The Neville Awards
Home | The Liberals' Corner | Hypocrisy Watch | Recommended Media | The Butcher's Bill |
Obama's Daily March To Socialism & Surrender | The Obama Gallery | Videos


McCain Kicks Obama Booty at Saddleback -- Three Articles


How McCain Won Saddleback

Showdown at Saddleback

'Pay grade' unartful dodge


How McCain Won Saddleback


By Byron York
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTBjN2RkY2Y3ODZhYmRmYTZjYTI1NTQ4ZGNkM2Y2YmU=&w=MA
August 17, 2008

It’s fair to say that in the hours before John McCain appeared with Barack Obama at the “Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency,” here at Pastor Rick Warren’s famed southern California mega-church, there were at least a few McCain insiders who were a bit nervous about their candidate’s prospects. Obama can be remarkably polished in this sort of situation. Unlike other Democrats, he’s not afraid to hang out with evangelicals. McCain, on the other hand, can at times be cranky and take pleasure in irritating his base. Could he come out ahead in this one?

Team McCain needn’t have worried. This was not your usual political TV show. Warren — Pastor Rick, around here — asked big questions, about big subjects; he wasn’t concerned about what appeared on the front page of that morning’s Washington Post. And his simple, direct, big questions brought out something we don’t usually see in a presidential face-off; in this forum, as opposed to a read-the-prompter speech, or even a debate focused on the issues of the moment, the candidates were forced to call on everything they had — the things they have done and learned throughout their lives. And the fact is, John McCain has lived a much bigger life than Barack Obama. That’s not a slam at Obama; McCain has lived a much bigger life than most people. But it still made Obama look small in comparison. McCain was the clear winner of the night.

The story continues below



The idea was for Warren to question Obama for an hour — they tossed a coin to see who would go first — and then ask the same questions of McCain, who was not allowed to hear what Obama had answered before him. Not a few people in the press thought it was a bad idea. Asking each man the same questions meant Warren couldn’t tailor his queries to each man; sure, he could ask Obama about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but what sense would it make to ask McCain, too? It seemed like a recipe for nothing much at all.

But Pastor Rick hasn’t built a huge church and sold more than 25 million copies of The Purpose-Driven Life for nothing. By the time Warren finished questioning Obama, people were eager to hear how McCain would handle the same subjects. In a debate, candidates are often asked the same question, but the second guy has always heard what the first guy said and tailors his answer accordingly. At Saddleback, there was something much different — and more revealing — going on.

The contrast was striking throughout each man’s one-hour time on stage. When Warren asked Obama, “What’s the most gut-wrenching decision you’ve ever had to make?” Obama answered that opposing the war in Iraq was “as tough a decision that I’ve had to make, not only because there were political consequences but also because Saddam Hussein was a bad person and there was no doubt he meant America ill.” But Obama was a state senator in Illinois when Congress authorized the president to use force in Iraq. He didn’t have to make a decision on the war. That fact was a recurring issue in the Democratic primaries, when candidates Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden, Christopher Dodd, and John Edwards argued that they, as senators, had to make a choice Obama didn’t have to make. And now he says it’s his toughest call.

When McCain got the question, he was able to tell an old story with a sense of gravity and poignancy that he seldom shows in public. He described his time as a prisoner of war, when he was offered a chance for early release because his father was a top naval officer. “I was in rather bad physical shape,” McCain told Warren, but “we had a code of conduct that said you only leave by order of capture.” So McCain refused to go. He made the telling even more forceful when he added that, “in the spirit of full disclosure, I’m very happy I didn’t know the war was going to last for another three years or so.” In one moment, he showed a sense of pride and a hint of regret, too; he came across as a man who did the right thing but not without the temptation to take an easy out. In any event, the message was very clear: John McCain has had to make bigger, more momentous decisions in his life than has Barack Obama.

McCain bested Obama again when Warren asked for an example of a time in which he “went against party loyalty and maybe even against your own best interest for the good of America.”

“Well, I’ll give you an example that in fact I worked with John McCain on,” Obama said, “and that was the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform.” But it turned out that was an issue on which Obama had briefly allied with McCain and then jumped back to the Democratic mother ship, causing McCain to write Obama an angry note about the abandonment of what had been a principled position. As far as bucking your party goes, it wasn’t very big stuff.

When McCain got the question, everyone in the room thought he would bring up campaign-finance reform, the issue on which he has alienated the Republican base for years. But he didn’t. “Climate change, out-of-control spending, torture,” he said. “The list goes on.” McCain’s prime example, though, was his story of opposing Ronald Reagan’s decision to send a contingent of Marines to Lebanon as a peacekeeping force. “My knowledge and my background told me that a few hundred Marines in a situation like that could not successfully carry out any kind of peacekeeping mission, and I thought they were going into harm’s way,” McCain said. But he deeply admired Reagan, and wanted to be loyal to the party; it was a difficult decision.

McCain answered the whole question without touching on campaign finance; he had so much more life experience to draw on that he could swamp Obama without using everything he had.

And on it went. On questions like the nature of evil and causes worth dying for, McCain’s depth stood out. And that was true even when he admitted wrongdoing. Early on in the questioning, Warren asked each man, “What…would be the greatest moral failure in your life, and what would be the greatest moral failure of America?” Obama answered that he drank and “experimented” with drugs as a teenager, which he attributed to his own selfishness. McCain, on the other hand, said, “The failure of my first marriage. It’s my greatest moral failure.”

McCain’s actions in that matter are nothing to brag about, but what came from it onstage at Saddleback was the sense that he was willing to dig deeper and take a greater risk in his answer than had Obama. McCain knew that critics on the left, looking for a way to change the subject from the John Edwards affair, had been pointing to the end of McCain’s first marriage. But McCain took the subject straight on. “He could have avoided that altogether or come up with some other answer,” Chip Pickering, the Mississippi Republican representative, told me later in the “Messaging Room.” (There’s no “Spin Room” at Saddleback; just a “Messaging Room.”) “But he very quickly, cleanly, and clearly confessed his failure.” Still, I said to Pickering, adultery doesn’t sit well with evangelicals, and that’s what McCain was talking about, wasn’t it? “The clarity of confessing his failure — there will be respect in the evangelical community for doing so,” Pickering answered.

Finally, there was the question of abortion. In the days leading up to the forum, pro-lifers had been worried that Warren was not going to include a question on the issue, focusing instead on things like poverty, AIDS, and the “new” evangelical agenda. But Warren brought it up, simple and straight. “At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?” he asked Obama.

“Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade,” Obama answered. “But let me just speak more generally about the issue of abortion because this is something obviously the country wrestles with. One thing that I’m absolutely convinced of is there is a moral and ethical content to this issue. So I think that anybody who tries to deny the moral difficulties and gravity of the abortion issue, I think, is not paying attention. So that would be point number one.” Obama went on to say that he is pro-choice. Even for people who agreed with him, it wasn’t a terribly impressive answer.

An hour later, when Warren asked McCain the same thing, he got this: “At the moment of conception. I have a 25-year pro-life record in the Congress, in the Senate, and as president of the United States, I will be a pro-life president and this presidency will have pro-life policies.”

“Okay — we don’t have to go longer on that one,” Warren said, quickly moving on.

Obama had nothing to win on the question; if anything, he seemed wary of saying something that might anger his pro-choice base. But McCain had a lot at stake with this group, and his answer seemed to settle the concerns of social conservatives who have been rattled by reports that he might be considering a pro-choice running mate. While many evangelicals have softened on the issue of gay marriage, they wanted to hear a solid, clear statement from McCain on abortion. “Abortion and marriage are still pivotal issues…but I think that abortion is probably more pivotal than marriage,” Marlys Popma, the Iowa social conservative who is now McCain’s national coordinator for evangelical issues, told me after the forum. “Abortion is still very, very solid with this group, even the younger ones [who are more liberal on marriage]. Life is a real delineating factor.”

To further press the case on abortion, McCain had brought along New Jersey Republican Rep. Chris Smith, one of the most forceful pro-life voices in Congress. After the forum, I asked Smith whether Obama had helped himself at all with pro-lifers. Just the opposite, Smith said. “I thought Sen. Obama’s statement in quoting Matthew 25, which is my favorite scripture since I was in high school — ‘Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do likewise to me’ — when as a matter of record he voted against [a ban on partial-birth abortion ]…well, I find it discouraging and disingenuous for him to talk about the least of our brethren.”

As far as the crowd is concerned, it was clear that McCain was the favorite. That was hardly a surprise; at a small gathering I attended a few years ago, someone asked Warren how many of his parishioners voted for John Kerry. He thought for a moment and said 15 percent. So the conservative Saddleback crowd, while happy to see Obama in their midst, was not going to be on his side. What they wanted was proof that John McCain was on theirs, and that’s what they got.


Showdown at Saddleback


By William Kristol
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/opinion/18kristol.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
August 18, 2008

While normal people were out having fun Saturday night, I was home in front of the TV. But I wasn't enjoying the Olympics. Your diligent columnist was dutifully watching Barack Obama and John McCain answer the Rev. Rick Warren's questions at Saddleback Church. Virtue is sometimes rewarded. The event was worth watching - and for me yielded three conclusions.

First, Rick Warren should moderate one of the fall presidential debates.

Warren's queries were simple but probing. He was fair to both candidates, his manner was relaxed but serious, and he neither went for "gotcha" questions nor pulled his punches. And his procedure of asking virtually identical questions to each candidate during his turn on stage paid off. It allowed us to see the two giving revealingly different answers to the same question.

So, I say, with all due respect to Jim Lehrer, Tom Brokaw and Bob Schieffer - the somewhat nondiverse group selected by the debates commission as the three presidential debate moderators - one of them should step aside for Warren.

Second, it was McCain's night.

Obama made no big mistakes. But his tendency to somewhat windy generalities meant he wasn't particularly compelling. McCain, who went second, was crisp by contrast, and his anecdotes colorful.

Now I'm not entirely unbiased (!), so I don't quite trust my initial judgment in such matters. But it was confirmed the next morning. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reported on "Meet the Press" that "the Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context. ... What they're putting out privately is that McCain ... may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama."

There's no evidence that McCain had any such advantage. But the fact that Obama's people made this suggestion means they know McCain outperformed him.

Third, Obama and McCain really do have different "worldviews," to use Rick Warren's term.

Perhaps the most revealing moment was the two candidates' response to a question about evil. Yes, evil - that negation of the good that, Friedrich Nietzsche to the contrary notwithstanding, we seem not to have moved beyond.

Warren asked whether evil exists and if it does, "do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?"

Obama and McCain agreed evil exists and couldn't be ignored. But then their answers diverged.

Obama said that "we see evil all the time" - in Darfur, on the streets of our cities, in child abusers. Such evils, he continued, need to be "confronted squarely." And while we can't "erase evil from the world," we can be "soldiers" in the task of confronting it when we see it.

But, Obama added, "Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for us to have some humility" as we confront evil. Why? Because "a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil." After all, "just because we think our intentions are good doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good."

It's nice to see a liberal aware of the limits of good intentions - indeed, that the road to hell is paved with them. But here as elsewhere, Obama stayed at a high level of abstraction. It would have been interesting if Warren had asked a follow-up question: Where in particular has the United States in recent years - at home or especially abroad - perpetrated evil in the name of confronting evil? Hasn't the overwhelming problem been, rather, a reluctance to effectively confront evil - in Darfur, or Rwanda, or pre-9/11 Afghanistan?

John McCain appears to think so. Unlike Obama, he took the question about evil to be in the first instance about 9/11. McCain asserted that "of course evil must be defeated," and he put "radical Islamic extremism," Al Qaeda in particular, at the top of his to-defeat list. In this context, McCain discussed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and concluded by mentioning "the young men and women who are serving this nation in uniform."

So while Obama talked of confronting evil, McCain spoke of defeating it. Obama took the view that evil is generally abroad in the world; McCain focused on radical Islam and 9/11. Obama claimed that all of us must be metaphorical "soldiers" against evil; McCain paid tribute to actual American soldiers. And McCain couldn't resist saying again Saturday night that if he has to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell to get him and bring him to justice, he'll do so.

Rick Warren remarked Saturday night that he wanted to help us understand Obama's and McCain's different worldviews. He accomplished his purpose.


'Pay grade' unartful dodge


By Michael Graham
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1113869
August 20, 2008

"Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade." - Sen. Barack Obama, on "When does a baby get human rights?"

In 1948, they had Harry Truman and "The buck stops here!"

In 2008, they've got Barack Obama and it's "above my pay grade."

This is definitely not your grandfather's Democratic Party.

Certainly not mine. My grandfather, Ray Futrell, was a lifelong FDR Democrat, the kind who would proudly rather vote for a wife-beating, syphilitic drunkard than for a Republican. In fact, he would find the previous sentence entirely redundant.

My grandfather helped push Patton's tanks across Europe, and one reason for my grandfather's unshakable party loyalty was his belief that Harry Truman saved his life by dropping the A-bombs on Japan.

If Truman hadn't made the call - if he'd demurred that such a profound life-and-death decision was "above my pay grade" - my grandfather believed that he and untold thousands of Americans would have died invading the Japanese mainland.

I miss my grandfather, but I'm also glad that he isn't around to witness the tragic descent of his beloved Democratic Party.

Watching Obama with the Rev. Rick Warren this past weekend, answering questions - or, more accurately, not answering - about his most basic beliefs was simply embarrassing.

Obama supports partial-birth abortion and voted against the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act." When he got the invitation to an evangelical forum hosted by a pro-life pastor, he had to know that issues regarding life and the law were going to come up.

And his prepared answer to the most fundamental question about public policy and abortion ("is the fetus a human being?") is that it's "above my pay grade?"

There are certain sentences that should never appear on the lips of the Leader of the Free World. "That Vladimir Putin, what a great guy!" is one of them. "I did not have sex with that woman" is another.

But on the very top of the list of statements about our nation's laws that should never be spoken by a guy whose job it is to sit next to the Big, Red Button is "That's above my pay grade."

With all due respect, Sen. Obama, being president is above your pay grade. And the voters are starting to figure that out.

Politico.com reported yesterday that 75 percent of Americans believe that John McCain can "handle the job of commander in chief." Only 50 percent feel the same about Obama. A whopping 42 percent told pollsters they believe Obama is simply not up to the task.

Who can blame them? Obama wants the difficult duty of taking on Iran and North Korea, but he can't even handle Rick Warren or the Clintons - the latter having commandeered Obama's own convention in Denver next week and forced their way into a pro-Hillary roll call. Having been routed by the Clintonistas, Obama wants a chance to lead against al-Qaeda? Please.

Leaders don't pass tough questions to the next "pay grade." They don't need five minutes to answer yes-or-no questions about the surge or Russia's invasion of a democratic neighbor.

Politicians flip-flop on taxes and FISA and the Second Amendment to meet the political needs of the moment. They try to explain away the votes they've already cast, like Obama's extreme pro-abortion voting record. Or they courageously cast 130 non-votes of "present" in the Illinois legislature and pass the buck that way.

That's not leadership, that's politics. And Barack Obama is 100 percent pure politician.

He is certainly no Harry Truman.
Reading List