Applesauce » McCain smoother than Obama in church forum

McCain smoother than Obama in church forum

August 17th, 2008 at 09:43am Pat Cunningham

I didn’t see it, but I gather from what I’ve read that John McCain exceeded expectations in terms of articulation in a forum last night at a California megachurch where he and Barack Obama were separately interviewed by evangelist Rick Warren.

Whether this bodes well for McCain in the forthcoming presidential campaign debates remains to be seen. After all, the audience at the church forum was predisposed to prefer the more conservative responses to Pastor Warren’s questions, which both candidates likely realized going in.

Accounts of last night’s doings are HERE and HERE and HERE.

Entry Filed under: Rick Warren, John McCain, Barack Obama

18 Comments Add your own

1. Menlo Bob | August 17th, 2008 at 10:28 am

The formulas used by big media have now been exposed as totally lacking. By isolating the candidates and allowing them to answer the same questions without the other being present was perfect. At first the church setting didn’t seem right. In the end it was only a side note to a great debate.

Obama showed how to do laid back. Unfortunately, the Prozac act didn’t win the night. His mumbling hestitency wore thin. A caffinated McCain (for a change) was able to provide sharp answers and a sharp contrast. The younger guy looked older than the older guy. Hillary’s supporters must have been beside themselves.
2. Pat Cunningham | August 17th, 2008 at 11:25 am

The best format would be with the two candidates questioning each other, setting their own agendas, without journalists or a Pastor Warren interfering. Just like Lincoln and Douglas.
3. Mike Carroll | August 17th, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Asked which Justices of the Supreme Court he would not have nominated as President, Obama answered Scalia and Thomas. Combining that answer with his failure to vote for either Roberts or Alito cements his judicial philosophy as “make it up as you go along”. A clear choice for those few Americans who actually understand the danger of an imperial judiciary.
4. Pat Cunningham | August 17th, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Mike: Was it “an imperial judiciary” that recently overturned gun-control laws and ordinances that had been adopted by the democratically elected representatives of certain states, cities and towns? Aren’t such rulings examples of the kind of “judicial activism” that conservatives are so fond of criticizing? Or does it depend on whose ox is being gored? Conservatives can never win the argument over “legislating from the bench,” mainly because they’re all for it when the judicial activism goes their way. So why do they persist in such silly complaints? Everybody’s for judicial activism of one sort or another — or an “imperial judiciary,” if you will. Even you, Mike.
5. Menlp Bob | August 17th, 2008 at 3:56 pm

“overturned gun contol laws”. That’s a novel way to describe the 2nd amendment.
6. Pat Cunningham | August 17th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

Bob: What’s your problem? You’ve never heard of courts overturning laws? You lead a sheltered life. That’s exactly what the court did in the case to which I referred. It overturned certain gun control laws. That’s what courts do when they find laws to be in conflict with the Constitution. They overturn those laws. How in the world do you find that wording to be “novel”? That phrase has been used countless times over the years. There’s no bias in that term. Many’s the time I’ve applauded the court for overturning certain laws. Bob, you’re just too damned eager to see prejudice where it doesn’t exist. It’s part of your conspiratorial attitude about the media. Everything’s a plot. By the way, check out the use of the word “overturned” in the headline on this piece from a randomly selected right-wing Web site:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/political-discussions/45308-gee-constitution-does-mean-what-says-dc-gun-ban-overturned.html
7. Bukowski | August 17th, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Does anyone else see anything odd about a religious icon hosting a nationally televised “forum” with two prospective heads of state discussing the role of religion in governmental operations? Frankly, the only other country in the world I can think of off the top of my head that would stage such an event would be Iran. I cannot imagine such a religious event (run by one sect of one religion at that!) occurring in any other free or democratic nation. Is there something wrong with this picture?
8. Bukowski | August 17th, 2008 at 7:25 pm

It strikes me as odd (or perhaps not) that the only other country I can think of off the top of my head that would sponsor a \"forum\" hosted by a religious icon with two prospective heads of state would be Iran. I can picture Ali Khamenei asking questions of Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad on Islamic law and the role of religion in running the affairs of state. But I could picture anything of the sort occurring in any other country until last night when I saw it happening in the USA. What is wrong with this picture?
9. Menlo Bob | August 17th, 2008 at 7:39 pm

During the Saddleback Civil Forum Barack Obama was asked for an example of where he courageously went against his party. Obama mentioned joining McCain on campaign ethics reform. Now we learn that Obama’s vaunted independence lasted—wait for it—-ONE DAY. Obama is outrageous unprepared to become president .
10. Ross Calloway | August 17th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Unfortunately, I didn’t see all of McCain’s portion of the ‘debate.’ But the format was perfect. Instead of reciting their talking points, as happens in the other formats, if not also by the ‘moderators’ themselves, this way, the candidates were asked the same questions while one was sequestered from the other.

You came away knowing more about the candidate, how they think and what motivates them, than what you can get from talking points written up by someone else. I’ll watch the re-run tonight so I can see McCain’s full hour.

I did see McCain’s and Obama’s answers about the Supreme Court Justices. A starker contrast could not have been drawn by all the talking points in the world. It was clear that Obama preferred justices that make law, as opposed McCain’s preferences that interpret law and uphold the Constitution.

Instead of Mike’s description of an ‘imperial judiciary,’ I’d call it an activist judiciary which, like McCain explained, is one that makes laws. In a perfect world, the legislature is the branch that makes laws. In a liberal/Democratic world, they judiciary is expected to make the laws that the legislatures can’t.

A recent glaring example of that is the Gitmo case where the Supremes granted constitutional rights to enemy combatants, ignoring precedent set in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950).

http://rosscalloway.com/lunchcounter/2008/06/13/supreme-court-hands-another-win-to-the-enemy/
11. Pat Cunningham | August 17th, 2008 at 7:55 pm

Bob: Your “ONE DAY” link is more than lame. It doesn’t prove that Obama made any firm commitment to McCain. Besides, given McCain’s unparalleled record of flip-flops — a record Obama could never hope to match — he’s hardly one to lecture anybody about changing political course. He’s just a confused old man who doesn’t remember what he says from one day to the next. Incidentally, part of the McCain-Feingold act concerning campaign money was — get ready for that terrible word, Bob — overturned by the Supreme Court.
12. Pat Cunningham | August 17th, 2008 at 8:01 pm

Ross: Did you disagree with the Supreme Court on the Washington handgun ban? Yes, that ruling was based on the court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, but the Gitmo ruling also was based on Constitutional interpretation. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say the latter ruling was improper judicial activism, but the former ruling was not. As I said in a comment above, this bitching about judicial activism depends on whose ox is being gored.
13. John Doe | August 17th, 2008 at 9:29 pm

These debates will be forever worthless until third party candidates are allowed to participate.

Around and around we go.
14. Ross Calloway | August 17th, 2008 at 9:31 pm

I’m not talking about the DC law to outlaw handguns. You are. But I thought that the Supremes’ interpretation was that law abiding citizens had the constitutional right to own firearms. And, up until that decision, there was no precedent on the subject. That was the first interpretation that reached the SCOTUS, and precedent was set. Beyond that, I think they also allowed for some sort of local laws regulating their use. I admit that I haven’t kept up on the DC gun issue, which is why I am not having anything ‘both ways’ as you are quick to assume about me.

The subject of the thread was the candidates position on the ‘kind’ of justices the candidates would not have nominated.

Where the Gitmo issue is concerned, what _I_ was talking about, there already was precedent. In that case, the constitution was already interpreted on this issue back in 1950. And where there is precedent, that is (in the real world) what is supposed to be followed.

However, in the Gitmo case, precedent was ignored, and the SCOTUS simply set another precedent that amounted to a 180 degrees shift. That is just another example making law instead of rendering a decision based on it.

Want another? How about Justice Kennedy consulting laws in some European country to base a decision? That’s beyond being activist. That’s judicial malpractice. The SC justices have only one charge, to render decisions based on the U.S. Constitution. Period. End of Story, End of job description.

There isn’t any ‘both ways’ about it.
15. Ross Calloway | August 17th, 2008 at 10:05 pm

Please let me correct one statement I made:
The subject of the thread was the candidates position on the ‘kind’ of justices the candidates would not have nominated.

That wasn’t the subject of the thread. It was about the debate in general. And to that end, I responded. I thought it was good. Additionally, I thought that McCain did better. Better than ever in fact.

You said that you hadn’t seen it at all, and I said I saw only part of it and I commented on the part that I did see, for the benefit of you and the gentle readers here.

Andrea Mitchell, on Meet the Depressed this morning, was so impressed with how well McCain did that she opined that there may have been some collusion going on. Suggesting that McCain was not sequestered. ROTFL No bias there. Black helicopters maybe.
16. Pat Cunningham | August 18th, 2008 at 7:20 am

Ross: You’re wrong to say that Supreme Court precedent settles an issue forevermore. The Latin term for that is “stare decisis” (let the decision stand), and legal scholars have argued about it for eons. It is not, however, a sacred principle. Courts sometimes overrule precedent. It happened when Brown v. the Board of Education, a unanimous ruling in 1954, went counter to Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896. Even Clarence Thomas, a so-called strict constructionist, allows for going against precedent in some cases. He once said:
“(M)y sentiments would be toward a preference for recognizing that there is significant weight to be given to existing case law and that the burden is on the judge who wants to change that precedent, to not only show why it’s wrong but why stare decisis should not apply.”
In other words, precedent should not overturned without very good reason, but it can, in fact, be overturned.
17. Ross Calloway | August 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pm

You’re right Pat about stare decisis. It should be sacred principle.

I seem to remember Justice Thomas and for sure Chief Justice John Roberts declare stare decisis when asked abour Roe v Wade.
18. Pat Cunningham | August 18th, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Ross: With all due respect for your memory, there’s no chance that Republican senators would have voted to confirm Thomas or Roberts if they suspected that either man would never vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.