The New Great Debate

[Sir_Galahad]

Well, it wasn't so much of a debate but, for me, I got to know the candidates a little better. In case you did not watch it, Fox had a two hour special on last night in which both Obama and McCain were given a one-hour slot in which to answer questions posed to them by Rick Warren (of "Purpose Driven Life" fame) at his Saddleback church. Both candidates were given (mostly) the same questions to answer but the difference with this "debate", however, was that neither got to hear the other's answers. This was good, in my opinion, as neither one's answers would be influenced by what the other had to say. They said what they though and believed. And, that's what I want to know.

First Obama went on and answered the questions for an hour. Then, McCain came on and answered pretty much the same questions in his hour time slot. And these were not softball questions such as those you would hear from Brian Williams or Keith Olberman. These were good, tough questions. And I thought both men did an excellent job answering the questions. I hope they have another dozen of these types of "debates" as you can certainly get a firm line on where these guys are coming from.

From where I sit, I saw Obama's answers as "measured" whereas McCain was ready with quick responses. I didn't take any points from either due to their particular styles. I just mention it as observation. One thing I did notice as consistent, though. Obama almost always started out his answer with "Well,..." and McCain frequently interjected his "My Friends.." clause. Again, not taking anything away from what they said; just an observation. Based strictly on what was said last night, and asked who I would vote for on the spot, I would have voted for McCain. Although, in my view, I liked what they both had to say.

I think it is to the benefit of the voting public that they get to know where the candidates stand on the issues and a forum like this is a good step in that direction. Again, just my opinion.

[silverscreenselect]

This was an interesting concept but it's a shame that the first time this is used in a presidential campaign far too many of the questions were faith based. This is not an election in which the candidates' views on abortion or gay marriage are going to be crucial for the vast majority of voters.

The idea of both answering the same questions is to prevent commentators with stacking the deck with "gotcha" questions (although I'm not sure how they kept the guy who went second from having an advantage by essentially hearing the questions first and having an hour to prepare a response). However, it would have been nice to have them spend the hour discussing international issues or the economy instead.

[Jeemie]

This was an interesting concept but it's a shame that the first time this is used in a presidential campaign far too many of the questions were faith based. This is not an election in which the candidates' views on abortion or gay marriage are going to be crucial for the vast majority of voters.

The idea of both answering the same questions is to prevent commentators with stacking the deck with "gotcha" questions (although I'm not sure how they kept the guy who went second from having an advantage by essentially hearing the questions first and having an hour to prepare a response). However, it would have been nice to have them spend the hour discussing international issues or the economy instead.

I agree.

I would like to see this repeated, with the focus being on the economy and foreign policy (which are inextricably entwined).

The events in Georgia ought to have finally brought home to people that the era of the US as hyperpower is coming to an end (and a mercifully short period it was).

I want to see whether the candidates would work to manage that end to the good of our nation, or will they prefer to hang onto the illusion that it hasn't ended, and instead let events manage us.

Amazingly enough, one person they could look to as an example of how to manage that end would be...George W. Bush...who finally seems to be taking advice from his father as opposed to Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowicz.

I find it fascinating that Bush is being criticized by the neo-con faction for his handling of the Georgian crisis when he is actually showing us the PROPER way to handle a crisis between powers in the balance of powers pre-1914 world to which we are returning (actually, it never went away).

How painful it must be to the neo-cons that Bush appears to have learned the proper lessons of Iraq, and is now no longer one of them...but has returned to being the Bush he campaigned in 2000 to be...the Bush of the Spy Plane/China incident, not the Bush of Iraq.

And how heartening it is to true conservatives that they finally seem to be purging themselves of liberal Wilsonian interventionists who infiltrated conservative ranks and have been poisoning meaningful foreign policy ever since George's dad left the White House in 1993 (although I'm sure PNAC and AEI won't go down without a fight).

Will we seize the moment at hand?

Well- I'd be more hopeful if I saw any indication that either of our two candidates or anyone in Congress had an IQ that was somewhat more north of my shoe size than they've currently shown.

[mrkelley23]

And how funny it is for libertarians like me to hear GW Bush try to paint the Russians as bullies. After all, they invaded a sovereign nation on a pretext of trumped up intelligence! How dare they!

And I like this format, and I like a lot of what Rick Warren has done over the past ten years. It's refreshing to hear a man of faith who doesn't feel like he has to hew to the same tired hateful script of some of his contemporaries. I went through the PDL training with my church, and a lot of it made good sense to me.

The purist in me, though, screams at the further destruction of the meaning of a perfectly good word: debate.

[mellytu74]

Oops, wrong thread.

[Jeemie]

And how funny it is for libertarians like me to hear GW Bush try to paint the Russians as bullies. After all, they invaded a sovereign nation on a pretext of trumped up intelligence! How dare they!

That's just rhetoric, mrk.

Bush is being very much the realist here. When you read between the lines, Bush knew all about this, and is more pissed at a client state acting like an idiot than anything else.

[mrkelley23]

And how funny it is for libertarians like me to hear GW Bush try to paint the Russians as bullies. After all, they invaded a sovereign nation on a pretext of trumped up intelligence! How dare they!

That's just rhetoric, mrk.

Bush is being very much the realist here. When you read between the lines, Bush knew all about this, and is more pissed at a client state acting like an idiot than anything else.

The purist in me is also offended by someone claiming something is "just" rhetoric, much as the anti-intellectuals who claim that evolution is "just" a theory.

But I understand your point, and it's well-taken.

I wasn't trying to make a serious foreign policy point -- just being snarkily satisfied that his chickens are coming home to roost before he even leaves office. I just hope he's at least self-aware enough to realize what he's done to us as a nation.

[Jeemie]

And how funny it is for libertarians like me to hear GW Bush try to paint the Russians as bullies. After all, they invaded a sovereign nation on a pretext of trumped up intelligence! How dare they!

That's just rhetoric, mrk.

Bush is being very much the realist here. When you read between the lines, Bush knew all about this, and is more pissed at a client state acting like an idiot than anything else.

The purist in me is also offended by someone claiming something is "just" rhetoric, much as the anti-intellectuals who claim that evolution is "just" a theory.

But I understand your point, and it's well-taken.

I wasn't trying to make a serious foreign policy point -- just being snarkily satisfied that his chickens are coming home to roost before he even leaves office. I just hope he's at least self-aware enough to realize what he's done to us as a nation.

Yes- I think he IS aware. I think he's actually learned the lessons as to why Wilsonian interventionist foreign policy will not work.

Hence his tacit admission that there was nothing ILLEGITIMATE about the Russian invasion...only that it was DISPROPORTIONATE.

PS The evidence points to Georgia being quid pro quo- the quo will be that Russia helps to neutralize Iran.

Look for action on that score by December.

[BackInTex]

And how funny it is for libertarians like me to hear GW Bush try to paint the Russians as bullies. After all, they invaded a sovereign nation on a pretext of trumped up intelligence! How dare they!

I know I've kind of been out of it lately but I must of missed all of the UN resolutions ignored and deadlines missed that Georgia was given. In fact, I completely missed the fact that they were a threat, had invaded a soverign nation themselves, and flaunted world resolve.

[Jeemie]

And how funny it is for libertarians like me to hear GW Bush try to paint the Russians as bullies. After all, they invaded a sovereign nation on a pretext of trumped up intelligence! How dare they!

I know I've kind of been out of it lately but I must of missed all of the UN resolutions ignored and deadlines missed that Georgia was given. In fact, I completely missed the fact that they were a threat, had invaded a soverign nation themselves, and flaunted world resolve.

Well- "world resolve" was that South Ossetia and Abakasia (know I spelled that wrong) had de facto independence, and that russian peacekeepers had a right to operate there without being shelled.

How's that for starters?

In any event, what's being witnessed in Georgia is nothing more than blowback against the American-sponsored-and-paid for various-colored Revolutions that led to the urrent governments of Georgia and the Ukraine.

Seriously, if you were Russia, how would you feel:

1) about the aforementioned revolutions that were being packaged as "democracy"?

2) That we set up bases in the Stans that were supposed to be just for the war against Afghanistan but instead wre made into permanent bases?

3) That missile defense equipment is being set up in two more Near Abroad states after a plan by Russia to have a joint defense system set up in Azerbaijan was summarily rejected by the US?

4) That this so-called "defense against rogue states" system was fast-tracked after, not a terrorist action, but a RUSSIAN action?

Tell us how it serves American interests to be so abrasive towards Russia in the Near Abroad and bring NATO to its very doorstep?

[BackInTex]

Tell us how it serves American interests to be so abrasive towards Russia in the Near Abroad and bring NATO to its very doorstep?

Russia is our enemy. Has been for a long time. And will continue to be so. Anyone thinking otherwise probably buys into all the 'hope' flowing around.

[Jeemie]

Tell us how it serves American interests to be so abrasive towards Russia in the Near Abroad and bring NATO to its very doorstep?

Russia is our enemy. Has been for a long time. And will continue to be so. Anyone thinking otherwise probably buys into all the 'hope' flowing around.

Sigh- I guess 70 years of Cold War training is hard to break.

Russia is another great power- that does not automatically make them our enemy.

But they will be if more people like you are out there.

What's re-emerging is not Communist Russia- it's Czarate Russia...and Czarate Russia is not automatically our enemy.

It's pre-19th Century politics that's re-emerging, not the Cold War.

And in any event, you didn't answer my question, anyhow.

[NellyLunatic1980]

OK, so now that Obama and McCain have had a debate at Rick Warren's church, when will see an Obama/McCain debate at a Catholic church? Or a synagogue? Or a mosque? Or a nondenominational church (like mine) whose political beliefs aren't monopolized by the issues of marriage and abortion?

Anyone? Anyone?

Bueller?

[Sir_Galahad]

OK, so now that Obama and McCain have had a debate at Rick Warren's church, when will see an Obama/McCain debate at a Catholic church? Or a synagogue? Or a mosque? Or a nondenominational church (like mine) whose political beliefs aren't monopolized by the issues of marriage and abortion?

Frankly, I don't care where these "debates" are held, so long as they are held and we get to hear their responses to tough questions regarding today's issues. I did not think that all of the questions revolved religious aspects but you hear what you want to hear. I thought that there were some good answers regarding other issues. I would have liked to hear more regarding immigration and the economy but perhaps we will if they decide to do this again. I thought it was a good start.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

OK, so now that Obama and McCain have had a debate at Rick Warren's church, when will see an Obama/McCain debate at a Catholic church? Or a synagogue? Or a mosque? Or a nondenominational church (like mine) whose political beliefs aren't monopolized by the issues of marriage and abortion?

Anyone? Anyone?

Bueller?

I'm inclined to think McCain might take you up on that. Obama, not so much.

[Appa23]

OK, so now that Obama and McCain have had a debate at Rick Warren's church, when will see an Obama/McCain debate at a Catholic church? Or a synagogue? Or a mosque? Or a nondenominational church (like mine) whose political beliefs aren't monopolized by the issues of marriage and abortion?

Anyone? Anyone?

Bueller?

LOL! If you think that Rick Warren's church or ministry is "monopolized by the issues of marriage and abortion", then you really have not been paying attention.

Do you think that Obama will do any better if they held a similar discussion of the issues (not a debate) at a different church venue? (Well, maybe a mosque. )

[Note: I did not get to see all of it, but I did get to see some clips of his answers on the "big issues". He had some very good answewrs on some of the questions, albeit much too calculated. I was amazed at how poorly he answered the question about "life beginning at conception.")

[Bob Juch]

OK, so now that Obama and McCain have had a debate at Rick Warren's church, when will see an Obama/McCain debate at a Catholic church? Or a synagogue? Or a mosque? Or a nondenominational church (like mine) whose political beliefs aren't monopolized by the issues of marriage and abortion?

Anyone? Anyone?

Bueller?

LOL! If you think that Rick Warren's church or ministry is "monopolized by the issues of marriage and abortion", then you really have not been paying attention.

Do you think that Obama will do any better if they held a similar discussion of the issues (not a debate) at a different church venue? (Well, maybe a mosque. )

[Note: I did not get to see all of it, but I did get to see some clips of his answers on the "big issues". He had some very good answewrs on some of the questions, albeit much too calculated. I was amazed at how poorly he answered the question about "life beginning at conception.")

I like Obama's answer a lot better than McCain's. McCain said he believes the rights of the unborn begin at conception. That apparently means he is against use of The Pill or IUDs.

[minimetoo26]

I'm appalled this even took place, personally. But I'm such a heathen...

[Satan Dolittle]

I'm appalled this even took place, personally. But I'm such a heathen...

You're gonna love the wait times on our rides down here......

[ne1410s]

I'm appalled this even took place, personally.

Both national conventions plan to have a virgin read the entrails of a chicken before the virgin is sacrificed. I think I heard Mary Matalin say this on Faux News this a.m.

[minimetoo26]

I'm appalled this even took place, personally.

Both national conventions plan to have a virgin read the entrails of a chicken before the virgin is sacrificed. I think I heard Mary Matalin say this on Faux News this a.m.

Where they planning on finding this "virgin", anyway?

[ne1410s]

Where they planning on finding this "virgin", anyway?

My guess would be Barney Frank's staff. But, it's only a guess...

[Spokesman for MBFFB]

I'm appalled this even took place, personally.

Both national conventions plan to have a virgin read the entrails of a chicken before the virgin is sacrificed. I think I heard Mary Matalin say this on Faux News this a.m.

Where they planning on finding this "virgin", anyway?

MBFFB® is probably available....

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Both national conventions plan to have a virgin read the entrails of a chicken before the virgin is sacrificed. I think I heard Mary Matalin say this on Faux News this a.m.

Where they planning on finding this "virgin", anyway?

MBFFB® is probably available....

In addition the the spoiler button, this bored needs a spew waring that you would have to click before reading something that is likely to cause you to spit your coffee on your computer screen.

[Jeemie]

OK, so now that Obama and McCain have had a debate at Rick Warren's church, when will see an Obama/McCain debate at a Catholic church? Or a synagogue? Or a mosque? Or a nondenominational church (like mine) whose political beliefs aren't monopolized by the issues of marriage and abortion?

Anyone? Anyone?

Bueller?

LOL! If you think that Rick Warren's church or ministry is "monopolized by the issues of marriage and abortion", then you really have not been paying attention.

Do you think that Obama will do any better if they held a similar discussion of the issues (not a debate) at a different church venue? (Well, maybe a mosque. )

[Note: I did not get to see all of it, but I did get to see some clips of his answers on the "big issues". He had some very good answewrs on some of the questions, albeit much too calculated. I was amazed at how poorly he answered the question about "life beginning at conception.")

I like Obama's answer a lot better than McCain's. McCain said he believes the rights of the unborn begin at conception. That apparently means he is against use of The Pill or IUDs.

Um...since the Pill and IUDs work to PREVENT conception- how do you figure this, exactly?