Panicked Obama Campaign Accuses McCain Of Cheating At Saddleback
About the Author: The Party of Kennedy is NOT the Party of Pelosi. The Democratic Party has radically degenerated into a socialistic and postmodern perversion of its former place in American political thought. In place of Judeo-Christian values they embrace secular humanism; in place of a strong national defense they embrace a reliance upon internationalism; in place of a strong family they embrace a radical abortion agenda that increasingly includes outright infanticide.
I can't sit idly by and watch the culture war pass me by. It is time to choose sides. As Joshua 24:15 puts it, "choose this day whom you will serve."
Polls have shown that the more committed one is to (any) religious belief, the more conservative one tends to be politically. One’s views toward religion profoundly affect one’s commitment to political, social, and moral issues. In my articles, I seek to argue in favor of a religion-friendly view of culture, morality, and politics. Read more from this authorWell, it’s official: Barack Obama did poorly at the Saddleback Debate forum, and John McCain did tremendously well.
I don’t have to state this as an opinion any more: I can turn to the Obama campaign’s own reaction in the aftermath of the event.
The liberal Andrew Sullivan of the liberal Atlantic has this:
“The Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared.”
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell stirred up the dirt with the completely unsubstantiated claim:
Mitchell reported that some “Obama people” were suggesting “that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well prepared.”
A McCain aide said that is not the case: “Senator McCain was in a motorcade led by the United States Secret Service and held in a green room with no broadcast feed.”
Mitchell made the comment in the context of saying McCain did better, and that the Obama camp was defensive. In response to the campaign’s letter, she pointed out that journalists get criticism from both sides.
“I wasn’t expressing an opinion,” Mitchell said. “I was reporting what they were saying.”
I wonder if she would have given the McCain campaign charge as much “impartial” coverage. What would the coverage have been had John McCain accused Barack “And did I mention he’s black?” Obama of being a cheater without any actual proof.
In any event, we are learning that John McCain was not actually inside the “cone of silence” the entire time Obama was speaking. He did not actually enter his “cone of silence” until half an hour into the program. He had been in a Secret Service motorcade, and then proceeding to the forum, for that half an hour.
Was McCain gaining an advantage by listening in during part of that half hour?
Let me point some things out:
First of all, let it be stated for the record that there is no possible way that McCain could have been listening for the entire half hour, but only for about half of that time when he was actually in the motorcade. During part of that time, Rick Warner was introducing the event. And the first couple questions were fairly personal (eg., What does Christianity mean to you? Name some people who’ve influenced your life).
Given the fact that McCain could not even possibly have listened in to the entire program, how do those who claim McCain cheated account for the fact that McCain’s answers were strong throughout the event? McCain wasn’t just “well prepared” for a few minutes; he was razor-sharp throughout.
Saddleback spokesman Larry Ross has said that the first couple of questions were released to the candidates in advance so they wouldn’t be nervous, and that the categories of question were also released beforehand. In fact, Larry Ross said that he actually gave Obama the third question beforehand (and Obama actually admitted “I cheated on this”) but was not able to tell McCain the question.
Finally, I would argue that, had John McCain actually listened to Barack Obama’s answers, it would only have rotted his brain with Obama’s long, drawn-out pontifications and actually harmed him. About the only thing McCain would have learned was, “Whatever you do, don’t answer like that!”
Did anyone notice how many more questions McCain answered - because his answers were concise and to-the-point - than Barack Obama? How - by the Obama claim of listening in and cheating - did McCain prepare for those?
What I find most interesting is the panic from the Obama camp that this charge would come out, which implicitly acknowledges that their boy flopped, and the vindictiveness that making the claim of cheating without any actual evidence represents.
Barack Obama proved he is not only a loser, but a sore loser.
I’m beyond amazed that Rick Davis and John McCain would be so willing to throw none other than Andrea Mitchell, one of the staunchest right-wing conservative reporters NOT working for FOX NEWS, under the bus.
Desperate times call for desperate measures…
The NY Times and CNN confirmed that Sen. McCain was not in the required Cone of Silence and that, being in his motorcade for a good part of Sen. Obama’s interview with Pastor Warren either McCain’s staff or McCain himself may have been able to listen in. (That CNN article, by the way, seems to be coming and going from their site. It may be a broken link or it may be that they’ve tried to “hide” it per the McCain campaign’s confrontational request.)
If it was McCain’s staff listening in they could “plausibly deny” that he himself listened, even as his staff briefed him on questions and answers. That would certainly explain why Sen. McCain was answering questions even before Pastor Warren had finished them.
The simple fact of the matter is that Sen. McCain was supposed to have been in the “silent” green room the entire time Sen. Obama was out in the forum — but he wasn’t.
This, of course, is just as fishy as his “cross in the sand” story which is remarkably similar to the story of former Soviet Gulag inmate Alexander Solzhenitsyn who, at his most desperate hour in a forced labor camp, stopped working despite knowing a guard could come by and beat him to death any moment, as they had with so many other political prisoners. Just then, Solzhenitsyn looked on the ground and an elderly inmate had silently drawn a cross on the ground right before him. Solzhenitsyn’s story was made public in 1973 and Sen. McCain has claimed in the past to admire Solzhenitsyn and his perseverance.
Guys, the CNN story basically confirms that McCain heard nothing. It hardly matters about your talking points because they’ll get to meet up again. Obama isn’t even qualified to debate McCain, much less be President. He’ll lose every single debate badly. This election is as good as over.
Kurt,
Other than it’s spin-off MSNBC, NBC is the most liberal network on TV. Bill O’Reilly recently did a segment talking about liberal journalistic bias, and he featured a bunch of five HORRIFYINGLY pro-Obama statements made by Andrea Mitchell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOwi6kMFDQw). So you’re just SMOKING something to say she’s conservative.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/05/video-andrea-mitchell-says-network-news-isnt-biased/
features a pic of Keith Olbermann doing a sieg heil behind a Bill O Reilly mask. These people are hard-core left, and so are you.
As for Rob’s “points,” let me start with the “cross in the sand” thing. Are you seriously suggesting that no Christian other than Solzhenitsyn’s guard would use an image of a cross to surreptitiously reveal he was a Christian in a dangerous circumstance? GET REAL! The reason McCain’s story rings true - and the reason as a God-despising liberal you are so upset by it - is because that’s exactly what ANY secretly Christian guard in a godless communist system would have done in such a circumstance.
McCain missed a TOTAL of half AN HOUR. And the first THREE questions were given to both candidates beforehand! McCain hammered the entire debate; not merely the tiny period where he might potentially have been able to know a question.
Again, your anger and your ridiculous claim of cheating just goes to show that Obama LOST and you are all a bunch of incredibly sore losers about it.
Maybe McCain’s guard was a Solzhenitsyn fan.
Seriously, though, while I agree that McCain did better than Obama, I doubt that the discussion will have much of an effect on anything. Given a choice of a religious/political discussion on a Saturday night in August, most of the relatively few people who were home watching television were tuned to the Olympics. McCain was going to get the conservative evangelical vote, anyway, though he may have boosted his credibility with the folks he once termed “agents of intolerance.” Obama may have countered the ongoing fiction that he is a Muslim, though the people stupid enough to believe that may not be able to figure out how to vote, anyway–and if they do, they weren’t going to vote for Obama.
And despite the fact that I’m a Christian teaching at a Christian university, I am a bit troubled that the candidates felt they needed to attend a church-sponsored discussion at all, a further complication of what I see as an often negative relationship between religion and presidential politics. It would bother me less if the candidates felt equally compelled to answer questions from a union leader, a state governor, the mayor of a major American city (New Orleans or New York, perhaps?), a panel of teachers and parents, and a panel of economists.
One question, Michael: Why do you blame the Obama campaign for the accusations and with being “sore losers”? I’ve seen nothing from anyone associated with the campaign itself suggesting that McCain cheated.
James,
In answer to your second post, you should re-read the top of my article. Andrea Mitchell got this story - and broadcasted it - as having come directly from the Obama campaign. So whether you’ve seen it or not, they are the ones who began this charge.
And there is no evidence of it. It is nothing more than a technical possibility, and not much of one at that. As I’ve pointed out, we’re talking about half and hour, and the first three questions had already been given (McCain only got the first two).
When someone calls you a cheater without evidence just because they lost, that is practically the dictionary definition of a sore loser.
As to your first post, I’m a little troubled that you have been so completely indoctrinated in “the separation of church and state” mythology that you would express this concern. The view you express was never the case in American history until a few liberal justices suddenly said it was. The biggest irony of all is that Thomas Jefferson - the author of the “separation” phrase, feared an activist judiciary more than anything else. Jefferson is rolling in his grave because his ideas were perverted by the very judiciary he most warned against.
I hope that as a teacher - and most especially as a Christian teacher - you will endeavor to learn the truth.
[...] who isn’t so adroit without a teleprompter and a gaggle of adoring fans. So now they are accusing John McCain of cheating by listening in on Obama’s quetions. How else could he have been so [...]
Obama’s problem is that he answers every question as though he’s searching for the right answer in an oral exam or a job interview. McCain answers based on how he honestly feels. This is a HUGE difference, and undecided voters will pick up on it right away. This is Obama’s big Achilles’ heel and it will be on prime-time display during the debates unless Obama’s camp does something to make them less than spontaneous. The polls indicate that this election is so close, it may all come down to performance in the debates. If so, Obama loses. We’re talking basic personality, not some policy where he can just change his position to be more electable. Remember the unsuccesful attempts to change Gore’s personality for the election. Besides, Obama is a long way from realizing that he could have ANY unfavorable personality traits.
I’ve got to go back to something that Rob in post #2 said: there really never WAS a “cone of silence.” It was a joke that Rick Warren made. If the media took it seriously, they just reveal how silly they truly are.
Rick Warren has come out forcefully in stating categorically that John McCain could not have “cheated.” Warren says he went from Secret Service motorcade to the designated area with Saddleback security present. Warren rightly points out that the claim that McCain cheated is an insult to the Secret Service, to Saddleback’s security, and to Rick Warren himself.
I also agree with David H. Obama came across far more as a lawyer trying to get a guilty client off than as a man sincerely trying to honestly answer questions about his values.
Obama Camp: “McCain did well at the Saddleback forum so he must have cheated.”
It amuses me to see how left-wing liberals always whine and cry foul when they get their butts kicked. It’s my belief this is because the true left-wing liberal is so convinced that his position correct he is utterly incapable of seeing or believing actual facts that are inconsistent with his world view.
Because they are closed minded, they can not even conceive of the possibility that they may be wrong and they will totally and completely ignore any and all fact that proves them wrong. In word, they are ideologues. When ignoring fact fails, they cry “cheat” and don the tinfoil hats of conspiracy moonbats. Truly pathetic.
These are souless people who will never be happy for they live illusory lives. The left-wing liberal is a perpetual victim in search of victimizers — victimology is the basis of the left-wing liberal politics.
It’s easy to see why Obama is their candidate … he too is an illusion, a figment of his own imagination.
Obama, CHANGE you can believe in if you want a President who is narcissistic, specious, vacuous, and effete.
Occam,
I was forced to share hours of my life last year with exactly the type of guy you’re describing. He worked out in my gym. His mind simply could not or would not “transgress” any ideological boundaries. He would use phrases such like “It doesn’t matter,” “It doesn’t make any difference,” and (my favorite) “they’re totally different” rather than think about anything that could contradict literally ANYTHING he believed.
As liberal as this guy was, he liked Lou Dobbs because he was anti-illegal immigration. He had Dobb’s CNN program on one day and told me, “You should watch him. He knows what he’s talking about.” Well, almost immediately after he said that, Dobbs had a segment on Iraq, and Dobbs was saying, “We have to stay, and we have to win.”
Now, I had argued many times with this uber-lib on Iraq. He took all the doctrinaire lib positions: its an immoral war, and we have to leave NOW. So I point out to my “friend,” Do you hear what your boy Dobbs is saying about Iraq? He was standing there watching the program with me. Nope. He simply would not understand anything that got caught in his ideological filter. He liked Dobbs, and therefore Dobbs wouldn’t say something like that. Period. It was one of the most remarkable things I’ve ever seen in my life. He had an iron-willed commitment to live in his own literal world.
It’s not about low IQs. It’s about a radical commitment to believe in a flawed, perverted, and theoretical worldview no matter what. These people literally will themselves to be stupid.
[...] the Obama camp made the accusations of cheating, Andrea Mitchell of NBC carried the water for them. She said that McCain was crisp, immediate, and forceful and that [...]