At this point in the race, I am assuming that the McCain campaign will attempt to win using whatever deceit it can and that we've yet to see the worse. My point is that I don't think this focusing too much attention on this particular instance of deceit is terribly effective. I could be wrong here and would be more than pleased if I were.
James
· 1 year ago
It is not a matter or focusing on this issue to the exclusion of other larger ones; it is merely pointing out a significant lapse in integrity on the part of McCain. This is hardly a diversion from the more salient issues.
chandrablog
· 1 year ago
How we can believe this man, he cheated his first wife, flip flop on all issue, and started lying about obama? Now he is cheating, he has broken the promise to pastor warren. He should be hold accountable for this.
eclecticbrotha
· 1 year ago
In church we have a term to describe what McCain did last night: we call it "testiLYING." McCain will say or do anything to win, even lying in a church on national TV. The man has no integrity whatsoever.
EDIT: Nice update to the story, Jed. You capture it perfectly. I'be noticed that other sites like Andrew Sullivan and HuffPost are picking up on the "cross in the sand" story. The key word: "integrity." McCain has none whatsoever, his campaign staff and tactics prove it.
MaryE
· 1 year ago
J.C. , you think cheating is petty? You think breaking the rules and being dishonest makes others paranoid? That is garbage. I refuste to accept mccain's deciet as just part of campaigning. mccain is edging towards a sound defeat this November.
eclecticbrotha
· 1 year ago
JC is trolling.
Janet
· 1 year ago
Yep. A Hannity troll for sure.
ezpz
· 1 year ago
I'm listening to the clip of Andrea Mitchell interviewing Rick Warren yesterday, and he definitely said that the coin toss determined Obama would go first, and McCain would be in a "cone of silence" (which I took to mean the ol'fashion sound proof room) for the hour that Obama was on.
There you go chandra. That ever growing list of McCain "gaffes" and "flip flops" aren't. They're LIES.
ezpz
· 1 year ago
Am I missing something here?
I was watching a clip from yesterday of David Shuster talking to Mara Vanderslice from the Matthew 25 Network, and they were talking about who's ahead in what demographic, and according to poll numbers, Obama is ahead in each of the Religious groups, but this is the one that really floored me: (starting at about 2:47):
On the Jewish vote, Obama leads 61% to McCain's 32%, but the shocker was when David Shuster said "..that one should be a concern to the Obama campaign....Obama could lose Florida..."
e t a - sorry ot, but I was looking for something and came across that, and it's just mind boggling that David Shuster would be such a concern troll with those numbers.
eclecticbrotha
· 1 year ago
ezpz that sounds like the typical media.
bibschol
· 1 year ago
I think you've interpreted McCain's response on eduction exactly right. There is a timing problem with the case that a poster at Kos is making using the "hack job" video, as you put it. Warren asked Obama about education (specifically, merit pay), about 2/3rds of the way through the debate (roughly 35-40 minutes in). According to reports, McCain showed up a half an hour late (problematically breaking the agreed upon rules and thus raising questions about the credibility of the forum and Warren as a neutral arbiter, as you noted), but that timing would put McCain in the silent room during that particular exchange. Short response: you're correct, McCain was trying to be funny by giving an extremely short answer after Warren chided him about not giving a stump speech on education.
eclecticbrotha
· 1 year ago
I take back my Trolling comment then.
StarfishDev
· 1 year ago
A couple of things---first of all, I am from California and grew up in the OC. Southern OC, home to Saddleback Church, is the white bread-Stepford Wives half of Orange County, and McCain was pandering to his base. I was actually surprised that Sen. Obama got such a positive response. But here's the deal...maybe they were appreciating an intelligent, reflective and smart candidate. One who is going to do a helluva lot of thinking before jumping into war with Russia. McCain is scary....a hot head. I hope some of this duffis looks show up on Jon Stewart tomorrow night. He creeps me out. He is really starting to remind me more and more of Bush. And I sincerely hope that THIS TIME the American people realize you need to vote for the smart guy and not the joker you might want to have a beer with.!!!
Nick L.
· 1 year ago
well well well, seems not only was McCain not in the so called cone of silence, he mislead Rick Warren about it on the first question. when Warren asked how was the cone of silence, McCain stated he was trying to listen through the walls. I guess now we're supposed to believe that he didn't have an ear piece listening to the questions and Obama's answers via satelite radio. Yeah, sure. don't worry though, we have liars on our side of the fence too. Only Obama is not one.
Anne933
· 1 year ago
On a Kos diary there was a picture of Warren's wife sitting next to Cindy McCain. Question: Did she travel with the McCain party? If so, was the Obama interview listened to while driving to the event?
dkawaii
· 1 year ago
Arrrrg! Why the heck would Obama agree to do this? Of course it was rigged. "you go ahead, I won't peek..." What was the Obama team thinking?
Listen, they WILL lie and they WILL cheat! Too much is at stake. These guys cheated the 2000 election. McCain is a demonstrable serial liar. This was not an honest mistake. I do not give McCain the benefit of the doubt. I have been fresh out of those since 2000.
Come on Obama. You better have a game plan. Rope a dope or something.
Ulla Johnson
· 1 year ago
Hi everybody. What a nice site and Jed always take his time to reply. I´m Danish (European) and married to a US citizen, we are living in Denmark and we are scared to death that McCain might make it to the white house! My husband is a registered member of Democrats abroad and on the 29´th this month we are going to a celebration with all the rest of the Democrats and Obama supporters here and will listen and watch the speeches from the convention and discuss among each other. We are following the election closely on the net and whenever I´m about to despair I return to this site and I feel I can sleep better. I finally got to see the Saddleback Church Forum interviews and I feel like sharing my impressions and views. First I must give Sen. McCain credit that he seemed energetic, cheerful and relaxed and very quick in his answers. Too quick I will say. How many of you confronted with such existential topics would´nt have paused just a couple of seconds to think? So I agree with you about the suspicions that he knew the qustions in advance and had time to prepare. ( Looked like someone cheating at an exam! especially when knowing his usual performances.) But we will never be able to prove this so let him get away with the benefit of the doubt. However, pastor Rick Warren let him get away with too many anecdotes and getting off the topics whereas he hardly had the patience to hear Sen.Obama through. The content of Sen. McCain answers were very shallow one-liners and I just can´t understand that the audience semed to swallow such clichés hook, line and sinker! I must say that speaking for my own country no people here would have gone for such empty platitudes, they are way too critical and confronting. Jed I sent you a link to an article from www.truthdig.com about the Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy? Did you get it? I´m not skilful enough to transfer the link to my comment here, but everyone can go to the site and look for themselves. Thank you everybody again for fighting against "evil" (ha, ha) veiled as "good".
JS
· 1 year ago
I like eclecticbrotha!
RedFoxOne
· 1 year ago
LOL, I still find it hard to belive that anyone with an ounce of common sense would take anything McBush does or says seriously.
Just another case of bad journalism at it's worse. I think we would all want to be alone so that we could get "pumped up" for a debate. I'm sure Obama does too. It's just human nature.
And naturally, ALL of the presidential candidates have secret service with them. They have in every election.
Don
· 1 year ago
I agree with Matt--who cares? Neither candidate of the "2 major parties" has what it takes to honestly and justly lead our country. Both are politicians, not statesman. More Republicans should have voted for Ron Paul in the primaries...
FunnyBurger
· 1 year ago
WHOOOOOOOO CARES?!
erichansa
· 1 year ago
Cheated on his wife. Cheated on a pastor. He'll cheat on America.
Defeat evil in 2008. Vote for Obama.
Rob
· 1 year ago
Just keep in mind that these politicians are doing EXACTLY what the real power brokers in Washington want- keeping your mind occupied with irrelevant noise, while the shenanigans and Constitution-gutting proceeds unnoticed. Anybody reading this aware of the TWIC Act? How about the status of the REAL ID in your state? How about what agencies have been moved out of public accountabililty and into the DHS where everything occurs under classified status and law (totalitarian law) is created by memo rather than within the Congressional bill process? Have you talked with your representatives lately and pressed them on their violations of their oath of office, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution? Right. Stop watching these crooked, useless "debates" and start being a real patriot- start nailing your reps until they get a clue that people are actually paying attention.
Rob
· 1 year ago
And keep in mind as well that the REAL power prokers in Washington aren't the elected representatives, oh, no, no, no. It's the people behind the lobbyists feeding juice to the elected representatives. And it is "juice"- freely available "donations" with a big price tag on the back end- fealty to the cause, whatever it is, or face defeat at the next election or political ruin by various means, the worst of course for a politician, being forgotten, marginalized, passed over. The price of liberty is vigilance. The vigilance they spoke of wasn't a Big Brother totalitarian state- it was to keep a keen eye on the elected representatives to ensure the invevitable corruption of power is stemmed before or unprecedented and precious democratic republic is poisoned from within. It is in some ways too late, the last eight years, Congress has allowed a new and very poisonous form of government to be put in place. And it is unelected and unaccountable.
Janet
· 1 year ago
I listenend and re-listened to the Faith Forum event. When McCain asked, "Are we going to GET BACK to the importance of Supreme Court Justices?" he gave himself away! How can you get back to something that had not yet been discussed in any way shape or form? Why didn't he admit he wasn't in the cone of silence right off the bat??
McCain's wisest man is "Petraeus" - just another indication of his war mentality. Pity the nation if he's elected. The only tools in his box are war tools!!
Brien
· 1 year ago
good grief, people. The spirit of the "cone of silence" declaration was that he simply wouldn't listen in/be recieving a feed on the questions. If he was in a motorcade, and didn't listen in, who cares? You're grasping at straws, and you know it!
Furthermore, he was going to be interviewed by an EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN PASTOR in ORANGE COUNTY. Do 10 minutes of brainstorming and you'll come up with 3/4 of the questions Rick Warren asked. "What does faith mean to you?" "What's your stance on abortion?" "Define Rich? (i.e. what's your stance on taxes?)" Please. Get over it!
Lynne B
· 1 year ago
How did they flip a coin if Mc Cain wasn't there? Mc Cain was answering those questions before Warren finished asking them. Honestly I think that his campaign staff knew he would screw up so they had to take that 30 minutes to coach him
One can see that he knew it was coming. Warren even admitted, "YOU GOT ALL MY QUESTIONS, GOOD"
JillyG
· 1 year ago
Why did Rick Warren begin McCain's interview with a lie, if he knew McCain wasn't in a cone of silence for at least half of Obama's interview?
NYT transcript quote: Mr. Warren started by asking Mr. McCain, “Now, my first question: Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?” Mr. McCain deadpanned, “I was trying to hear through the wall.”
Right off the bat, wouldn't a fair moderator have pointed out that McCain was late arriving to the forum and asked McCain whether or not he had heard any of the questions--at the onset of his interview--on air? Or perhaps he might have even changed the questions because of the violation of the rules?
Rick Warren is now playing in a very high stakes arena and there is no place for sloppy handling and rule bending.
Kyle
· 1 year ago
Obama was ill prepared partly because he is ill principled. (Hear that brain twister of an answer on abortion?) No need to blame McCain because Obama looked bad without a tele-prompter. If Obama is such a great candidate, he would have held his own. Or was the line of questions about moral issues at a church forum too much of a surprise for him?
nikolai
· 1 year ago
That's ok Kyle. The Christian right won't vote for Obama because he believes in freedom of choice, so they're going to vote for an fornicater and adulterer instead. Good choice.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
Yeah, the "choice" to kill an innocent child -- how noble of Obama to support such a "freedom."
While McCain may have cheated on his wife, at least he doesn't have baby blood on his hands.
ezpz
· 1 year ago
Hey Anonymous,
McCain has the blood on his hands of countless babies, men, women, and children in Eye-Rack.
Guess they don't count because they're brown and we just don't do "body counts" of brown people over there.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
I knew at least one liberal would come back with: "but what about Iraq."
Most reasonable, semi-intelligent folks understand the difference between taking a life on purpose (abortion) and by accident or for the preservation of future life (casualties of war). There really is no comparison. Nice try.
Next . . .
lorisc
· 1 year ago
Anonymous Said,
Yeah, the "choice" to kill an innocent child -- how noble of Obama to support such a "freedom."
While McCain may have cheated on his wife, at least he doesn't have baby blood on his hands.
Anonymous, Has Obama had an abortion we don't know about? How does he have baby blood on his hands. I know you are all about the rights of the unborn but baby blood from illegal wars doesn't bother you. BTW, I just heard a stat today that should shock some of you. There have been 250 wars in the world since WW2 with 23 million dead. Ninety percent of the casualties are civiilians with 75% being women and children. One hundred years ago 90% of the war casualties were male soldiers. So, you pro lifers aren't pro life when it comes to your wars.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
I think you need a lesson in human reproduction and anatomy, among other things, but Obama can't have babies. He's a male, and males can't have babies. The baby blood on his hands comes from his continued support of abortion and partial-birth abortion as related to law. As a law-maker, he has partial power to make illegal the slaughter of these innocent babies. I've made this very clear in my previous comment, if you would have payed attention.
And, I already pointed out the difference between abortion and casualties of war, but I will make it even more clear for you since you seem to be having trouble grasping the concept. In most cases, the motivation for abortion is pure selfishness whereas the motivation for war is the preservation of life and the fostering of peace. Both are on quite the opposite sides of the spectrum for most reasonable people. Although, I don't expect you to understand as you have proven quite unreasonable already. Maybe you will surprise me.
lorisc
· 1 year ago
Anonymous, Just because you spew your talking points doesn't mean they are true. Also, I don't need any lesson from you. I think I know enough about anatomy, but I fail to see how Obama has the blood of babies on his hands. Do those of us who are pro choice have the blood of babies on our hands even though we have and never would have an abortion? Are we responsbile for a law that has been in existence for 35 years?
Let's go back to war and the killing of civilians including those babies you want to protect from abortion and not bombs. Is war always waged to preserve life and foster peace? How can you even say that? How convenient for you to decide that war is always for good and there is no other reason for war. I am sure you excuse Bush and Co for the lies told to get us into the Iraq War. I am sorry but their hands have blood on them. They lied to fight an illegal war.
Who is unreasonable? I give you some war statistics and you back it up with your beliefs. They are just that, your beliefs. I happen to find your beliefs unreasonable. You are right I don't understand you. But then I hope I never do.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
"Iorisc: Do those of us who are pro choice have the blood of babies on our hands even though we have and never would have an abortion?"
Again, a resounding yes. Those that are pro-choice, are pro-abortion some of the time whether they like it or not. It wouldn't be much of a "choice" otherwise, now would it? Therefore, they have dead baby blood on their hands in the cases where the mother "chose" to abort. I don't know how many ways I have to say the same thing to get you to understand, but I'm quickly loosing patience.
"Iorisc: Is war always waged to preserve life and foster peace?"
Of course not, but contrary to many liberals in this country, that has always been the aim of the US when it fights wars.
"Iorisc: How can you even say that?"
I didn't. Stop making assumptions and putting words in my mouth.
If one thought the war in Iraq was unjust, then a comparison might be able to be made to abortion, but of course the Iraq war was just. Post-war we found that Saddam continued to grow his WMD programs, we found small amounts of illegal WMD, and Iraq did indeed support al-Qaeda as well as several other international Islamic terrorist groups.
lorisc
· 1 year ago
Spew your hate at someone else. Just because you think that since I am pro choice I have the blood of babies on my hands doesn't make it so. I have: 1. Never had an abortion 2. Never encouraged anyone to have one 3. When confronted with the issue recently in my own family, encouraged that person not to have one.
So, tell me again how I have anyone's blood on my hands.
You need to go back into your Rush Limbaugh, Faux News world because you are never going to be able to convince anyone with half a brain that Iraq was a war fought for just reasons. I guess you are the only one who knows about the illegal WMD's since there were none. Your conclusions differ from the conclusions of the UN inspectors. Al-Queda wasn't in Iraq before the war. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was a sovereign country that posed not threat to us. The real threat was bin-Laden in Afghanistan. Way to pull bs out of nowhere.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
"Iorisc: So, tell me again how I have anyone's blood on my hands."
When you support law-makers, like Obama, that in-turn support keeping legal the killing of innocent babies, you have baby blood on your hands. You think you are getting away with not having that on you conscience because you are just supporting the "choice" not the actual act, but I'll remind you that one of the two "choices" you are supporting is death to an innocent child. Again, it wouldn't be a choice, if there was only one option. No matter how hard you try, you can't escape the fact that at least some of the time you pro-choicers support abortion.
"Iorisc: I guess you are the only one who knows about the illegal WMD's since there were none."
Just me and the Iraq Survey Group. Included below is a non-exhaustive list of what they found post-war. Indeed Saddam did have the illegal WMD and programs that he said he didn't. Only foolish liberals like yourself would believe a dictator.
"ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted."
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."
"ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations."
"ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)."
"The IIS had a series of laboratories that conducted biological work including research into BW agents for assassination purposes until the mid-1990s. ISG has not been able to establish the scope and nature of the work at these laboratories or determine whether any of the work was related to military development of BW agent."
"From 1999 until he was deposed in April 2003, Saddam’s conventional weapons and WMD-related procurement programs steadily grew in scale, variety, and efficiency."
"Iorisc: Al-Queda wasn't in Iraq before the war. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11."
Iraq supported al-Qaeda. Please see the following excerpts from the Iraq Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism and the 9/11 Commission Report.
9/11 Commission Report:
"There is also evidence that around this time (March 1997) Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation."
"In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence."
"In July (1998), an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin."
"Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 . . . Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq."
Iraq Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism Report:
" . . . the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda--as long as the organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."
"Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."
nikolai
· 1 year ago
Does anyone here know a good right wing and/ or Warren's website(s) that the proof, "McCain Deputy Communications Director Michael Goldfarb now concedes that John McCain was not in a "cone of silence" at the Saddleback Church" can be posted to? WE all know the TRUTH, but does the "right"?
theo
· 1 year ago
There is no such thing as an honest unrehearsed debate, interview or press release. Everything without exception is examined, analyzed and potential answers are specifically targeted to the adience at hand and have absolutely NOTHING to do with the politician's record of votes, beliefs, religion or even a speck of the truth. The Supreme Court has ruled politicians do NOT have to tell the truth about anything and if you actually follow these clown's 'debating/press conference' records you will find many contradictions, distortions and outright outrageous lies. Sadly the vast majority of people believe them. The USA as a nation and even a 'beacon' of freedom in the world has long since passed and no one has realized it yet. One 'candidate' cannot change decades of stupidity, self interest and corruption, only a second revolution and full clean sweep can accomplish that.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
Even if one would humor the idea that McCain had prior knowledge of the questions, that doesn't explain away Obama's refusal to attend one of the many town-hall meetings that McCain has challenged him to. Obama's refusal to attend these town-hall meetings, after he accepted the challenge previously (flip-flop), proves Obama himself knows that McCain is stronger on the issues in an impromptu setting. There's "proof" from your own candidate. I think Obama's only chance at proving otherwise is to actually accept the challenge.
I predict he won't accept any such challenge unless he slips so far in the polls that he will do anything to stay afloat. He's avoiding it like the plague, and this most recent debate exposed why for all to see. This tripe about McCain "not following the rules," is nothing but a pathetic diversion from Obama's clear weaknesses. It's reminiscent of how liberals claimed Bush was fed all of his answers via an ear-piece during the debates. Democrats just can't face the fact that their candidate is clearly inferior, so they latch onto the closest conspiracy theory to explain the disparity. Let me just say that many times the simplest answer is the correct one -- McCain is clearly a better candidate for President than Obama.
Can you smell that? It's the smell of liberals defecating themselves as they face the prospect of 4 more years of Republican rule. The future is looking bright indeed.
d bower
· 1 year ago
The pastor states that he trusts McCain when he said he didn't listen in to the debate. But didn't McCain violate his trust by not showing up in time as he promised? What was he doing that was so important that he would miss the start of this critical event? If he wasn't cheating, WHY WAS HE LATE???
MediaWeasel
· 1 year ago
D Bower - precisely. McCain wasn't honest about not having been in the anteroom and said nothing about being late. The rules were quite clear.
So he misled the pastor (perhaps), the audience (for sure) and the MSM (for sure) and, thereby, the American people.
He's untruthful and untrustworthy. This is just an example of it.
Bob
· 1 year ago
well, this was a big uplift to the right and they are hammering home mccain's spot on answers to the question, especially his quick answers to the when baby has rights and which justices would you throw out questions....
of course, they point at those two questions as something that suggests he can be trustworthy to lead, when we already know that answering those questions to the evangelicals satisfaction has nothing to do with being able to be trusted to lead. Of course, maybe there are some evangelicals that think that GWB's actions have been moral and right all along.
Personally, it just adds to the long list of things that people will put up when they think the perpetrator is righteous. And how easy it is to say I love Jebus while taking the money out of your back pocket.
Dan
· 1 year ago
hahaha ohhh the spin! Didn't somebody notice that McCain wasn't there before they started? HELLO? If those were really the rules, it should have been somebody's job to ensure McCain was in this physical cone of silence built by the church. What’s more likely, is that Cone of silence was a figure of speech and if you watch the video that this author posted, he said Warren believed McCain was sequestered, and so he used that figure of speech to describe him being kept in the dark. If warren is lying, he’s throwing himself under the bus not McCain. Both Candidates did a great job at the forum, and the best the left wing attack dogs can do is cast doubt about whether McCain’s radio was on or off in the car. Somebody call the wambulance.
John Dowd
· 1 year ago
So Dan,
More discrediting the democrats for McCain's ethical breach. Interesting tactic, but answer this.
Where was McCain. He knew he was supposed to be incommunicado. I have yet to hear he or his campaign offer an explanation as to why he wasn't at the church. All they have done is attack the reporters who reported (accurately) that he wasn't where.
Was his plane late? Did the motorcade take a wrong turn? Why not just clear it up. Without that all-important explanation one can only assume his absence was deliberate.
Let's all think of a credible reason why he would be outside the 'silent area'? Maybe it was so he obtain advance knowledge of the questions and Obama's answers. No wonder he looked so confidant and answered so crisply. He cheated.
Any 10 year old on the planet knows cheating when he sees it and deliberately not following the rules is cheating. Period.
Dan
· 1 year ago
You're right, the McCain Campaign should own up to why it was late, i completely agree. But i don't think you can assume anything, especially that he was late on purpose so he could catch the first 30 minutes of questions.
And by the way, democrats is the word you used. I said "left wing attack dogs." I myself am pretty moderate, and am a firm believer that both parties have their attack dogs, and was simply noting the behavior of one, don't worry, i'm sure i'll get a chance to note the behavior of the other. But if you re-read my post, I didn't bash either the candidates or their parties.
So John, twisting my words, clever tactic along with completely ignoring all my initial points and focusing only on the fact that that they happen to call out malicious attacks based only on suspicion, but an adult should know better than to stake his entire argument on an unsubstantiated assumption dot dot dot
Ari
· 1 year ago
Yes, those darn right wingers cheated and had the opportunity to answer 4 questions with the benefit of foreknowledge. And what did they do? They quoted the party line on faith, abortion and their sins of the past. Stunning! What a tremendous edge. But the conspiracy theory does not answer how McCain got the answers to the rest of the questions and was able to outperform O'Bama on every other issue. (Except for the “who is rich” comment) Maybe he had a bug planted and the CIA, with authorization from George Bush, fed him the questions as he went along. Or a microchip that gave him straight forward and unequvocating answers. (If so, please plant one in Obama’s head too)
I think it is very telling that cheating is called upon as the reason for losing to frankness, directness and concrete ideas. And although it is bad form to show up late to a commitment, it is wildly desperate to use lateness as an excuse for Obama’s lack luster command of the very policy he has to carry out as President. I don't want a collegial candidate that dances around issues, I want one that tells me up front what his thoughts are and direction will be. And what does it say about the followers of such a candidate? To me it says you would rather stack assumption atop assumption, and hypothesize the worst about a man instead of rethinking parts of your ideology.
kay
· 1 year ago
Oh please, Pro-Life? I guess McClone's stance is let em live so we can kill them later in wars that shouldn't be fought! Pro-Lifers are the biggest hypocrites, where are you when it comes to the injustice of wars? This administration lied and troops died, youth!!! They won't have babies, get married, civil unions! And your guy who is borderline dementia, who is being propped up by the Repubs, is a walking gaffe machine, the idiot at the forum, named supreme court justices he wants to get rid of he voted for, complained about earmarks about DNA of a bear and a bridge to nowhere (like his brain) he voted for! He and only he can dispel Evil from the earth, brilliant guy eh? 5 million a year income, duh, offers his wife up at Sturgis, leaves the first because she's a cripple now. I mean I can write a book and this is a first paragraph! And I think we underestimate him, he is worse than Bush if that's possible. From 2000 to now, he is debating himself. The guy seriously is in need of a neurospy test. He is NOT ALL THERE! And by the way quick draw McGraw,,, our comeuppance will be in the debates, then I'll thumb my nose at folks like you, we'll prove this guy is far from lucid, he forgets questions asked from the interviewer????!! Let's see how well your Iraq/Afghanistan, sunni/shia, czechoslovakia , 100 yr war, Please,he does not have the mental acuity to be President of nothing other than a Senior retirement community resort residing over the folks in his socio economic sphere making no less than with a 5 million income a year!
Ari
· 1 year ago
Maybe English is your second language. Or you are angry without a clue. It happens to people that get their facts from friends and don’t spend the time to look under the initial story. (OK, that was pretty angry)
The question about Justices’ was, “which current sitting Supreme Court Justices would you have not nominated” and he listed the liberal judges. In the confirmation proceedings he voted for those justices just as many, many Democrats voted for Roberts and Alito. It use to be that the house would give a good grilling to the justices to verify their qualifications and vote them in almost unanimously. That is a courtesy the politicians have strayed from in a pursuit to select activist or constructionist judges and McCain like many other members of the house still uphold. Go ahead, look it up so you can understand the difference.
When you say he criticized pork barrel spending you pointed to a couple of spending item that were included in “Omnibus Bills” An Omnibus bill is a large bill with very important stuff in it. But it always contains “PORK” small spending items for individual states. You can’t pass the major important bill without approving the porkBy the way, the criticism he was making was aimed at Republican, conservative states, which further illustrates his objectivity and conviction to what is right, not what is expedient.
You go on a lot over McCain’s gaffs. Obama claimed that he will work to lower the abortion rate. And that Bush policy has done nothing to lower the rate. He further claimed that abortion rates have never been higher. The facts are quite different. Abortion rates are the lowest they have been in 10 years. Politicians are human. They all have gaffs and sometimes throw out bad statements. But relishing and focusing on the gaffs that reflect your contempt for Conservative ideas and demonizing McCain to illustrate your point just show weakness in your mastery of the facts.
Ari
· 1 year ago
Demonizing Obama or McCain really doesn’t do the debate on abortion any justice. Neither does comparing the tragedy of war with that of abortion. The question asked by Rick Warren, “When does life begin” is the real question on abortion. If you are a Pro Life or Anti Abortion person you clearly believe life begins at conception and the rights of the child begin there also. If you are Pro Choice or Pro abortion you believe the mother chooses when life begins. It is hard to refute that a “woman’s right to chose” clearly means she individually decides if she has a child with rights or a zygote lump of tissue. With all the rhetoric and debate being equal, I will side with caution and say it is a human being, with rights and the “woman’s right to chose” is a right and responsibility best exercised before conception.
As for the proliferation of war, your quoted statistic is widely used and has many permutations. I believe an accurate expression of that statistic is that since the turn of the century there have been approximately 250 armed conflicts. This includes two world wars, a cold war, wars of liberation, genocidal wars, tribal wars, ethnic cleansing wars, internal conflicts and several other minor descriptors of armed conflict. In that span of time the population of the planet has grown from just over 1 billion in 1900, to over 6 billion in 2005. And the concentration of that population around resources is equally startling. No wonder we have more conflict.
I think the subtext of your statement about war is a good one: “when should we get involved in one of these conflicts” If you ask Obama, it is not above his “pay grade” and if you ask McCain, We are liberating the Iraqi people.
Without questioning the motives of either, Obama doesn’t have babies blood on his hands any more than McCain has US soldiers blood on his.
Scott
· 1 year ago
The reason McCain was so quick with the answers is simple. That's the difference between 25 years in the Senate VS. Obama's how many years??
bassman
· 1 year ago
You are a disingenuous fool to even imply that McCain has any oratory skills. He is a bumbling fool just like George Bush. If he didn't have Neo-con Joe Lie-bermen at his side to fix his mis-statements all the time he would look even more foolish than he does. Besides, this counrty does not need another hot shot cowboy pilot with a reputation of being a party animal in the Whitehouse again.
Realist
· 1 year ago
1. Both candidates were given the first two questions (Obama actually had the first 3, he said so during the questioning), as well as all of the themes Warren wanted to cover. There should have been zero mystery as to what the lines of questioning would be. I didn't even have to look into my crystal ball. What possible advantage could there have been? 2. Did the Obama campaign not know that McCain wasn't there yet? (Didn't they notice the conspicuous absence of said motorcade?) If they're so concerned about cheating in such a manner, why did they proceed without knowing precisely where he was? 3. All of McCain's answers were consistent with his position as previously stated on the campaign trail, website, etc. This is because he actually believes in his position. (You don't have to think if you don't have to lie.) Obama can't state his true beliefs explicitly, because he's far too liberal for most Americans to accomodate, and he knows it. Nothing McCain said or did explains Barack's tip-toeing around the abortion question ("above my pay grade", having the audacity to misquote Matthew 5 *in front of an evangelical crowd* later on, despite his voting record in favor of partial-birth and *after*-birth abortions), saying his most 'gut-wrenching decision' was voting against the war in Iraq when he didn't actually vote on it at all, etc. 3. The "cone of silence" is a joke from the old Get Smart series. Once again, liberals obviously have no sense of humor.
lorisc
· 1 year ago
Anonymous, I just want to know who made you God? How is it you decide who has blood on their hands?
So, you say that wmd's were found in Iraq. Why didn't we har about it? Because it isn't true..
Tell me again that Iraq was a just and legal war. So, I guess if those of us who are pro choice have the blood of unborn babies on our hands because we support politicians who are pro choice, you have the blood of thousands of Iraqi's on your hands because you support politicians who invade countries based on made up reasons later shown to be lies. Fair is fair, right?
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
"Iorisc: I just want to know who made you God? How is it you decide who has blood on their hands? "
I didn't decide, you did when you decided to support the killing of innocent babies.
"Iorisc: So, you say that wmd's were found in Iraq. Why didn't we har about it? Because it isn't true.."
You didn't hear about it because you read the headlines that agreed with your politics and moved on instead of reading the actual reports. That's what happens when you let others think for you instead of thinking for yourself. The quotes I provided above are from the actual report minus the editorial liberties found in the articles you provided. You simply won't dispute what's in the reports because you can't.
"Iorisc: So, I guess if those of us who are pro choice have the blood of unborn babies on our hands because we support politicians who are pro choice, you have the blood of thousands of Iraqi's on your hands because you support politicians who invade countries based on made up reasons later shown to be lies. Fair is fair, right?"
The two aren't mutually exclusive as I have thoroughly proven at this point. At least, you can now admit you have blood on your hands by supporting pro-choice candidates.
As I said before, all of this repeating myself to someone who is clearly intellectually corrupt and unreasonable is getting tiresome. If you want to dispute the facts I've laid out, feel free. Otherwise, I will be ignoring you just as you have ignored the facts.
lorisc
· 1 year ago
You've proven nothing, and your facts aren't facts but fantasies. Now go back to the headlines that agree with your policies. I do have to agree that you won't find me watching the same news and and reading the same sites you read. I can't stomach Fox or Rush.
Anonymous
· 1 year ago
"Iorisc: You've proven nothing, and your facts aren't facts but fantasies. Now go back to the headlines that agree with your policies."
The only fantasies here are yours based on biased news articles that leave out key details and come to conclusions not supported by the sources they cite. Again, just read the reports that all of your news stories are based on and if you are honest with yourself, you will find a whole different set of facts that indeed prove most of our pre-war suspicions were true. I've even made it really easy for you by providing the key facts from these reports that backup my points. Oddly, you only focus on the news articles that support your position rather than the reports themselves. Funny that.
"I do have to agree that you won't find me watching the same news and and reading the same sites you read. I can't stomach Fox or Rush."
Unlink you, I don't need others to think for me. For your information, all of the facts I provided were researched on my own without the help of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. You do flatter me, though. Thanks for that.
bassman
· 1 year ago
If this event were truly on the up and up, both candidates should have been on the stage together first, introduced to the audience, had the coin toss in front of the audience and then one of them be sequestered. This was a staged event right out of the gate intentionally done this way to try to embarrass Obama and to try to make McCain, the forgetful and clueless fool that he is, look better in the eyes of a group of people who don't really believe he is a true conservative. Rick Warren should appologize for the deception, but like the Republi-con administration he supports that refuses to ever admit to making mistakes or any wrong doing, he won't I'm sure. What the radical right wing needs to contemplate, that already are suspicious of McCain is if he would break a pledge to them on some miniscule event, how can they believe his words on the events that will effect their every day lives, even their security.
Chris
· 1 year ago
You guys are pitiful. Obama sounded like a buffoon and you guys are trying to find ANYTHING that will distract people from that fact. Obama was even given some questions ahead of time that McCain wasn't, but McCain still blew Obama out of the water. To a liberal's way of thinking: Obama looked bad, McCain must have done something wrong/illegal. You guys are just sad.
All Comments
that. Now, it all makes sense!
You are very correct in your assessment that McCain thinks he's above the rules!!
It is easy for some to feel that McCain did better, was more precise etc, when he didn't have to do any thinking, he just simply recited...Come on now, drill, here, drill, now...that is stump speak!
However, My Candidate, Sen. Obama answered the questions in the spirit that he thought the forum would be conducted. I'm sure that had he be allowed to give his stump speech he would have be just as precise and we would not have gotten to see the man as we really saw him last night. What I saw last night, I like. With Sen. McCain, what I saw I also liked though. Last night he was more reminiscent of the John McCain of 2000. Now whether or not he cheated, we'll never know but he did do well as far as a stump speech goes.
Pastor Warren knows better...We need to get this thought or line of questioning into the eyes and ears of Keith O and Rachel M. They will interrogate this properly.
It was clear last night even before we knew this that McShame seemed to be answering questions that had yet to be asked.
And now they're trying to get in front of it because they know how damaging this is.
But of course, they'll blame it on Obama, just like the high gas prices and the Chicago crime are his fault. They'll find a Rovian way to shift this back to Obama and call him a whiner and sore loser, when in fact, he hasn't even said anything about it.
And.......the media will comply.
Next!
Police Detectives call that “jumping the questions“, that is how they can tell if criminals and witnesses are talking to each other when they are told not to. It is like the detectives have 15 questions they ask the first guy and then tell him not to talk to anyone. Then the next day they talk to guy #2 and he answers both #3 and # 6 questions for question #2. That is how they can tell if they are lying. I saw this on that show “the First 48 hours”.
So McCain is a liar and did break the rules.
Bush has shown he only has a hammer in his foreign policy tool box and yet Pat Buchanan says McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi with his 20th century cold war mentality. Obama in Europe and middle east exuded power, cold and crisp, without a hint of military threat. And if anyone was paying attention and understood what was at stake its the GOP. The dems are yet to figure what is in the crystal ball they are holding.
EDIT: Oh boy, it gets even better. I just browsed a Daily Kos diary and noticed the term "cone of silence" is taken directly from the "Get Smart" TV show from the 60's. Warren may have been on bullshit all along.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_of_Silence
Ohh yes, agreed. Whenever the McCian campaign is found wrongdoing, they complain that its 'sour grapes' on the Obama campaigns part. Its these horrible campaign managers negative campaigning from way back when, that is the cause of a lot of these problems. Im very disappointed in the American people for believing what they're told "about" a candidate, rather than reading what they did for themselves . Maybe it's human nature, as I have little knowledge of how other countries handle these matters.
The only country I do have some knowledge about is China. The Chinese government acts much like the negative campaigners. They tell you "just beleive what we tell you".
How predictable those "sour grapes" are.
I'd like to think that Rick Warren wasn't 'in' on anything and even if he wasn't, I hope he wasn't covering for McCain after the fact.
The issue is NOT whether McCain heard anything personally - they have given him plausible deniability to this in my prior post.
Simply - Did anyone in or out of his campaign monitor the broadcast via computer, TV, radio or Internet and then transmit any information about the questions or answers in the interview via any written, oral, audio, video or electronic means prior to his appearance on stage with Rick Warren - either in his car or in the period he was sequestered before he stepped on stage?
Simple question - simple answer for the man who stayed behind in Hanoi. In those days the answer would be "Hell No"...today I am afraid it will be "Yes" which says it all.
As far as McCain throwing Warren under the bus...He threw himself under it.
Failed Recipient: jnail@theindustryradar.com
Reason: Recipient spam or content filter rejected the message
-- The header and top 20 lines of the message follows --
Received: from disqus.com [74.86.107.154] by DS152053-1 with SMTP;
Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:06:07 -0400
Received: from fray.disqus.com (unknown [10.8.50.130])
by disqus.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E659140154
for <jnail@theindustryradar.com>; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:06:04 -0500 (CDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [jedreport] Re: Spokesman Admits McCain Broke Forum Rules
compassion forum during the primary.
I've never seen John McCain so ready with answers - this is now becoming totally
Rovarian Crap. So now if this one is not called on McCain - I'm stepping way back in my postcard writing, registering, defending. Sorry - but how gullible is the Obama campaign and the American public? I don't want to take meds to get through this election.
http://www.newsguests.com/site/guestinfo/15
They have a audio of it at http://www.jewsonfirst.org/election08.html#summ... but it's hardly audible.
2 standouts - Janet Folder with Faith 2 Action who needs some education on both Obama's abortion votes in the Illinois senate and on his campaign finance reform legislation while in the US senatee. She's someone we need to target.
On the plus side, check out the unexpected guest toward the end who asks who they think actually has faith.
Anyway, I remember her saying that he was being prepped by his staff, something like they were asking him sample questions.
Maybe it's standard practice, but I don't remember any correspondent reporting on this before. Knowing what we know now, it's a little curious now.
I'll look for the transcript on MSNBC
It is irony that, MSM is covering this up.
It was reminiscent of the sham ABC "debate" when they kept showing Chelsea and Clinton's supporters, but no Obama peeps, just a lot of shots of the back of his head in that ABC one, which I didn't quite understand the reason for.
All McCain had to say when Warren introduced him was, "By the way, we were held up and I didn't get to the green room on time. I was actually in a motorcade for the 1st half of Obama's hour." Instead, he made a lame joke about listening through the walls....to give the impression that he'd been in the green room for the entire hour. That's dis-honorable.
In fact, he said as much on CNN tonight.
Plus, Obama, being intelligent, curious, and probing, must have known that adoption was something near and dear to Warren's heart.
Get your questions ready to email to Larry King.
Warren will be Larry King's guest tomorrow night.
larrykinglive@cnn.com
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/
I think you miss the point (or maybe not since "dirty" politics don't seem to bother you).
Mr. Straight Talk gave his word, and apparently went back on it. His word was to be in a position not to hear the questions. You may consider the desire for honesty and fairness from public officials petty, but it counts for something to me.
Now he is cheating, he has broken the promise to pastor warren. He should be hold accountable for this.
EDIT: Nice update to the story, Jed. You capture it perfectly. I'be noticed that other sites like Andrew Sullivan and HuffPost are picking up on the "cross in the sand" story. The key word: "integrity." McCain has none whatsoever, his campaign staff and tactics prove it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/2624204...
I was watching a clip from yesterday of David Shuster talking to Mara Vanderslice from the Matthew 25 Network, and they were talking about who's ahead in what demographic, and according to poll numbers, Obama is ahead in each of the Religious groups, but this is the one that really floored me: (starting at about 2:47):
On the Jewish vote, Obama leads 61% to McCain's 32%, but the shocker was when David Shuster said "..that one should be a concern to the Obama campaign....Obama could lose Florida..."
HUH???????
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/2624204...
e t a - sorry ot, but I was looking for something and came across that, and it's just mind boggling that David Shuster would be such a concern troll with those numbers.
Listen, they WILL lie and they WILL cheat! Too much is at stake. These guys cheated the 2000 election. McCain is a demonstrable serial liar. This was not an honest mistake. I do not give McCain the benefit of the doubt. I have been fresh out of those since 2000.
Come on Obama. You better have a game plan. Rope a dope or something.
What a nice site and Jed always take his time to reply. I´m Danish (European) and married to a US citizen, we are living in Denmark and we are scared to death that McCain might make it to the white house! My husband is a registered member of Democrats abroad and on the 29´th this month we are going to a celebration with all the rest of the Democrats and Obama supporters here and will listen and watch the speeches from the convention and discuss among each other.
We are following the election closely on the net and whenever I´m about to despair I return to this site and I feel I can sleep better.
I finally got to see the Saddleback Church Forum interviews and I feel like sharing my impressions and views.
First I must give Sen. McCain credit that he seemed energetic, cheerful and relaxed and very quick in his answers. Too quick I will say. How many of you confronted with such existential topics would´nt have paused just a couple of seconds to think?
So I agree with you about the suspicions that he knew the qustions in advance and had time to prepare. ( Looked like someone cheating at an exam! especially when knowing his usual performances.) But we will never be able to prove this so let him get away with the benefit of the doubt.
However, pastor Rick Warren let him get away with too many anecdotes and getting off the topics whereas he hardly had the patience to hear Sen.Obama through.
The content of Sen. McCain answers were very shallow one-liners and I just can´t understand that the audience semed to swallow such clichés hook, line and sinker!
I must say that speaking for my own country no people here would have gone for such empty platitudes, they are way too critical and confronting.
Jed I sent you a link to an article from www.truthdig.com
about the Georgia War a Neocon Election Ploy? Did you get it? I´m not skilful enough to transfer the link to my comment here, but everyone can go to the site and look for themselves. Thank you everybody again for fighting against "evil" (ha, ha) veiled as "good".
RD
www.useurl.us/12m
RD
www.useurl.us/12m
And naturally, ALL of the presidential candidates have secret service with them. They have in every election.
Defeat evil in 2008. Vote for Obama.
The price of liberty is vigilance. The vigilance they spoke of wasn't a Big Brother totalitarian state- it was to keep a keen eye on the elected representatives to ensure the invevitable corruption of power is stemmed before or unprecedented and precious democratic republic is poisoned from within. It is in some ways too late, the last eight years, Congress has allowed a new and very poisonous form of government to be put in place. And it is unelected and unaccountable.
McCain's wisest man is "Petraeus" - just another indication of his war mentality. Pity the nation if he's elected. The only tools in his box are war tools!!
Furthermore, he was going to be interviewed by an EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN PASTOR in ORANGE COUNTY. Do 10 minutes of brainstorming and you'll come up with 3/4 of the questions Rick Warren asked. "What does faith mean to you?" "What's your stance on abortion?" "Define Rich? (i.e. what's your stance on taxes?)" Please. Get over it!
One can see that he knew it was coming. Warren even admitted, "YOU GOT ALL MY QUESTIONS, GOOD"
NYT transcript quote:
Mr. Warren started by asking Mr. McCain, “Now, my first question: Was the cone of silence comfortable that you were in just now?”
Mr. McCain deadpanned, “I was trying to hear through the wall.”
Right off the bat, wouldn't a fair moderator have pointed out that McCain was late arriving to the forum and asked McCain whether or not he had heard any of the questions--at the onset of his interview--on air? Or perhaps he might have even changed the questions because of the violation of the rules?
Rick Warren is now playing in a very high stakes arena and there is no place for sloppy handling and rule bending.
While McCain may have cheated on his wife, at least he doesn't have baby blood on his hands.
McCain has the blood on his hands of countless babies, men, women, and children in Eye-Rack.
Guess they don't count because they're brown and we just don't do "body counts" of brown people over there.
Most reasonable, semi-intelligent folks understand the difference between taking a life on purpose (abortion) and by accident or for the preservation of future life (casualties of war). There really is no comparison. Nice try.
Next . . .
Yeah, the "choice" to kill an innocent child -- how noble of Obama to support such a "freedom."
While McCain may have cheated on his wife, at least he doesn't have baby blood on his hands.
Anonymous,
Has Obama had an abortion we don't know about? How does he have baby blood on his hands. I know you are all about the rights of the unborn but baby blood from illegal wars doesn't bother you. BTW, I just heard a stat today that should shock some of you. There have been 250 wars in the world since WW2 with 23 million dead. Ninety percent of the casualties are civiilians with 75% being women and children. One hundred years ago 90% of the war casualties were male soldiers. So, you pro lifers aren't pro life when it comes to your wars.
And, I already pointed out the difference between abortion and casualties of war, but I will make it even more clear for you since you seem to be having trouble grasping the concept. In most cases, the motivation for abortion is pure selfishness whereas the motivation for war is the preservation of life and the fostering of peace. Both are on quite the opposite sides of the spectrum for most reasonable people. Although, I don't expect you to understand as you have proven quite unreasonable already. Maybe you will surprise me.
Just because you spew your talking points doesn't mean they are true. Also, I don't need any lesson from you. I think I know enough about anatomy, but I fail to see how Obama has the blood of babies on his hands. Do those of us who are pro choice have the blood of babies on our hands even though we have and never would have an abortion? Are we responsbile for a law that has been in existence for 35 years?
Let's go back to war and the killing of civilians including those babies you want to protect from abortion and not bombs. Is war always waged to preserve life and foster peace? How can you even say that? How convenient for you to decide that war is always for good and there is no other reason for war. I am sure you excuse Bush and Co for the lies told to get us into the Iraq War. I am sorry but their hands have blood on them. They lied to fight an illegal war.
Who is unreasonable? I give you some war statistics and you back it up with your beliefs. They are just that, your beliefs. I happen to find your beliefs unreasonable. You are right I don't understand you. But then I hope I never do.
Again, a resounding yes. Those that are pro-choice, are pro-abortion some of the time whether they like it or not. It wouldn't be much of a "choice" otherwise, now would it? Therefore, they have dead baby blood on their hands in the cases where the mother "chose" to abort. I don't know how many ways I have to say the same thing to get you to understand, but I'm quickly loosing patience.
"Iorisc: Is war always waged to preserve life and foster peace?"
Of course not, but contrary to many liberals in this country, that has always been the aim of the US when it fights wars.
"Iorisc: How can you even say that?"
I didn't. Stop making assumptions and putting words in my mouth.
If one thought the war in Iraq was unjust, then a comparison might be able to be made to abortion, but of course the Iraq war was just. Post-war we found that Saddam continued to grow his WMD programs, we found small amounts of illegal WMD, and Iraq did indeed support al-Qaeda as well as several other international Islamic terrorist groups.
1. Never had an abortion
2. Never encouraged anyone to have one
3. When confronted with the issue recently in my own family, encouraged that person not to have one.
So, tell me again how I have anyone's blood on my hands.
You need to go back into your Rush Limbaugh, Faux News world because you are never going to be able to convince anyone with half a brain that Iraq was a war fought for just reasons. I guess you are the only one who knows about the illegal WMD's since there were none. Your conclusions differ from the conclusions of the UN inspectors. Al-Queda wasn't in Iraq before the war. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was a sovereign country that posed not threat to us. The real threat was bin-Laden in Afghanistan. Way to pull bs out of nowhere.
When you support law-makers, like Obama, that in-turn support keeping legal the killing of innocent babies, you have baby blood on your hands. You think you are getting away with not having that on you conscience because you are just supporting the "choice" not the actual act, but I'll remind you that one of the two "choices" you are supporting is death to an innocent child. Again, it wouldn't be a choice, if there was only one option. No matter how hard you try, you can't escape the fact that at least some of the time you pro-choicers support abortion.
"Iorisc: I guess you are the only one who knows about the illegal WMD's since there were none."
Just me and the Iraq Survey Group. Included below is a non-exhaustive list of what they found post-war. Indeed Saddam did have the illegal WMD and programs that he said he didn't. Only foolish liberals like yourself would believe a dictator.
"ISG found a limited number of post-1995 activities that would have aided the reconstitution of the nuclear weapons program once sanctions were lifted."
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."
"ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003 a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for intelligence operations."
"ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)."
"The IIS had a series of laboratories that conducted biological work including research into BW agents for assassination purposes until the mid-1990s. ISG has not been able to establish the scope and nature of the work at these laboratories or determine whether any of the work was related to military development of BW agent."
"From 1999 until he was deposed in April 2003, Saddam’s conventional weapons and WMD-related procurement programs steadily grew in scale, variety, and efficiency."
"Iorisc: Al-Queda wasn't in Iraq before the war. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11."
Iraq supported al-Qaeda. Please see the following excerpts from the Iraq Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism and the 9/11 Commission Report.
9/11 Commission Report:
"There is also evidence that around this time (March 1997) Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation."
"In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence."
"In July (1998), an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin."
"Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 . . . Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq."
Iraq Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism Report:
" . . . the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda--as long as the organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."
"Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."
I predict he won't accept any such challenge unless he slips so far in the polls that he will do anything to stay afloat. He's avoiding it like the plague, and this most recent debate exposed why for all to see. This tripe about McCain "not following the rules," is nothing but a pathetic diversion from Obama's clear weaknesses. It's reminiscent of how liberals claimed Bush was fed all of his answers via an ear-piece during the debates. Democrats just can't face the fact that their candidate is clearly inferior, so they latch onto the closest conspiracy theory to explain the disparity. Let me just say that many times the simplest answer is the correct one -- McCain is clearly a better candidate for President than Obama.
Can you smell that? It's the smell of liberals defecating themselves as they face the prospect of 4 more years of Republican rule. The future is looking bright indeed.
So he misled the pastor (perhaps), the audience (for sure) and the MSM (for sure) and, thereby, the American people.
He's untruthful and untrustworthy. This is just an example of it.
of course, they point at those two questions as something that suggests he can be trustworthy to lead, when we already know that answering those questions to the evangelicals satisfaction has nothing to do with being able to be trusted to lead. Of course, maybe there are some evangelicals that think that GWB's actions have been moral and right all along.
Personally, it just adds to the long list of things that people will put up when they think the perpetrator is righteous. And how easy it is to say I love Jebus while taking the money out of your back pocket.
Didn't somebody notice that McCain wasn't there before they started? HELLO? If those were really the rules, it should have been somebody's job to ensure McCain was in this physical cone of silence built by the church. What’s more likely, is that Cone of silence was a figure of speech and if you watch the video that this author posted, he said Warren believed McCain was sequestered, and so he used that figure of speech to describe him being kept in the dark. If warren is lying, he’s throwing himself under the bus not McCain. Both Candidates did a great job at the forum, and the best the left wing attack dogs can do is cast doubt about whether McCain’s radio was on or off in the car. Somebody call the wambulance.
More discrediting the democrats for McCain's ethical breach. Interesting tactic, but answer this.
Where was McCain. He knew he was supposed to be incommunicado. I have yet to hear he or his campaign offer an explanation as to why he wasn't at the church. All they have done is attack the reporters who reported (accurately) that he wasn't where.
Was his plane late? Did the motorcade take a wrong turn? Why not just clear it up. Without that all-important explanation one can only assume his absence was deliberate.
Let's all think of a credible reason why he would be outside the 'silent area'? Maybe it was so he obtain advance knowledge of the questions and Obama's answers. No wonder he looked so confidant and answered so crisply. He cheated.
Any 10 year old on the planet knows cheating when he sees it and deliberately not following the rules is cheating. Period.
And by the way, democrats is the word you used. I said "left wing attack dogs." I myself am pretty moderate, and am a firm believer that both parties have their attack dogs, and was simply noting the behavior of one, don't worry, i'm sure i'll get a chance to note the behavior of the other. But if you re-read my post, I didn't bash either the candidates or their parties.
So John, twisting my words, clever tactic along with completely ignoring all my initial points and focusing only on the fact that that they happen to call out malicious attacks based only on suspicion, but an adult should know better than to stake his entire argument on an unsubstantiated assumption dot dot dot
I think it is very telling that cheating is called upon as the reason for losing to frankness, directness and concrete ideas. And although it is bad form to show up late to a commitment, it is wildly desperate to use lateness as an excuse for Obama’s lack luster command of the very policy he has to carry out as President. I don't want a collegial candidate that dances around issues, I want one that tells me up front what his thoughts are and direction will be. And what does it say about the followers of such a candidate? To me it says you would rather stack assumption atop assumption, and hypothesize the worst about a man instead of rethinking parts of your ideology.
The question about Justices’ was, “which current sitting Supreme Court Justices would you have not nominated” and he listed the liberal judges. In the confirmation proceedings he voted for those justices just as many, many Democrats voted for Roberts and Alito. It use to be that the house would give a good grilling to the justices to verify their qualifications and vote them in almost unanimously. That is a courtesy the politicians have strayed from in a pursuit to select activist or constructionist judges and McCain like many other members of the house still uphold. Go ahead, look it up so you can understand the difference.
When you say he criticized pork barrel spending you pointed to a couple of spending item that were included in “Omnibus Bills” An Omnibus bill is a large bill with very important stuff in it. But it always contains “PORK” small spending items for individual states. You can’t pass the major important bill without approving the porkBy the way, the criticism he was making was aimed at Republican, conservative states, which further illustrates his objectivity and conviction to what is right, not what is expedient.
You go on a lot over McCain’s gaffs. Obama claimed that he will work to lower the abortion rate. And that Bush policy has done nothing to lower the rate. He further claimed that abortion rates have never been higher. The facts are quite different. Abortion rates are the lowest they have been in 10 years. Politicians are human. They all have gaffs and sometimes throw out bad statements. But relishing and focusing on the gaffs that reflect your contempt for Conservative ideas and demonizing McCain to illustrate your point just show weakness in your mastery of the facts.
As for the proliferation of war, your quoted statistic is widely used and has many permutations. I believe an accurate expression of that statistic is that since the turn of the century there have been approximately 250 armed conflicts. This includes two world wars, a cold war, wars of liberation, genocidal wars, tribal wars, ethnic cleansing wars, internal conflicts and several other minor descriptors of armed conflict. In that span of time the population of the planet has grown from just over 1 billion in 1900, to over 6 billion in 2005. And the concentration of that population around resources is equally startling. No wonder we have more conflict.
I think the subtext of your statement about war is a good one: “when should we get involved in one of these conflicts” If you ask Obama, it is not above his “pay grade” and if you ask McCain, We are liberating the Iraqi people.
Without questioning the motives of either, Obama doesn’t have babies blood on his hands any more than McCain has US soldiers blood on his.
He is a bumbling fool just like George Bush. If he didn't have Neo-con Joe Lie-bermen at his side to fix his mis-statements all the time he would look even more foolish than he does. Besides, this counrty does not need another hot shot cowboy pilot with a reputation of being a party animal in the Whitehouse again.
2. Did the Obama campaign not know that McCain wasn't there yet? (Didn't they notice the conspicuous absence of said motorcade?) If they're so concerned about cheating in such a manner, why did they proceed without knowing precisely where he was?
3. All of McCain's answers were consistent with his position as previously stated on the campaign trail, website, etc. This is because he actually believes in his position. (You don't have to think if you don't have to lie.) Obama can't state his true beliefs explicitly, because he's far too liberal for most Americans to accomodate, and he knows it. Nothing McCain said or did explains Barack's tip-toeing around the abortion question ("above my pay grade", having the audacity to misquote Matthew 5 *in front of an evangelical crowd* later on, despite his voting record in favor of partial-birth and *after*-birth abortions), saying his most 'gut-wrenching decision' was voting against the war in Iraq when he didn't actually vote on it at all, etc.
3. The "cone of silence" is a joke from the old Get Smart series. Once again, liberals obviously have no sense of humor.
I just want to know who made you God? How is it you decide who has blood on their hands?
So, you say that wmd's were found in Iraq. Why didn't we har about it? Because it isn't true..
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
As far as what the ISG found:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraq...
As far as Saddam and al Qaeda:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A...
and
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.sa...
Tell me again that Iraq was a just and legal war. So, I guess if those of us who are pro choice have the blood of unborn babies on our hands because we support politicians who are pro choice, you have the blood of thousands of Iraqi's on your hands because you support politicians who invade countries based on made up reasons later shown to be lies. Fair is fair, right?
I didn't decide, you did when you decided to support the killing of innocent babies.
"Iorisc: So, you say that wmd's were found in Iraq. Why didn't we har about it? Because it isn't true.."
You didn't hear about it because you read the headlines that agreed with your politics and moved on instead of reading the actual reports. That's what happens when you let others think for you instead of thinking for yourself. The quotes I provided above are from the actual report minus the editorial liberties found in the articles you provided. You simply won't dispute what's in the reports because you can't.
"Iorisc: So, I guess if those of us who are pro choice have the blood of unborn babies on our hands because we support politicians who are pro choice, you have the blood of thousands of Iraqi's on your hands because you support politicians who invade countries based on made up reasons later shown to be lies. Fair is fair, right?"
The two aren't mutually exclusive as I have thoroughly proven at this point. At least, you can now admit you have blood on your hands by supporting pro-choice candidates.
As I said before, all of this repeating myself to someone who is clearly intellectually corrupt and unreasonable is getting tiresome. If you want to dispute the facts I've laid out, feel free. Otherwise, I will be ignoring you just as you have ignored the facts.
The only fantasies here are yours based on biased news articles that leave out key details and come to conclusions not supported by the sources they cite. Again, just read the reports that all of your news stories are based on and if you are honest with yourself, you will find a whole different set of facts that indeed prove most of our pre-war suspicions were true. I've even made it really easy for you by providing the key facts from these reports that backup my points. Oddly, you only focus on the news articles that support your position rather than the reports themselves. Funny that.
"I do have to agree that you won't find me watching the same news and and reading the same sites you read. I can't stomach Fox or Rush."
Unlink you, I don't need others to think for me. For your information, all of the facts I provided were researched on my own without the help of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. You do flatter me, though. Thanks for that.
Warren should appologize for the deception, but like the Republi-con administration he supports that refuses to ever admit to making mistakes or any wrong doing, he won't I'm sure.
What the radical right wing needs to contemplate, that already are suspicious of McCain is if he would break a pledge to them on some miniscule event, how can they believe his words on the events that will effect their every day lives, even their security.
Obama was even given some questions ahead of time that McCain wasn't, but McCain still blew Obama out of the water.
To a liberal's way of thinking:
Obama looked bad, McCain must have done something wrong/illegal.
You guys are just sad.