Liveblogging McCain at Saddleback

It's striking how uncomfortable McCain is when talking about faith and using religious language. As moving as the POW story is, it's a stock story he falls back on because he isn't comfortable talking about religion.

He's definitely on a roll, though. All of his applause lines in front of a friendly audience, but not much of a sense that he's really thinking about complex questions or responding to Warren's questions as much as just giving the same lines he's given 100 times.

I think that McCain holds back on religious language because obviously he had a deep, personal experience while captive. He mentions this, but does not over-analyze it because then people would think he's over-doing his prisoner of war experience.

I was very struck by McCain - maybe I just haven't gotten to see him in this type of format before, but he did surprisingly well. Not on everything, of course, but on most conservative issues he sounded convincingly conservative. I liked his answers on the Supreme Court also - he can say he wouldn't have nominated Stevens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg, even if he voted for the latter three. And he said he was proud of the president for nominating Roberts and Alito. So am I - two of the single best acts of the Bush presidency. The "what is rich" question McCain answered well also. It's definitely not as low as Obama's $150,000, and the government doesn't need more money; the problem is way-out-of-control spending. Now I just have to go read more on McCain's record in that regard... (did he vote against that farm bill?)

What is clear is that the McCain will be helped when it comes to Evangelicals because he clearly demonstrated he's "one of them" on the their bread and butter issues. The downside for McCain is that Independents who believed McCain was a social moderate now know he's "one of them." them being social conservatives. All those feminist Clinton supporters who may have been lukewarm on Obama were reminded that McCain is far more dangerous politically than Obama ever could be on the issues that are important to them.

John McCain was telling all his old stories, using all his campaign speeches and always calling me his friend, and I don't even know the guy.

(I had to go to a funeral today so I had to watch a taped delay version) Although McCain did not impress me with any new insight as to who he is, I beleive that he really loves his country and would do his best to serve the office. I just don't agree with his hawkish views of the American dream.

Kimberly, IIRC, Sen. McCain was absent when the senate voted on the Farm Bill. He stated in an interview afterward that he didn't like the farm bill, that it had alot of problems, but that if he had been present he would have voted for it because the bill with all its faults was better than no farm bill. In other words, McCain is a pragmatist who truly understands the principle that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

Michael: Agreed, but I'd say that Warren is not exactly in a field where leaders or followers are expected or encouraged to ask probing, complex challenging questions.

Rod: That's not true. It can be true for some theologians and pastors, but it is inaccurate and unfair to say that characterizes the field. Just because you don't like the answers they come up with doesn't mean the questions they ask aren't probing, complex and challenging.

I wouldn't say it characterizes the field (pastors, theologians, &c.), but I'd say id does characterize the part of the field that gets mass exposure (particularly through best-selling books) and which gets plum media forums like last night's. I agree with Rod that if Fr. Neuhaus, or any of dozens of other pastors or theologians had done such an event the questions would have been thoughtful, probing, and insightful, and that the candidates would not have got away with many of the stump-speech boilerplate they spouted last night. I, too, would like to see such a thing. However, I think the chances of a discussion session with the likes of Fr. Neuhaus would never get the kind of media exposure that Rick Warran got, and I still doubt that either candidate would agree to such a session. Let's face it, their handlers would be deathly afraid of letting them within a hundred miles of something substantive before an election.

Georgia's a Christian nation and has been part of Russia since around the time Ohio became a State.

So?

BTW, was anyone else bothered by Warren's paraphrases of the Bible? For instance, when Warren asked McCain a question, he prefaced the question with a statement to the effect of "The Bible says that a great leader mixes intelligence and love."

What?? If I had been answering the questions, I would have asked, "Where is that found in the Bible? Is that the New Living Translation or something? The Message? Book, chapter, and verse, please."

BTW, was anyone else bothered by Warren's paraphrases of the Bible? For instance, when Warren asked McCain a question, he prefaced the question with a statement to the effect of "The Bible says that a great leader mixes intelligence and love."

I'm always bothered by that.

To paraphrase someone: It isn't what people don't know that's the problem, it's what they do know that just ain't so.

Almost everything I've heard attributed to the Bible without the citing of specific verses has been either wrong or at least flawed.

That's not to say people don't ever miscite actual verses, but when they do, they're a lot easier to correct, and when they use them in prepared examples (Like this question was.), they usually get them right.

I'm sure, incidentally, that there is a verse that says that a great leader has intelligence, and one that says a great leader has love. And a lot of other verses saying what a 'great leader' has. So it's rather silly.

I'm prompted by the last comment on the Junie B. Jones topic to say that I think McCain really slid by with that confession of the "failure" of his marriage. That makes it sound like a bridge collapse or something. Or, in the words of Gus Grissom, "It just blew!" It was no "failure." McCain beat his marriage to death with a baseball bat, via persistent infidelity, plus actively auditioning a better-looking, healthier, wealthier second wife while still married to the first, who had remained faithful to him throughout his captivity. He didn't betray his country. But he did betray the person closest to him in the whole world. He did break his oath to her. Something to think about when considering his character.

I also think, if he's truly repentant, that he'd have done better not to go down to Florida and brag publicly about how he used to party down with hookers and strippers. You know darn well that when he says he used to "date" the so-called Flame of Florida, he doesn't mean that he used to take her to the movies and hold her hand. He used prostitutes, and he's not even ashamed of it. He's still bragging about it, apparently under the impression that it makes him look like more of a "real man." Yay, Mr. Family Values.

AnotherBeliever, I bow to your understanding of the stresses on returning veterans, and if McCain were just an ordinary guy, I would not be prying into his past. It's a sore spot only because the Republican party, in general, has made "family values" a campaigning point. In my opinion, it shouldn't be. I'm interested in the candidates' positions on foreign and domestic issues, not their qualifications for religious leader or moral role-model. But if they're going to incorporate their personal morality into the platform, then they have to be scrutinized on how well they've lived up to it. And, as I said, I'd be more inclined to accept that McCain's first marriage is a closed issue IF he seemed to have learned from what he did. It would have been tremendously more appropriate, in my opinion, if he'd referred to his former fascination with strippers remorsefully, rather than with self-congratulatory chuckles and winks. He could have pointed out to other young men that those are not the values that will sustain you when you get into a situation where your soul will be tried. Instead, he's trying to play it both ways--he's a praying, god-relying hero, and also a hell of a rake and a playah. That doesn't work for me.

Your question of what more can be done to help the veterans who are coming home is a very, very good one, and I'd love to hear both candidates answer it. I'd hope that McCain would be especially attentive to the tragic consequences of war to us and to our own people, since he is apparently willing to pursue this course and suffer those consequences indefinitely.

sigaliris: Amen to your posts of 3:15 and 8:01! I especially like how you point out the weasely language. Everyone nowadays says their marriage "failed" or they "went through" a divorce. No--either justifiably or not, one or both spouses caused their marriage to founder, and they divorced each other. The squishy, impersonal language is a cop-out.

I think this is important in light of the way that the Right tends to want to pounce all over any Democrat who screws up (Clinton, Edwards, and so on) on the grounds that it's about "character", to say nothing about the moralistic posturing of much of the Right. Well, if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander--if character matters for Edwards, then it matters for McCain, who, as you point out, doesn't seem that repentant.

I'm especially glad you point this out since on two different threads I brought up his suggestion that Cindy be "Ms Buffalo Chip", a rather tawdry stripper-type biker award given in North Dakota. I was willing to write it off as befuddled unawareness rather than a leering "wink-wink nudge nudge" thing. In light of what you point out, it seems more the latter. In any case, the response to both postings was deafening silence. I'm glad there are others out there who think this is a valid issue.

AnotherBeliever is right in pointing out that it was a hard thing for Viet Nam vets to come back, and that we need more support for our veterans. However, as you point out, the pattern or at least the attitude seems to have persisted in McCain's case. Finally, your last paragraphs sums it all up: Your question of what more can be done to help the veterans who are coming home is a very, very good one, and I'd love to hear both candidates answer it. I'd hope that McCain would be especially attentive to the tragic consequences of war to us and to our own people, since he is apparently willing to pursue this course and suffer those consequences indefinitely. (emphasis added).

McCain admits that his divorce was his worst moral failure and you rip him to shreds because he doesn't tell all.

"Telling all" isn't the issue, and strictly speaking, his personal life isn't anyone's business. The issues were that there is evidence that McCain is still somewhat swinish in his attitudes twoards women, and, more importantly, that the Republican Party is hypocritical in using sexual sin as a cudgel with which to beat Democrats, whether they are repentant or not, while giving their own side a pass. If it was fair to run Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards through the ringer (and they were all admittedly slimebags when it came to their sex lives and their treatment of their wives and families), then it's fair to do so for Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or any other Family Values Party--I mean, Republican Party--candidate.

Yet you give Obama a pass when he says that his most gut-wrenching decision was the invasion of Iraq---before he was elected to the Senate!! Whatever!

I'm not giving him a pass on it--it was stupid, and on the whole McCain seems to have done better last night than Obama did. That has nothing to do with the issue about McCain and the moralistic hypocrisy of the GOP, however.

What did he do better (McCain)? This statement is driving me nuts! Okay, so he had an edge and drew faster on the questions; obviously since the evanglists that were sitting in the crowd were eating it up...no less Rick was too. But what was better, prove that he's a better Christian that will go on another Christian crusade in search of bin Laden? Gosh, he was so predictable!

Rod, here's a new development--or non-development: none of the big three morning news shows even mentioned the Saddleback forum this morning--nary a word. The only mention of the presidential race was more Veep speculation. Typically, the Monday morning GMA's and Today Shows give an overview of all the weekend's news.

What's up with that? Does the MSM not want us to know about this?

They all broadcast it.

I think the fact that there was nothing new, or unexpected about the forum made it no more buzzworthy to regular news (note, not even Fox) than any townhall or other such appearance. That Rick Warren hosted it didn't change that. Not for people outside a specific demographic.

There's Georgia, there's the Olympics. That's going to eat up all the news for now.

The VEEP picks are still in the future. That's always news, speculating during campaign season.

Yet another forum where, for the most part, no new information was brought up is not.

They could've, but it seems that nobody was interested enough. Even the cable news didn't really analyze it all that much. Heck, even the comedy news didn't.

Seems this barely raised a ripple. I'm afraid you can't make people interested in something when they're not. It is possible the religion angle in this race has simply been pushed to the point of burnout.