Skip to main content

It seemed pretty clear that there was no cone of silence surrounding McCain at the Saddleback forum.  This has been addressed by many Kossacks already, but one of the more interesting things I remember was a particular response by McCain, which even in my drunken state (tis the only way to watch Republicans) seemed to leap out as curious.

This occured right around the time Rick and John stopped salivating over those ol' torture tales McCain rarely seems to bring up, and followed the question pertaining to when life begins:






                    Q    OKAY.  WE DON'T HAVE TO GO LONGER ON THAT ONE.

                DEFINE MARRIAGE.




                COURT JUSTICES.

The bold is mine.  

The full transcript is here.  Part IV is where McCain starts.  I went through it quickly so maybe I missed something, but I saw no prior reference to Supreme Court Justices.

So when a seemingly over-prepared McCain asks, "Are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices" red flags start to go up.  Call me crazy but I don't remember John and Rick discussing Supreme Court Justices prior to McCain putting that out there.  One could argue that it was mentioned obliquely the statement before in reference to Roe v Wade but that's a stretch.  I do, however, remember Rick and Barack talking about that, but McCain being in his impenetrable conical fortress of silence wouldn't have heard that.  I found that curious.

So either I missed that conversation or McCain has super sensitive hearing....Or McCain knew what was coming.

Originally posted to ultimatically on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:18 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  not a biggie (0+ / 0-)
    McCain came into this event with an agenda and topics he wanted to cover.  Clearly, any talk of Roe v. Wade opens door for him to make his points about Supreme Court.  Seems like a simple way to question whether he should inject that now or wait.
  •  Common.... (0+ / 0-)

    McBush was obviously trying to get his point in that he will commit to appoing anti-choice SCOTUS judges...(and anti-gay)...

    This is not a conspiracy just good interviewing on the part of McBush..

    Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:23:13 AM PDT

    •  Obviously McCain knew this was coming (0+ / 0-)

      Not so much the point.  I'm sure he had all these talking points ready to go.  

      It just seemed so contrived.  But it's not like this is a smoking gun proving anything.  It was just something I found interesting, another brick in the dilapidated wall of the cone of silence that's been dismantled by far more knowledgable than I here.

  •  Pastor Warren presided over a scam (6+ / 0-)

    I doubt that was his intention, but that was the outcome. And he needs to take responsibility for it in his appearance on Larry King's show tonight and in the future.

  •  I just checked, also, and I didn't see it... (3+ / 0-)

    This might be a good observation, folks.

    Validation, anyone?

    "Newspapers are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident and the collapse of civilization." George Bernard Shaw

    by PhotogHog on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:25:32 AM PDT

  •  I'm self promoting but (8+ / 0-)

    I have bought Warren's book the Purpose Driven Life.

    I've read the first 60 pages and have written up about a 1 hour critique of it where I take him apart line by line.

    I plan to post this diary tomorrow.

    I shall not rest until right wing conservatives are 4th party gadflies limited to offering minor corrections on legislation once or twice a year.

    by davefromqueens on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:27:48 AM PDT

    •  before you do... (0+ / 0-)

      Let me ask... are you personally looking for a stronger, more fulfilling relationship with Jesus Christ?  Are you trying to take your walk with Christ to a new level?  If so, your critique is most welcome.

      But you wouldn't critique a book on how to repair a fridge if you were trying to fix a lawn mower. If you're not coming at this book from the same purpose the author intended, not clear why the critique matters.

      You can say Warren agrees with McCain on more issues than Obama, you could say that the questions favored the Republican viewpoint, you could say he was 100% wrong in making the cone of silence statement... but why do you feel compelled to take someone apart "line by line?"

      •  I have a message from GOD (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        powwow500, MrJersey, jfromga

        It involves groceries. She's upset.

      •  when someone critiques a book (0+ / 0-)

        it is necessary to look at the assumptions and presumptions of the author, not just his prescription for action.  

        Can the critique of the critique, obviously you can't have read it yet, nor have you understood his premise without reading it.

        Censorship is unwelcome in any guise.  Your comment is intended to chill speech.  I know no one here will listen to you, but I felt the need to point out what you really said in your self righteous critique of a critique that hasn't happened yet.  If you think I am trying to quell your speech, please not you were allowed to speak and I critiqued what you wrote, not what I thought you wrote.  You are also welcome to reply to me.  The content of your thoughts in no way gives me the right to tell you not to speak.

        One approach is the essence of free speech, both sides are presented, people choose.  The other violates the Constitution.  Its called prior restraint.

        •  the critique of the critique of the critique of.. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Integrity is fundamental

          Not surprised that "no one here will listen to you"... I get the same reaction at home!

          My critique (actually, I thought it was just a comment) was really more about what was written earlier with regard to looking a book with the sole intent of tearing it apart "line by line."

          Personally, I think that goes on way to much in politics -- the notion that we need to tear someone else down in order to build ourselves up.  Perhaps if we all take some deep breaths and think about where those who disagree with are coming from that understanding will provide for more civil conversations.  Someone once said we have so much more in common that what we disagree with.  

          If my words were too strong or somehow convinced j not to post his opinions, then I apologize.

          •  I didn't mean anything (0+ / 0-)

            about your family life, only that no one here ever shuts up when told to.

            I accept that you were not trying to engage in chilling of another's speech, but even someone with bad motives is entitled to speak.  

    •  Can't wait to read that.. (0+ / 0-)

      It's sure to be a good one.

  •  Warren knew he wasn't in the back in a (7+ / 0-)

    sound proof room, yet one of his first few statements to McCain was about how he liked that "cone of silence".

    There is no explanation for the deceit other than to promote McCain's candidacy.

    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:33:58 AM PDT

  •  McCain now protesting BIAS. Incredible! (5+ / 0-)

    McCain protests NBC coverage

    Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) campaign manager Rick Davis asked Sunday for a meeting with Steve Capus, the president of NBC News, to protest what the campaign called signs that the network is "abandoning non-partisan coverage of the presidential race."

    Davis made the request Sunday in a letter that is part of an aggressive effort by McCain to counter news coverage he considers critical.

    In this case, the campaign is objecting to a statement by NBC's Andrea Mitchell on "Meet the Press" questioning whether McCain might have gotten a heads-up on some of the questions that were asked of Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who was the first candidate to be interviewed Saturday night by Pastor Rick Warren at a presidential forum on faith.


    This, of course, raises a fascinating question.

    Let's assume he's right.  Let's pretend there is a bias.

    Can McCain logically demand non-partisanship from the networks and STILL be opposed to the return of the "Fairness Doctrine" that gives his radio toadies free-reign to malign Obama unchecked?

  •  McCain's 1 Man/ 1 woman means One at a time in (4+ / 0-)

    series of overlapping relationships as he demonstrated with his first wife.  Marriage for John and Carol was overlapped with his affair with Cindy, so it seems the ending vows re marriage are pretty flexible with McCain.

  •  Great catch! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Hopefully this will have legs ...

    McCain's sleazy misuse of this forum is important.  It was given a lot of pr and it was in a church ... the one place folks expect a bit of honesty.

    Having been raised a Catholic, any expectations that all is church is honest are rather iffy anyways (those pesky confessionals)... but a whole lotta folk take this very  seriously.

  •  This wahts called a tell (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    McCain is a consummate lair, he cares not what we think of his creditability, he'll make light and a joke and changed the subject, or make another unsubstantiated attach and Rick Warren has his creditability to account for, and I' am talking about Concrete accountability, not just saying, it's not true.

    Pin McCain down and then pin Rick Warren down and we have our answers.

  •  This is whats called a TELL (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry for the spelling error early

  •  but but but there WAS a 'cone of silence" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    around McCain....  it was the same CONE OF SILENCE that Maxwell Smart used in GET SMART, where, it seems the 'cone of silence' first originated from.

    the CONE OF SILENCE was a running JOKE on Get Smart because it didnt work.


    by KnotIookin on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:16:16 AM PDT

    •  Terrific! Maxwell Smart and the Cone of Silence (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      This is just perfect. (Source)

      Another of the show's recurring gags was the Cone of Silence. (Buck Henry "invented" this device.) Smart would pedantically insist on following CONTROL's security protocols; when in the Chief's office he would insist on speaking under the Cone of Silence--two transparent plastic hemispheres which were electrically lowered on top of Smart and the Chief--which invariably malfunctioned, requiring the characters to shout loudly to even have a chance of being understood by each other, and even then, most of the time that failed.

  •  McCain and Supreme Court Justices Comment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ultimatically, Floande

    I was struck by that comment too, and after the cone of silence was reported to be untrue, I went to youtube to listen to the comment again.  It is very odd that he would say "get back to" when SC Justices had not come up at that point.

    And when listening to his answers a second time,I found them to be totally rehearsed, to the point where I wondered if he had be given the questions beforehand.

    •  His preparation was beyond just hearing Obama's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      segment. McCain isn't that swift on his feet. Agree that this was completely rehearsed. AND he heard Obama's responses too.

      Of course Warren won't admit to this and Larry King won't be tough on him tonight. King doesn't want an earlier retirement from CNN than he is planning on.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site