« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
A DIFFERENT TAKE ON SADDLEBACK
Saturday Night’s Political Forum hosted by Pastor Rick Warren was one of the most interesting campaign events this year. It was nice to hear someone from the right argue that it is essential that Americans (both conservative & liberal) learn to argue their viewpoints WITHOUT demonizing the other side. In coming to terms with the idea that we are all Americans (even when we disagree) we build upon the idea that we are greater as a nation together than we are as the sum of our separate ideologies.
I was impressed with how quickly Sen. McCain answered. He was direct and to the point. “On Message” as they say. When others suspected that he knew the answers in advance, I doubted it. I simply saw it as someone who has practiced turning every question to a preset campaign talking point. It’s an old debate trick and Sen. McCain seems very good at it. (Case in point: when asked by a reporter on the campaign trail to defend his love of the musical group ABBA, Sen. McCain explained that his musical development was interrupted by his five years in a POW camp.) Any and all questions leads back to either:
1) The Surge Worked
2) Drill now and drill everywhere
3) I was a POW
4) Life begins at conception
Senator Obama gave much more nuanced answers. He frequently fumbled for the right way to express himself. This was seen by many as a sign of his inexperience and unsuitability for the job and I don’t agree with that assessment. Keep in mind that this was not particularly friendly territory for him and ANY misstatement would have been instantly jumped on by the McCain campaign, news anchors and the evangelicals. One could hardly blame him for weighing every word.
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who see everything in terms of black & white and those who see the world as more complicated and filled with shades of gray. Sen. McCain sees clear cut answers to all problems. Senator Obama does not. The question of “when does life begin” is an excellent example of the differences. Senator McCain responded, “Life begins at conception”. That’s an answer short and sweet enough to appear on a bumper sticker. Many people (and most of the audience) agree with this viewpoint. Obama didn’t answer the question directly. He replied that if you are pro-life, you won’t agree with any definition but the one that McCain would eventually offer to the crowd. Sen. Obam realizes that an equal number of people disagree with that definition as agree with it. So Senator Obama’s discussion centered on finding a middle ground that both sides could come to terms with….work together to reduce the number of abortions.
Who’s right & who’s wrong? Let’s look at a couple of hypothetical examples:
“Jane” is a 17 year old high school senior who discovers she is 6 weeks pregnant seven months before her senior prom….she decides to have an abortion. It’s her second one. It’s her choice but most pro-choice people I know would be disgusted with her actions.
“Jill” is a 30 year old stay at home mother of two who discovers she is six weeks pregnant three weeks after her husband is killed in an accident. He had no insurance and she has no job. She is told her unborn child will be born with a chronic illness that will require extensive care for the life of the child. She is also told that in giving birth she stands a good risk of not surviving the pregnancy herself. Does she risk her life (as the single mother of two other children) to bear a child she cannot afford to raise and will never be adopted because of the chronic health problems? Under pro-life beliefs, she has no choice.
This is the reason why I don’t like “bumper sticker” issues. Most things in life are too complex to boil down to simple answers. And Senator Obama seems to recognize that. I don’t mind that his most profound ideas come from pre-written speeches. I like the fact that he thinks about all aspects of a problem before speaking out. If he isn’t as good with an off the cuff comment…I can live with that if the reasoned conclusion is the RIGHT answer.
Senator McCain showed a strong willingness on Saturday night to attack evil! But what does that really mean and where does his commitment end? Tiananmen Square in China in the 80’s was EVIL! How should we have confronted it? Invade Beijing? What about Darfur? What about ….name your troubled nation of choice! A willingness to interfere in other countries sounds great from the campaign platform, but the reality is that there is much more evil in the world than we can effectively combat as a single nation.
John McCain’s entire history in Washington has been highlighted by a strong belief in American intervention to right the wrongs of the world. During the 80’s, John McCain was a strong supporter of another war. He supported the Contra Army in Nicaragua. Remember them? They were the Nicaraguan rebels funded by Ronald Reagan during his administration. (Interestingly enough the money for the Contras was supplied by the US covertly selling weapons to IRAN! Try explaining that on a bumper sticker.)
In 2001, McCain told CNN within a month of 9/11 that we should attack Iraq because of 9/11! ($658 BILLION dollars later we see how that is working out.) Even the Bush administration now admits that Al Qaida was not in Iraq (pre-9/11) and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. But John McCain wanted to “hit back” at someone. Unfortunately, taking time to be sure he had picked the right target to hit didn’t occur to him in 2001 as a Senator. The big question is would a PRESIDENT McCain use any more judgment and wisdom in picking targets than Senator McCain has? I would hope that America has seen the problems with “cowboy diplomacy” but Senator McCain insists that “there will be more wars”. I realize that he is right on that, but I hope that they are the RIGHT wars and that his Presidential war picks show more wisdom than his past record suggests. Because it’s our children and grandchildren that will fight and bleed for the future wars of a President McCain.
All the media talking heads looked at who won and who lost Saturday night at Saddleback. And in doing so they missed the whole point. I appreciated the opportunity to see both candidates answering the same questions. We did get the opportunity to compare “apples to apples”. And it served to remind me, that the presidency is not a game of “gotcha”, with the person scoring the lowest gotcha number winning the prize. An election should focus on how the candidate comes to a conclusion on what is the best course for our nation to take. It’s not necessarily how you say it or the “experience” you say it with…it’s the wisdom of what you’re saying that counts.
reprinted from www.nemokc.blogspot.com
Comments (15)
I don't think McCain believes there are simple answers. I don't think he knows the answers but says what is politically expedient. Facts don't matter. They have not mattered to the Republicans ever since the Contract on America. If McCain believes life begins at conception why does he support embryonic stem cell research, which involves destroying a human embryo? See, not so easy Johnny boy. But many Americans are ignorant and like easy answers because they don't hurt their brains. That's McCain's base.
August 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mostly agree with your assessment Jim, but I tend to think that while McCain did not know the questions ahead of time, he does have many advisors who are Rove apprentices. They've been through two Bush campaigns and so McCain knew his audience. He knew what they wanted to hear and he told them exactly that.
August 20, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm... well sorry but I felt as he was answering questions that he absolutely did know what he was going to be asked and he was preapared. However yes it does offer some contrast but it was not completely an 'apples to apples' comparison in my opinion. The questions were not all identical and were asked in different ways and as I said there were a couple of points that McCain was asking for the question he expected to be next.
McCain is a terrifying option for president. Barack Obama is not perfect by any means but he offers us an opportunity to shake things to whatever extent we can when it comes to the corporations that are running our country. McCain is worse than status quo when it comes to the people in wealth and power owning the country and pushing 'whatever is in their financial or ideological interest' because he will encourage it with wars. He says he knows how to win wars yet he has declared this war won already a couple of times and now he wants to 'win' it again... How many times to we have to win? The fact that he was ready to go to war with Iraq immediately after 9/11 when he had no facts, especially considering that we now know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it just shows that he is hungry for war... he will draft our children... he will put them in harms way in situations that we may no really believe are appropriate so that they may be demoralized in service. He will bankrupt the country with war debt. His lust for war and to treat the american people like idiotic sheep is sickening. I hope that we all do what we can to keep him from having the opportunity to 'do harm'. I will be rallying young people who support Senator Obama to help with the election and to help make sure that the youth actually vote. If we all do a little something to help get out the vote or to help make this election as fair as possible, it will make all of the difference in the world. The election is not about McCain or Obama, it is about us, the american people.
August 20, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, it should have never happened. Second, they should have precluded ANY questions that pertain to religion.
Left with the options of: Human Rights, Constitutional Restoration, Environmental Protection and Freedom with Justice for all, the moderator would have been dumb-struck and flubbering.
This was another neocon set up, the questions alone cemented that fact. What more twisted set of questions have you ever heard? How rich is rich? WTF Thats rich. ...and a 3 choice evil question?!
The upshot was, the rev and Mackie cheated, were scripted in advance...and Obama beat them at their own game.
"You think I can't handle you turkeys?"
On the ballot, do we see the votes for "evil" anywhere? On Jesus? On abortion? Come on, this wasn't about the presidency, this was a commercial
for Religion.
Johnny McCain was acting the giggling chauvinistic fool and Obama rose to the challenge with thoughtful answers. 85% of Americans profess a belief in God, and he had to accept that fact and enter that arena. President of us all you know.
Its funny though, in all my many years not once have I EVER had the thought, "Oh I wish I had a savior for my soul." Not once.
We know they sell this soul business heavily, because they couldn't promise to get you food or health or houses, but save your soul, v-e-r-r-y important...large/small contribution please.
They both need to get off the make-believe express and women really need to start getting in their faces about WHOSE BODY? Enough already.
Its apparent that religion is about power and control and keeping women down.
The topics of gays and abortions will always be there, 100 yrs down the road, they'll still have them to use as boogie-men at elections. Railing at reality is so religious.
August 20, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Left with the options of: Human Rights, Constitutional Restoration, Environmental Protection and Freedom with Justice for all,
What about Economic Policy? As for Constitutional Restoration, please. No one but the Libertarians and the Constitution Party and Ron Paul try to talk about the Constitution in any holistic way. For both the Republicans and the Democrats, "restoring the Constitution" simply means "protecting the few parts of the Constitution that I like."
August 20, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice post Jim,
Just one thing I noticed that I'd like to clarify. The question posed to McCain (and Obama) wasn't when life begins, but when Human Rights begin.
It is self evident that human life begins at contraception. No one, pro life or pro choice will argue that point. The larger question is when is that life protected by the constitution. John McCain says at conception. Barack Obama doesn't know.
An interesting contradiction occurred concerning McCain's statement on human rights and embryos and
stem cell research.
John McCain, while saying that human rights begin at conception, has no problem with medical experiments being performed on babies in petrie dishes. At least, that is the logical extension of his argument.
But, in the end, John was seen as strong and in charge. And let's face it, that's all that matters. Logic is for the losers.
August 21, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Single best post I've read all season, Kudos!
This is my favorite line:
"we are greater as a nation together than we are as the sum of our separate ideologies"
Also, your example of a widow with two children and an unhealthy pregnancy struck home.
I am pro-life in my life, (I'm an atheist, religion has nothing to do with my belief that life is meaningful and precious).
However I faced nearly this exact scenario. I barely carried both my children to term, the 2nd nearly died and I came very close myself.
I spent the year after he was born extremely anxious about getting pregnant again, I would have had to be hospitalized to have any hope of carrying a 3rd pregnancy. With an infant and a toddler, a husband working 60+ hours a week, I was their primary caregiver. There was no way we could have afforded childcare even if we wanted to put them there.
My husband and I felt we had no right to risk their happiness and well-being over our desire to have another child. Within a year we chose to make that choice permanent - I had a hysterectomy, and despite some baby fever from time-to-time I have absolutely no regrets.
If I had gotten pregnant again I would have gotten an abortion - it would have broke my heart, but I owed it to the children I ALREADY HAD to make such a decision - it's called adulthood and sometimes it really sucks.
Thanks for the post - I too saw a lot of importance and interest in that forum (despite my atheism).
I wish Rick Warren had asked McCain about Iraqi children's lives, and quality of life with regards to his pro-life stance. What disgusts me the most about his absolute certainty that we will 'succeed' in Iraq is that - look at all the ruined and lost lives there, calling it a success afterwards is an insult.
The Civil War in the U.S. was a tragedy first and a success after. It didn't have to be fought, people actually ARE capable of changing without death and war - I'd like someone to be bold enought to try it, I'm not sure Obama is that guy - but I think he's got a better shot at it.
Again, great post.
August 21, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's Saddleback performance was just that: a performance. He definitely showed that he has a lot of experience on talk shows.
August 21, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain could not discuss his relieious experience with any honesty, He us Episcapalian, but lies about being a member of a Southern Baptist church here in Arizona. It is a somewhat moderate congregation. His wife goes ther, not sure if she is a member or not. They ask for people if they want to be members to go forward to let the Church know they want to be baptized. To lie about one's church membership seems to me to be telling a lie for all the wrong reasons. But somehow McCain had to present himself as a neocon so he chose this church for his fake membership. Telling a lie about one's church membershi for that reason seems of all things most disgusting
August 21, 2008 4:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Every word of Obama's is weighed so heavily in general, at any campaign stop, in any speech, this is an extreme example though. He is under a much greater amount of scrutiny than McCain, and the Saddleback forum was incredibly loaded. McCain is the candidate for the evangelical crowd, there doesnt seem to be much question about that. Obama however, as a Christian, couldnt very well turn down the Saddleback forum, despite the fact that it is obviously working against him from the get go. The questions were loaded, the setting was loaded, and Obama in order to keep up where he has been aiming the entire time had to be nuanced in his responses. It is disgusting that people are claiming a McCain victory. His responses to these questions were laughable. When you see his response to the 'evil' question specifically, do you really think that he even begins to have the ability to see the shades of grey in the geopolitical scene? Sure, we all want simple answers, black and white, good vs. evil, but they just arent there. This is why Fareed Zakaria is dead-on in reversing the apparent roles and calling Obama the realist and McCain the naive idealist.
August 21, 2008 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Apples to Apples" maybe, but the orchard was very slanted.
August 21, 2008 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with Saddleback per se, from a political point of view is that Obama treated the forum, and Warren, as if he were doing an interview before an Editorial Board.
McCain, of course, treated it as a townhall debate.
Stylistically, McCain shone that night. I don't know who advised Obama to treat it in the manner that he did, but that person needs to be handed their walking papers.
August 21, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed with Jim's first sentence of the article -- I, too found it the most interesting political event of the year.
I find it a little difficult to see how it was all that slanted, when they answered the exact same questions. I can't imagine either candidate thought they'd be able to get to November without having to state their views on gay rights and abortion rights, whether or not this forum ever took place. My disappointment on the "balanced" front was in line with what witty said above -- there were “pro-life” questions that Pastor Warren *didn't* ask. He claimed on CNN afterwards that he had a number of questions he didn't get to, including human trafficking, the AIDS epidemic, and poverty. Those are questions that *do* matter to the evangelicals who were the purported audience for this forum, and they are questions that Sen. Obama would have done quite well on. By neglecting to ask those types of questions, Pastor Warren simply reinforced the stereotype that evangelicals only care about two issues, which is simply not the case. For example, Pastor Warren really does “reverse tithe” -- living on 10% of his income and giving away 90% of it, and it really does go to address the AIDS epidemic in Africa. For something that is of such personal importance to him and his church, I think he could’ve raised it for the candidates.
That said, I think the forum reflected quite well on Sen. Obama. Strip away everything else, and we’re left with an uncontestable fact. One of the candidates is a Christian and one is not. For the media (and many TPM post’ers), Evangelical Christianity is simply a synonym with social conservatism -- the word evangelical is just shorthand for anti-gay & anti-abortion. It isn’t. There may be a subset of evangelicals who only listened to Sen. McCain’s answers on the hotbutton issues -- “Life begins at conception, next!” & “Marriage is between a man and a woman, next!” -- and will be willing to ignore his answer to the question about being a Christian. But I guarantee you that the majority of evangelicals *were* listening to the answers to the faith questions as well.
You may or may not like that. You may call that a “religious test for office.” Whatever. But the crowd listening to this forum was paying attention when Sen. Obama answered the question about him being a Christian in personal terms and made it clear that his faith makes a difference in his life. And they were paying attention when Sen. McCain could only come up with a story that happened forty years ago and was about the faith of someone *else* (a prison guard) and not himself. They noticed that.
And they noticed that while Sen. Obama mentioned God and faith numerous times. They noticed that Sen. McCain only mentioned God once -- in passing, in the phrase “thank God” -- and faith in the context of “faith-based initiatives” -- and, in fact, made only a single direct reference to anything religious. He said he prayed while a POW.
Whatever your beliefs are, I guarantee you that evangelicals noticed these things. Sen. Obama’s goal is not to take 80% of the white evangelical vote, because that won’t happen. But Pres. Clinton managed to get his vote up to the upper 30’s in 1992 and 1996. I believe Sen. Obama can get it to a 40-60 split, and this forum was helpful in doing that.
August 21, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree with everything Jim N. says about Obama and McCain as persons and who is more qualified to be President; unfortunately, thoughful, nuanced answers in a nationally televised appearnce do not win votes, except from the converted. There are millions of people who essentially only vote in Presidential elections, they are not well informed (the so-called low information voters), and they are not looking for the most thoughtful, nuanced candidate. If the were Adlai Stevenson and Al Gore would have been presidents. Primary voters are different from general election voters and I am not sure Obama and his campaign staff understand that yet. He got 18 million votes in the primaries, but he needs three times that in the general, and many of those additional voters will be making up their minds on very limited information. The candidate who hits hard and speaks in simple thoughts will get most of those voters.
August 21, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A war against propagandists could take a 100 years.
Even if Obama doesn't become president, (I'm loathe to say win/lose since the 2000 election) I don't think his efforts will be in vain.
Many of us think of Obama as the right president for the times - he may well still be ahead of his time.
Lots and lots of money is invested in the status quo.
August 21, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment