Talk:Civil Forum on the Presidency

McCain campaign's "POW" comment

I've added the McCain campaign's response to the issue of McCain's advance access to the questions: "The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous." The quotation is properly cited. An anon has removed it twice without explanation. I think this response is ridiculous, but the McCain campaign is entitled to have their viewpoint reported fairly. JamesMLane t c 05:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement offered by McCain's spokeswoman is not really about the issue at hand. His POW status is not related at all to the cloud of suspicion over McCain's failure to show up on time at the event. POWs lie and cheat and are not immune to such an accusation. The entire statement is not germane. I think a simple statement that the McCain camp states that they did not cheat is all that is necessary. The POW thing is smoke and mirrors propaganda. Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.67.227 (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to the extent of saying that Wikipedia should not assert, as a fact, that a former POW wouldn't cheat. We should, however, report that that's what the campaign said. We report a lot of smoke-and-mirrors statements from politicians. This one is illuminating about how the McCain campaign was attempting to project an image of rectitude in connection with the church forum. JamesMLane t c 06:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole Cone of Silence business is silly – McCain does town halls every day, there probably isn't a question under the sun he hasn't heard already – but given that it's addressed here, I agree with JamesMLane that the McCain campaign's full quote, including the 'POWs wouldn't cheat' bit, should be included here. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's become a big deal because Warren made it a big deal. He didn't say, "We've agreed that each candidate will have to answer without having heard my interview with the other." That, apparently, would've been accurate. Instead, his multiple references to the vivid "Cone of Silence" imagery gave everyone the impression that the church was enforcing this agreement. McCain played along with this idea. When that turned out not to be the case, the contrast between reality and what the viewers had been told made it a story. Also, at McCain's town halls, he's been asked about the Supreme Court, but I doubt that he's ever said "are we going to get back to the importance of Supreme Court Justices" before being asked the question. JamesMLane t c 10:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism of Cross in Sand Story

It has been all over the net recently that McCain may have stolen his cross in the sand story from "The Gulag Archipelago" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Whether or not it actually was plagiarism, the fact that many people have started discussing it as a result of the forum is worthy of note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.107.208 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain has used the story in other contexts besides his Saddleback appearance. Anything we write about this controversy should probably go in some other article. It's not unique to the Saddleback forum. JamesMLane t c 19:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no WP:RS on this challenge to the cross in the sand story, just underemployed bloggers led by Andrew Sullivan who is in turn obsessed with "Christianists". Ignore. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We have RS for a powerful piece of evidence in support of the plagiarism hypothesis. It's undisputed that US News carried a lengthy and detailed account of McCain's captivity, written by him (or at least appearing under his byline), in which several incidents of seemingly less significance are recounted but this one isn't. I think it's undisputed that McCain never mentioned this alleged experience until after the publication of the Solzhenitsyn bio that contained a strikingly similar account. So it's not like Sullivan pulled this out of thin air.

Nevertheless, even if Sullivan was prompted to write because he saw McCain's repetition of the story at the Saddleback forum, that connection isn't strong enough to include the issue in this article. JamesMLane t c 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

First, you're way behind the curve. Solzehnitsyn never wrote anything like this; see [1]. Second, this story is not critical to the central tale of McCain's POW experience. It was a minor outlier in an otherwise miserable time. It's no wonder it wasn't included in the 1973 USN&WR account, but did make it into the much longer Faith of My Fathers account. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, Wasted, I spend waaaaaay too much time reading political sites, including TPM. I knew that my initial impression that the incident was in one of Solzhenitsyn's works was false. That's why I wrote above that all McCain's references to the alleged incident came after the publication of the Solzhenitsyn bio, in which it did indeed appear. As to whether it was minor, the question is whether you find it credible that McCain didn't mention the incident at all for years after it happened, even though he now finds it important enough to bring up frequently. That hypothesis does not commend itself to my judgment, and I am apparently not alone. JamesMLane t c 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Between the 1973 USN&WR account and Robert Timberg's 1995 The Nightingale's Song, McCain didn't publish or talk in public much about his POW experience at all. Then after the Timberg work was well-received, McCain and Salter wrote Faith of My Fathers and described the whole thing. One of his first uses of the cross in the dirt story is in this famous Virginia Beach speech during his 2000 campaign, when he flays the hides of Falwell and Robertson. I get the sense he was rolling out the story to illustrate his notion of faith, compared to those two. Andrew Sullivan in his "Christianist" rants completely misunderstands this. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Candidates' Definition of "Rich"

While this article focuses on issues like abortion and Supreme Court justices, it fails to discuss poverty--an important issue for many Evangelicals. To this regard, the definition of rich is a stark contrasting moment of the forum that should highlighted. While McCain states that a rich person makes $5 million, Obama suggested something more modest ~$250k. I think that crafting a sentence to this regard would improve the substance of the article, since poverty in America is a key issue facing many Evangelicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.67.227 (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a sentence I added:

Warren also probed the definition of rich in America by asking "at what point...do you move from middle class to rich?" McCain answered, "How about $5 million?" whereas Obama stated rich Americans make more than $250,000.

Let's discuss this.

McCain's $5 million was clearly a joke - the audience, Rick Warren, and he himself laughed. He started off his next sentence with "But seriously" and in the next sentence he said, "I'm sure that comment will be distorted -- but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues."[2] It's pretty clear to me it was just a joke. On this question, Obama gave a clearer answer, though the word "reasoned" is POV.

I've implemented the following:

Warren also probed the definition of rich in America by asking "define rich?" McCain answered, "How about $5 million?", generating laughter from the audience and Warren; in the next sentence, he said, "But seriously...I'm sure that comment will be distorted—but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues." Obama answered that rich Americans make more than $250,000 per year, while people who make "$150,000 down you're basically middle class".

--Happyme22 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the prior version was cleaner and to the point. Not necessary to ramble on. Let's change back reasoned to stated. These matters may be a joke only to the very rich, however, including the justification of a long rambling to a simple matter of defining rich is not needed. The simple statement says enough here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.67.227 (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be established that McCain was not entirely serious; simply saying "McCain said $5 million" is not the complete story and thus we are not doing our jobs as Wikipedia editors. My version included the "that comment will be distorted" quote by McCain to clarify that he was not entirely serious, as well as the laughter from the audience, Warren, and McCain himself. Without including that, we are not reporting the whole story. Aside from that, your version is also problematic due to some of its wording. It is true that Obama was more decisive when answering this question, but using language such as "reasoned" is not in line with Wikipedia's policy on writing with a neutral point of view. If you feel that reporting the complete story is too much of a "long rambling", then there is a problem. Happyme22 (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording "reasoned" to "stated." Your version rambles and lacks a neutral point of view itself. The matter whether a joke or not is in stark contrast. One can define the "rich" clearly the other cannot. That is the substance of the issue at hand. I will revert to the simpler statement with "stated" instead of "reasoned" though answering a question is reasoning in most circles. Do you not agree? As for the rambling, well why do you need all those words to express the obviousness of the lack of seriousness in an answer like "How about $5 million?" I think an educated reader can judge that for themselves as a joke. You do not need so many words to accomplish that.67.164.67.227 (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are trying to make a point by inserting this information (as evidenced by your saying "One can define the 'rich' clearly the other cannot") then this is not the place to do it. Whether McCain answered the question or not is up to ones' own interpretation, but his serious answer was surely not $5 million (as evidenced by the laughter from the audience, Warren, McCain himself, and his next sentence beginning with "But seriously"). If you want to include a mention of the $5 million, then the full story needs to go along with it. To assist the average reader, I added McCain's obvious answer, which he stated after the $5 million gaffe: "the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues" (from my view, he did not answer the question, though it is not up to me to decide). This was McCain's answer, and it should be given equal weight as Obama's answer. Again, if you call the necessary context behind the $5 million joke "rambling", then there is a problem; it is not rambling, rather it is necessary information for the full context. To comment on one of your other points: not every reader we have here is completely educated. And the way your version is worded -- a simple "How about $5 million?" while Obama "stated that rich is above $250,000" -- portrays McCain as making something up because he does not know, and Obama as much smarter because he has an answer. That is unacceptable, which is why the necessary context is needed behind the $5 million gaffe. Happyme22 (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Warren's format allowed echo of the two to give as long or as short a response as they wanted to a question, but our article seems determined to boil everything down to short. Just giving "$5 million" isn't fair to McCain and just giving "above my pay grade" isn't fair to Obama. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that another IP address (69.247.47.95) must agree, for he/she inserted the word "jokingly" in front of the $5 million statement. Bottom line: if we want to include the define rich issue, which I think is a good idea, then we need to include that McCain's $5 million was indeed a joke. That's why in my version, I implied he was joking by mentioning the laughter and giving what he said after the comment.

As for the "Above my pay grade", I don't really see what else we can say to make it more "fair". Here's how the Los Angeles Times described it: "In the two-hour forum at Orange County's Saddleback Church, Obama told Pastor Rick Warren that it was 'above my pay grade' to define when a baby gets human rights, while McCain quickly answered, 'At the moment of conception.'"[3] I suppose we could give the full quote: "Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."[4] --Happyme22 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two tacts. One is to say that McCain replied with a joke. The other is to say that McCain was not able to answer the question seriously. I think that you all will be happy with the joke statment. I would like to adjust the word order to make the statement more readable. This makes for a terse statement and a fine compromise. I also concur that the 'Pay Grade' comment is analogous to the '$5 million' comment and they read out of context. Either statement shows perhaps a weakness in the debater's position maybe. McCain however never answered the simple question on the definition of rich. He did say things about reducing taxes but that was not the question. A better question from Warren may have been to define poverty in America. But that is not the matter.67.164.67.227 (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes McCain's $5 million and Obama's above my pay grade both showed weaknesses in the candidates. But that is our POV and that does not belong in the article. How about we attempt to be more 'fair' to each of the candidates by including the context behind each, meaning the joke for McCain and the full sentence for Obama. Happyme22 (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Politics aside the article, whether ever read or not by anyone, reads like a transcript instead of an encyclopedia article right now. I'd like opinions on that. Really *stage directions* are not generally found in an article--for example, "the audience laughed"--as an example. For that matter always someone somewhere in the audience laughed at one or the other so that kind of reporting is not really needed. Was it nervous laughter? Were they laughing at McCain for failing to answer the question? Or was McCain trying to be Jay Leno instead of acting Presidential.

The statements about McCain's taxation policy were not germane to the question asked by Warren. Taxes are not generally equated to a definition of rich. So I an confused about the answer. Warren's question is simple: define rich. Plain and simple. The most accurate statement is either to list the answer McCain gave or state quite honestly that McCain was unable to answer seriously. You can't substitute some rambing of McCain's stump speech on taxation policy as the response to Warren's question, since that is not the answer to the question asked.

McCain did not answer the question is the most honest reporting of the facts regardless of your POV.

In any case, the text is burly and needs to be punched up I think to read like a typical wikipedia article.

Any opinions on the style here--politics aside? 67.164.67.227 (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't say "McCain was unable to answer seriously" as it would be OR but we can say something like "he (McCain) didn't answer directly and joked...". --Floridianed (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

References

The 'Cone of Silence'

Seems some of you do not like the heading. But I would like to remind you that Warren talked at great length about the 'Cone of Silence'. There was no such thing or place even at Saddleback. Kind of weird I thought recalling the event. The controversy was made fact by numerous television interviews, exploring why in the world Warren would talk so much about the cone of silence if:

 (1) The Cone did not exist;                                  (Misrepresentation #1 by Warren)
 (2) McCain was not even at the forum site to be sequestered. (Misrepresentation #2 by Warren).

Thus there is controversy surrounding all the apparent confusion. Maybe Warren and the Saddleback staff--with little experience in organizing such forums--were just confused about creating a solid sense of transparency so they invented the Cone at the last minute. Maybe the McCain camp cannot get to things on time and are tired, disorganized, and confused. The press has documented this well and so why dont we refer to the historical facts as they occurred per the Wikipedia style guidelines. Blocking the inclusion of facts or headings that describe is not acceptable either.

I changed the heading to simply The 'Cone of Silence'. 67.164.67.227 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

My objection was based solely on the title of the section itself, as it included the word "controversy" and thus violated WP:CRITICISM. The new header is not bad, though do we need a header at all? If we don't put one in, the material will be under "The Issues" section, and the cone of silence thing stemmed from the issues. We cannot speculate what Warren knew or did not know and what his staff may or may not have done, as those are violations of WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Happyme22 (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear God, people! Rick Warren made a joke! That was it! And when members of the MSM, who have proven to be less than impartial (I'm talking about you, Olberman and Mathews) found out that this joke was in fact a joke, they blew up! It's a made-up controversy! People are making a big deal about this and completely ignoring real concerns like Obama's relationship with a known, self-professed terrorist! SpudHawg948 (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)