First Presidential Debate btw McCain and Obama (8/16/08)

[Pangloss]

The first presidential debate is scheduled for Saturday, August 16th at 8pm Eastern time, and will be broadcast live on the Fox News Channel. The debate will take place at the church of evangelical pastor Rick Warren, who's seen as a moderate, non-religious-right (kinder, gentler?) evangelical. Perhaps still somewhat anathema to many of us, but both candidates will be there taking questions from the man, so it's probably worth a look.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

I really don't know how I feel about this. First, it's on Fox. I think I might catch a case of stupid if I watch it for too long (not that I am completely asymptomatic now ).

 

I also wish we could move away from the religious control in our government. I know that there are a lot of really wonderful people in the world (and right here at SFN) who are religious, but the idea of a debate for President of the United States taking place in this manner turns my stomach. A debate should be held at a university, or a museum, or at some other learned institution... not a place of fairy tales and brainwashing.

 

 

Am I alone in this reaction? Do you think I'm off base for feeling this way? What are your thoughts?

Edited August 16, 2008 by Pangloss

[Pangloss]

(I've merged the two threads and adopted your subject line (which makes more sense than one that says "tomorrow" in it, lol). Thanks for the suggestion. Now the only thing weird about the OP is that it doesn't contain my opinion on the subject, so let me rectify that.)

 

I agree with your point -- I think it's very poor judgment to have a debate on those grounds, especially the very first one. I don't know that it actually signifies "religious control in our government", but I can understand that reaction -- it certainly suggests it, and it seems to me that people who are driven by such motivations are often more interested in what appearances "suggest" rather than what the law says. But I guess that's another discussion.

 

On the "plus" side, Warren is someone who's considered acceptable to religious Democrats as well as religious Republicans. But what they may not have considered is that the move may tick off non-religious Republicans as well as non-religious Democrats.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

It will definitely be interesting to watch tonight and see what happens. In addition to what you stated above, I feel the move will also tick off non-religious non-partisans. The thing is... it applies to both sides so kinda gets lost in the wash. (it's not one candidate pissing people off for doing this, it's both).

[Pangloss]

That's an interesting point. The media kinda latches on sometimes to the notion that "if you do the same thing to both sides then it's okay" (as you say, a "wash"). But that kinda strikes me as an example of two wrongs making a right.

 

Maybe that's putting too fine a point on it (it's not exactly illegal, or even a huge, tragic kind of wrong), but I think it's a legitimate concern and I think it's one that's overlooked by the media because agnostic moderates aren't exactly a dramatic lot in general.

 

I've often wondered if the reason why the religious right attained such influence in the 2000 election and beyond was because of media attention, which gave them a stronger sense of empowerment, which in turn lead to greater influence. When the media started talking about Bush's appeal to the religious right, I remember thinking at the time that that was rather odd, because the religious right didn't strike me as a particularly influential group. Then, suddenly, it was.

[PhDP]

Who cares about non-religious Americans ? Non-religious American is not an oxymoron, but it's pretty damn close. How many atheists in the U.S.; 5, 10 % ? For a rich, industrialized country it's ridiculously low. And few of them were going to vote for McCain anyway. Strategically speaking, it's very smart for Obama to talk a lot about religion, and for so many reasons...

 

(1) He's considered unpatriotic. But of course, you can't be unpatriotic if you're a good christian...

 

(2) Many still think he's a muslim, or has some sort of relationship with Islam.

 

(3) Christian conservatives care, a lot, about the personal life of their candidate. Obama never divorced, and he's not making stupid jokes about women.

 

And, most importantly;

 

(4) The new generation of evangelists is running away from the "abortions & gay marriage are the only two important issues in the world" philosophy, or at least, many of them. They are increasingly interested in poverty and the environment, so there is probably a real opportunity for democrats here.

 

Also, I wonder if they're going to talk about evolution. Because, as we all know, presidential elections are the perfect place to discuss scientific theories.

 

First, it's on Fox. I think I might catch a case of stupid if I watch it for too long (not that I am completely asymptomatic now ).

 

I think they broadcast it on CNN. Do I get something for saving your soul ?

[ParanoiA]

I would watch, but the Olympics are far more interesting and substative than these two.

 

McCain: Obama's the anti-christ, he's a celebrity...and that's supposed to be bad..oh and he needs a teleprompter to talk

 

Obama: Uh...McCain is old...uhhh..is part of the problem....uhhh...and doesn't even know we have a problem..uhhhh

 

At this point, I'd rather hear Phelps stumble with elementary thoughts and diction while exalting himself in the face of a humbled Spitz....confusing everyone as what question he's trying to answer.

 

And of course, there's women's beach volleyball and "Nasty Nastia"....I think I know what I'm watching. Tell me how it goes, guys.

[Pangloss]

Who cares about non-religious Americans ? Non-religious American is not an oxymoron, but it's pretty damn close. How many atheists in the U.S.; 5, 10 % ?

 

I think it's far more than that. I would say that most Americans' idea of "faith" is so casual as to be downright offensive to any true believer. Even if they go to church on Sunday often do so out of habit or a distant notion of "hedging their bets".

 

The "moral majority" concept is a total crock -- the majority of Americans couldn't care less. They get rallied around and pushed from ideology to ideology, some of which are called 'faith', but that actually happens out of populist demagoguery, not out of religious conviction.

[iNow]

Also, the statistics on numbers of atheists are somewhat of a poor measure. For years and years it was downright dangerous to openly admit lack of belief in god(s). Fortunately, the recent openess of dialogue brought by Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennett, and countless others has helped with this, and an "out" campaign has taken root. I think it's as many as 20-30%, but also depends greatly on your definition of "atheist" (with weaker or more pantheistic definitions it could actually be far higher, and grows every day).

 

 

That said, you're quite right, PhDP. I may not like the battlefield, but the strategy being adopted is what is called for given the layout of the land. Thanks for reminding me to recall the writings of Sun-Tzu and to keep some realism in my thoughts (and also that the debate will be shown on CNN, which has an HD channel here!).

 

 

ParanoiA - That's the beauty of DVR/Tivo. You can do both. I'll watch some "Nasty Nastia" and then watch my recorded version of the debate. Best of both worlds, you Ron Paul fanatic!

 

Enjoy everyone.

[Pangloss]

For years and years it was downright dangerous to openly admit lack of belief in god(s).

 

For whom? You mean in terms of employment or in private group affiliations? Because I don't think it's ever really been physically dangerous to be non-religious in this country, at least in my lifetime.

[iNow]

Where do you live/Where'd you grow up? Ass kickings and brutality for being sincere on this issue are far too frequent where I am.

[Pangloss]

Atlanta and rural Georgia. I spent time in rural scout troops for a while and we lived "Deliverance" every weekend up in the mountains. Later my dad moved me to an inner-city troop in Atlanta where I eventually did my Eagle project. (Talk about eye-opening -- I was the only white person in the building most of the time.)

 

Never saw anyone get bullied over lack of faith. Bullied, definitely, but not over that. Of course kids will bully over any subject, and if you threw that in a bully's face they'd be happy to leverage it into an ass-wuppin'. But it wasn't because they had any special thoughts for baby Jesus.

 

But really more to the point, even if you saw that sort of thing that doesn't mean it was prevalent in the country. Americans have always been tolerant of other religions and no religion. The 1960s were famous for an explosion of atheism. Before then it was common for people to go to church out of habit and tradition even if they didn't believe.

 

But even if they didn't go to church, I've never seen anything in the literature to suggest a regular pattern of physical danger for non-observers, at least not since, say, the Salem Witch Hunts. Is there a body of work on this that I've just missed somewhere?

[iNow]

We each probably have different views. I know that even sometimes at work it's still uncomfortable to openly state to my peers that I don't believe. Either way, we're pretty far off topic.

 

 

This thread is about a presidential set of questions (turns out it's not a debate) at a church.

 

 

All interested can view it at Readers Digest online. It starts in 7 minutes:

 

http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/rick-warren-hosts-obama-and-mccain/article95604.html

[Pangloss]

I completely forgot about this and ran off to swing at some golf balls with the wife. Thanks for the link.

 

I guess it's not a debate after all, just a pair of sit-downs in sequence. Not nearly as interesting. Sorry guys, I passed along some bad info there. The article did say it wasn't a real debate, but it sounded like he would have both on stage at the same time, at least. Oh well.

[iNow]

Obama's responses were measured and authentic, but cautious.

McCain is good at playing the audience and pushing the right buttons.

 

I wonder if these folks are going to critically analyze all of the comments from both or just be sheeple who are actively waiting to be fed what they want to hear, regardless of its truth or applicability.

 

 

On a brighter note, McCain spoke very frankly telling stories about his captivity in Vietnam. He made a very strong connection with me on that. It was like sitting beside a brother who was recounting a trying time. Powerful stuff.

 

He's still talking now. Life begins at conception, he wants 4 judges off the SCOTUS, and couldn't have survived Vietnam without his faith. Oh... way to work 'em, John. You're good. No wonder those town hall meetings are a favorite of yours.

[Pangloss]

I did catch that specific statement about not putting those four judges up, and it really made me cringe, mainly just at the sheer audacity of any politician criticizing any of the current justices in any way. Politicians should DREAM of a day when they have an IOTA of the mental capacity, reasoning ability or objectivity of a BAD supreme court justice. Yeesh.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah I did manage to catch the McCain half. I could just kick myself I didn't record it because I really liked the format and would have loved to have seen Obama's performance. But I'm sure I can find it on youtube here in a bit.

 

You knew the vietnam stuff was going to make it, but I thought he did a good job making a larger point with it, rather than just throwing it in our face. The christian injection was a bit heavy for me, but I understand the venue and he played them well. Honestly, I just thought he was performing for the crowd. But he did appear witty and friendly. I have to admit, I appreciate his use of "my friends" to address us.

 

My two cents anyway. Well, one cent. I haven't seen Obama's half yet.

[PhDP]

I lost a lot of respect for McCain.

 

Is it me, or Bush lead America into troubles because he was stubborn, because of his good vs evil view of the world, because of his ridiculously aggressive foreign policies ? And McCain is playing the same cards, that's dangerous, and in a certain way it's surprising. The approval rating for Bush is low, yet it seems that no lesson was learned and Americans are still going to fall for the exact same thing;

 

- Democrats are complex, hesitant, weak.

- Republicans are tough and reliable when it comes to security. They know where the bad guys are, and they're going for the jugular.

[D H]

he wants 4 judges off the SCOTUS

He was not asked which justices he wants to remove from the Supreme Court. He was asked which members of the Supreme Court he would not have nominated to the position, and why. This is a substantially different question. Obama answered the same question with Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts.

Edited August 17, 2008 by D H
spelling

[Pangloss]

Well, no surprise there, I guess. The question was worthless, near as I can tell. How can you use hindsight about SCOTUS appointments? They're legendary for not doing what they're "told".

[D H]

How can you use hindsight about SCOTUS appointments? They're legendary for not doing what they're "told".

McCain would probably have been better off in naming Ginsberg and Breyer only, as they have acted exactly as they were "told". Naming Souter and Stevens along with those others implies that he will have a highly political vetting process, and that in turn will inevitably result in a doomed nominee. A Democratic Senate will not condone replacing Ginsberg or Stevens (the two most likely to retire) with an Alito or Roberts clone. The best McCain can hope for is replacing one of those Justices with someone like Kennedy.

[iNow]

He was not asked which justices he wants to remove from the Supreme Court. He was asked which members of the Supreme Court he would not have nominated to the position, and why. This is a substantially different question. Obama answered the same question with Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts.

 

Right, but all I spoke of was his reponse, not the question. He tossed out those four names without even an inkling of hesitation or respect. I can't believe for a second that he feels that strongly about those four judges, but he knows the audience did, and that's what bothered me. He was being false and he was working that crowd like a con-artist would.

 

This IS politics, I understand, but I too thought McCain was better than that. Now, not so much.

[Pangloss]

Yeah that was my feeling as well; it felt artificial.

 

I agree with DH's analysis, though. IMO the Supreme Court is exactly where it needs to be, and the balance and ages suggest (to me anyway) that McCain could do more harm than Obama. Of course, eight years is a long time and those people are human beings, so it's not inconceivable that the next justice who leaves the bench could be Alito or Roberts. You never know.

[iNow]

Yeah that was my feeling as well; it felt artificial.

 

I agree with DH's analysis, though. IMO the Supreme Court is exactly where it needs to be, and the balance and ages suggest (to me anyway) that McCain could do more harm than Obama.

 

Our version of "harm" is often an evangelicals version of "benefit."

 

 

Along those same lines is why I didn't like McCain's response on evil. As if it's all black and white and what he thinks is evil must be destroyed. Rubbish. Obama's answer here was FAR better, where he advised caution, and spoke of how often evil had been done in the name of good, and how we must consider this before blanketly dismissing something as evil and taking action against it.

 

For the same reasons, we must recognize (as you and DH have pointed out) the important balance brought by the various justices, and how our nation is improved as a result of that complex interplay of differing views. None of them are some "evil to be destroyed." They are seen as good to some and not good to others, and if McCain truly wishes to lead this nation he must respect differing views and account for them in his decision making process.

 

In my mind, any candidate for president of the US should be able to tell the difference, and avoid speaking in such false absolutes to pander to an often ignorant crowd more interested in stopping abortion than solving global warming and the countless other existential issues facing the population of our planet.

[Pangloss]

Well put.