Rick Warren’s inquisition of the candidates elicited some interesting answers.
In his answers, Obama described many of his positions, even on taxes and energy, in the language of a devout Christian. When asked about his “greatest moral failing,” he discussed his teenage drug and alcohol use, attributing it to “a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me, and the reasons why I might be dissatisfied, that I couldn’t focus on other people.”
Confronted with the same question later, McCain cited the failure of his first marriage. . . .
“I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him,” Obama told Warren. “That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis.” McCain said he had been “saved and forgiven” through his belief in Christ.
Each also said he defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, but Obama added that he supports civil unions for same-sex couples. . . .
At Saddleback, Obama did not respond directly when Warren asked him at what point “a baby gets human rights.” He said the issue is “above my pay grade,” and pivoted quickly to his quest to find common ground. He noted that he had inserted pregnancy-prevention language in the 2008 Democratic platform, which he cast as a major turn in party policy.
In his interview with Warren, McCain received loud applause from the crowd of more than 2,000 when he declared his view that unborn children deserve rights “at the moment of conception,” and offered one of the most emphatic declarations of his opposition to abortion in his presidential campaign.
“I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate,” McCain said. “This presidency will have pro-life policies.”
Did anyone hear what the two said about another topic raised by Rev. Warren, the existence of evil? Such actual theology was not reported in the “Washington Post.”
31 comments ↓
One can read what the candidates said at the Saddleback forum in the transcript.
One can read what the candidates said at the Saddleback forum in the transcript.
One commentator’s view of the forum. In my opinion, I think he’s, “right on!”
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dpatton/2008/dp_08181.shtml
More ‘news articles’ on Warren’s interview of presidential candidates, from a completely unbiased source:
“Pastor Rick Warren’s Forum Unfair to Obama”
“NBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reveals How McCain Breached Cone of Silence”
Isn’t there something a bit unsettling about Warren asking just one question about 40 million abortions and the “human rights” of babies.
I am glad he asked at least one, but what would an outside observer take away from this? Just how important does abortion seem to be to these so-called “evangelical voters.”
Didn’t its juxtaposition with all the other “issues” just make it seem like one of many. I suppose for most of us it probably is.
But, what does that tell us about our attitude about abortion?
George Will wrote a column a few months back saying that we can no longer call abortion, one of the most common medical procedures in a America, murder.
Frankly, I was outraged by that column, but now I wonder whether Will was right. At least “right” in the sense that he was accurately describing what we now believe, even if we say something different.
If we, as evangelical voters, truly thought abortion was murder and that something approaching 50 million babies had been murdered, wouldn’t we be doing more about it than accepting patronizing answers and unkept promises from politicians?
Does the fact that we are not, reveal our true feelings, that we don’t think its murder anymore either?
If so, we deserve nothing but God’s punishment. I would like to believe that is not the case. I am increasingly fearful that it is.
If so, what more could we do?
This quote from an Obama aid is supposed to demonstrate why the forum was unfair to McCain:
“Of course McCain looked good,” the anonymous Obama aide said. “He didn’t have to worry about how his answer would be perceived. He didn’t have to work to recall his talking points. He didn’t have to think, or even try to look like he was thinking. All he had to do was blurt out what he believed. Clearly, this gave him an unfair advantage, and we think the American people will see this for what it is…another Republican smear tactic.”
It is from the first link in comment 4 above. I am misreading this or does it really say that the forum was unfair to Obama because he couldn’t actually say what he believed? Are we really at the point where a candidate can complain because keeping up the BS is just too hard when your faced with a guy who says what he believes?
That first link Carl (#4) posted was satire.
Joe, the problem is that one has to *know* what one believes before he can express his beliefs. McCain shined on Sat.!!
The two articles linked in #4 are from Scrappleface. The Scrappleface motto can be seen at the top of the two links: “News fairly unbalanced. We report. You decipher.”
Scrappleface is similar in content to The Onion, and occasionally its ‘news articles’ are mistaken for similar fictional news in the New York Times, Washington Post, or the Austin American-Birdcage Liner.
Sorry Adams (# 5), but it’s really not a big deal that Warren asked just one question on abortion. After all, was it not one of the most directed and significant questions that has ever been asked on abortion in any debate? It’s much more direct that “are you pro-life?” or something fluffy like “would you like to reduce the number of abortions?” It was a great question and it got right to the point.
Warren didn’t waste his other questions either, he talked about what being a Christian really means, about moral failings, and about significant decisions in life. And despite it being monumental in your voting decision, it’s not literally a one issue thing. Imagine if we had a politician who unabashedly slept with hundreds of women, was a suspected money-launderer and crook, had a foreign policy based on getting the most at the expense of whoever can’t vote for him, BUT was consistently pro-life. (I know you could say that this is virtually impossible, but it is possible and it still proves the point) Would you vote for him?
And on the subject of the evil question, Obama’s answer matched up fairly clearly with Christian theology as far as the extent of evil and whatnot. It is on our streets, in Daurfur, and it is everywhere. But he definitely left out some big manifestations of evil, and that’s where McCain stepped up. I think McCain’s answer was most consistent with the role that a state should take in combating evil. The state wields the sword and has the responsibility to protect those under its care from others who wish to do them harm, most visibly, Islamic Terrorists. Rick Warren’s position has the responsibility to confront the evil within mankind. His job is to confront it and defeat it with Christ’s redemptive power.
On the contrary, it is very possible! If Bill Clinton were pro-life, you would have him spot on!
My point was what we expect that so called “pro-life” politician to do. I don’t think the so called evangelical base has done a very good job of demanding more than platitudes and generalities from their politicians.
McCain gives a straight up pro-life answer and everyone breathes a sigh of relief. Doesn’t he need to do a little more? Actually, he doesn’t because we aren’t demanding anymore.
Thanks for the clarification guys.
Did anyone notice that this “Pastor” did not mention Jesus name even once?!
CRB (@13), your assertion is easily disproved. Perhaps trivially (in a question to Obama, he mentions “Jesus Christ” and “Christ”, and in a question to McCain, he asked about “Christ”), but then it would have taken some trivial research for you to make an accurate statement.
How many times should he have mentioned it in such an interview?
A couple of good articles on Saddleback interview fallout:
Michelle Malkin’s Sore loser: Obama and Obamedia accuse McCain of “cheating” and
“Obama Campaign Accuses McCain of Cheating; Andrea Mitchell Dutifully Carries Obama’s Water”.
There’re some good comments to the articles as well.
tODD,
My mistake. Guess I missed it!
Carl (@15), it’s interesing how both articles you cite put “Obama” and his “campaign” out there as pushing this claim, though Andrea Mitchell is so far the only one to mention this, and of course she offers no evidence for her claim.
To the contrary, CNN reports that “For their part, an Obama spokesperson told CNN’s Mike Roselli they are not pursuing whether McCain heard any of the other questions. They say they assuming McCain had the same information they did.” Among other places, this was mentioned in your beloved NewsBusters, where Noel Sheppard noted that “I haven’t been able to find any media outlets that have corroborated Mitchell’s claim the Obama campaign was ‘privately’ floating this idea, one has to wonder where she got it from.”
So who you gonna believe? CNN or Andrea Mitchell? I’ll write my guess down on a piece of folded paper, then you tell me.
Media Clymer quote of the day -
In his Newsroom program interview with Rick Warren CNN anchor Rick Sanchez ignored Warren’s sudden admission that he revealed one of the questions to Obama that he didn’t also tell McCain. Instead Sanchez continued his interrogation about the unsubstantiated claim that John McCain cheated by listening to the questions asked Obama before McCain and his Secret Service entered the “Cone of Silence” (McCain has denied the charge). Despite Warren’s admission of helping Obama, Sanchez returned to the “half-hour gap” controversy by stating:
“I mean, just out of fairness. I mean, look, this is CNN. We try to be as exact as we possibly can.”
“Two very different ordeals” is an article that discusses the answers given by Obama and McCain when asked to describe their most difficult, “gut-wrenching” decision.
A perennial ‘favorite son’ emerges from the Cone of Silence as a leading presidential contender.
Major party candidates have rejected the political upstart with a dismissive “What, me worry?”
Carl,
So John McCain would not dishonor the POW code by accepting an early release–but he would dishonor a pledge of silence for a TV forum?
This reminds me of the scene in A Man for All Seasons
when Thomas More scorns Richard Rich for having no idea how absurd his slander was.
Rose, are you implying or suggesting that, despite his statement to the contrary, McCain listened to the questions (or had one of his staff or Secret Service who were with him pass on the questions to him) before or after he got to the studio on the evening of the debate?
If you are, do you have any evidence that might substantiate your accusation?
Carl,
No, I’m not implying that at all.
I believe he did not listen to the questions.
Yes, I see your point now! Indeed, it does seem peculiar for Obama’s supporters, including the media, to accuse a man, who on principle turned down an opportunity to leave his fellow POWs behind, even when he knew he would be brutally tortured because of his decision (and he was!), of deceptively listening, while under Secret Service protection, to the first half-hour’s worth of questions asked Obama (Which is what - 4 or 5?), before entering the “Cone of Silence.” And then McCain comes out and, not beating around the bush, answers a number of questions that Obama was not asked in his interview.
It is almost as if there was a concerted effort to divert public attention away from Obama’s answers. Otherwise the public may realize (if they haven’t already) that Obama has shown himself unfit for a job that is definitely above his pay grade.
When asked about what’s the most gut-wrenching decision he ever had to make, Obama said, “Well, you know, I think the opposition to the war in Iraq was as tough a decision as I’ve had to make.”
But why was it “gut-wrenching”? Obama states that he “was firmly convinced at the time that we did not have strong evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and there were a lot of questions that, as I spoke to experts, kept on coming up.” And he was concerned about his “solemn obligation” with regard to “19, 20, 21-year-old kids, and you’re putting them into harm’s way” (of course, Obama was not in the Senate in 2002 when the HJR 114 authorizing mililtary action was passed). So if Obama saw the evidence against Iraq as not sufficiently strong, and if Obama didn’t actually have to vote at the time to send troops to Iraq, why was it so gut-wrenching to make political speech in Illinois back then, along with other Democrats to oppose using military force in Iraq?
Obama did mention the reason briefly - “political consequences.” Gut-wrenching?!?
Maybe he had to get up at 3 AM in the morning to travel to some location for a speech.
Hmm. Carl “there are even doubt about the authenticity of the birth certification posted for one of our presidential candidates” Vehse (@22) demands “evidence”. Rich.
What many of you are calling ‘evangelicals’ aren’t, really. Evangelicals believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and in obeying God, and in the Gospel, and are Christocentric. What many of you seem to be calling ‘evangelicals’ are in reality neo-orthodox, like the Swiss Karl Barth, though somewhat more liberal theologically than he.
Dr. Falwell taught the Law to the civil government, because carrying out certain portions of the Law is the role of the civil government, and it is the duty of the men of God to inform the civil servants of what God’s Law is. In that context it was highly appropriate. Two Kingdoms, doncha know. When preaching to his congregations, from what little I saw on tv, he preached law and gospel.
For evidence of the doubts, check out this TexasDarlin’s collection of articles.
Of course, Obama’s disciples may reject all the ‘nuanced’ discussions; TexasDarlin is a pro-Hillary website. Check out TexasDarlin’s mail section for the thoughtful rebuttals from Obama devotees.
Carl, I hadn’t heard about the Birth Certificate question before a couple days ago (here on this blog) and I’ve gone into it to check it out since then.
It’s a red herring on a dozen different levels. TexasDarlin’s junk (and that’s what it is) has roughly the same sort of support that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists use. I’d like to say that it is the typical style of liberal nutcases, but unfortunately those sorts of nutcases exist all over the political/religious spectrum.
TexasDarlin is actually one of the most useless and baseless sets of accusations. There are a variety of other sites that do a much better job, but even they are woefully short of being valid or convincing. They take “nuance” to the level of splitting hairs to the point of splitting atoms. Then, because they’ve managed to suggest a way that one of the hair’s atoms could possibly be split, they suggest that the entire person has been cleaved head to toe.
This is a piece along the same validity that Obama was inadvertently referring to 57 muslim states, or that he swore into office on the Koran, or that he refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance.
The article “A tale of two McDonalds” discusses the candidates’ responses to Rick Warren’s question on how each candidate had bucked his party on certain issues.
Carl (@28), “evidence of the doubts”? That’s pathetic.
Is that what you’ve learned about the Eighth Commandment — that it’s okay to spread such manure about, to accuse other people, as long as you’re merely reporting what other people say, and not claiming it as fact yourself? Hey, by that same high level of discourse, I heard Cheney eats babies … er, or at least there is evidence that people think so.
For someone who whines and whines about the media, you’ve picked up one of their lowest tactics, the “some people say” story.
If you believe these rumors, don’t cowardly hide behind someone else’s accusations and claim you’re merely passing on what they said. You know, so as to inform. However, if you don’t believe these ridiculous claims, then what is the value in your pointing them out — further evidence that there is foolish blather on the internet?
“Evidence of the doubts”? Bill Clinton would be proud of your parsing.
Leave a Comment