Funny, isn't it, that it was McCain's seeming coherence relative to all his other public appearances that was the clue to this dirty trick- his staff knew the questions already and was able to prepare his answers for him:
"However, the New York Times' Kit Seelye has boldly backed up Mitchell's claim in today's story, "Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn't in a 'Cone of Silence'." Per Seelye:
Senator John McCain was not in a "cone of silence" on Saturday night while his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback Church in California... The matter is of interest because Mr. McCain, who followed Mr. Obama's hourlong appearance in the forum, was asked virtually the same questions as Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain's performance was well received, raising speculation among some viewers, especially supporters of Mr. Obama, that he was not as isolated during the Obama interview as Mr. Warren implied.
(snip)
Mr. Warren, the pastor of Saddleback, had assured the audience while he was interviewing Mr. Obama that "we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence" and that he could not hear the questions... Interviewed Sunday on CNN, Mr. Warren seemed surprised to learn that Mr. McCain was not in the building during the Obama interview.
This corroborates Mitchell's report, which was "McCain may not have been in the cone of silence" (he wasn't, at least not for the duration) and "may have some ability to overhear" the question (unclear, but if the purpose of the 'cone of silence' is to guard against that, then presumably being outside it might have afforded that opportunity.
But even without Seelye, Mitchell was corroborated...by Davis. He wrote, "The fact is that during Senator Obama's segment at Saddleback last night, Senator McCain was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green room with no broadcast feed." That means that he was not in the cone of silence during the Obama questioning, confirming Mitchell's report." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/18/nyt-backs-up-nbc-mccain-w_n_...
________________________________________________________________________ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
risky biz <risky-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Funny, isn't it, that it was McCain's seeming coherence relative to all > his other public appearances that was the clue to this dirty trick
As one wit put it, "McCain has the advantage of just being able to say what he thinks."
On Aug 20, 4:57 am, "risky biz" <risky-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Funny, isn't it, that it was McCain's seeming coherence relative to all > his other public appearances that was the clue to this dirty trick- his > staff knew the questions already and was able to prepare his answers for > him:
Have some cheese with your whine ... or is it sour grapes ... McCain's dirty trick ... being able to answer questions without trying to figure out what he believes or helps politically first ...
> Funny, isn't it, that it was McCain's seeming coherence relative to all > his other public appearances that was the clue to this dirty trick- his > staff knew the questions already and was able to prepare his answers for > him:
> "However, the New York Times' Kit Seelye has boldly backed up Mitchell's > claim in today's story, "Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn't in a 'Cone of > Silence'." Per Seelye:
> Senator John McCain was not in a "cone of silence" on Saturday night while > his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback > Church in California... The matter is of interest because Mr. McCain, who > followed Mr. Obama's hourlong appearance in the forum, was asked virtually > the same questions as Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain's performance was well > received, raising speculation among some viewers, especially supporters of > Mr. Obama, that he was not as isolated during the Obama interview as Mr. > Warren implied.
> (snip)
> Mr. Warren, the pastor of Saddleback, had assured the audience while he > was interviewing Mr. Obama that "we have safely placed Senator McCain in a > cone of silence" and that he could not hear the questions... Interviewed > Sunday on CNN, Mr. Warren seemed surprised to learn that Mr. McCain was > not in the building during the Obama interview.
> This corroborates Mitchell's report, which was "McCain may not have been > in the cone of silence" (he wasn't, at least not for the duration) and > "may have some ability to overhear" the question (unclear, but if the > purpose of the 'cone of silence' is to guard against that, then presumably > being outside it might have afforded that opportunity.
> But even without Seelye, Mitchell was corroborated...by Davis. He wrote, > "The fact is that during Senator Obama's segment at Saddleback last night, > Senator McCain was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green > room with no broadcast feed." That means that he was not in the cone of > silence during the Obama questioning, confirming Mitchell's report."
I cannot defend McCain. Even when he says what he thinks, I have too many sharp disagreements with his thoughts. McCain-Feingold is a travesty.
But neither can I defend Obama. The more he speaks, the more it becomes evident that he is a big government socialist, that he will undermine American sovereignty, and that he is clueless about how to confront America's enemies who seek our destruction. And he has too many close associations with people who are clearly hostile to our nation.
An increasing number of Americans are looking at 3rd party options, and by election day, there may be a very large protest vote for such candidates. I hope so.
= = = =
On Aug 20, 4:57 am, "risky biz" <risky-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Funny, isn't it, that it was McCain's seeming coherence relative to all > his other public appearances that was the clue to this dirty trick- his > staff knew the questions already and was able to prepare his answers for > him:
> "However, the New York Times' Kit Seelye has boldly backed up Mitchell's > claim in today's story, "Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn't in a 'Cone of > Silence'." Per Seelye:
> Senator John McCain was not in a "cone of silence" on Saturday night while > his rival, Senator Barack Obama, was being interviewed at the Saddleback > Church in California... The matter is of interest because Mr. McCain, who > followed Mr. Obama's hourlong appearance in the forum, was asked virtually > the same questions as Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain's performance was well > received, raising speculation among some viewers, especially supporters of > Mr. Obama, that he was not as isolated during the Obama interview as Mr. > Warren implied.
> (snip)
> Mr. Warren, the pastor of Saddleback, had assured the audience while he > was interviewing Mr. Obama that "we have safely placed Senator McCain in a > cone of silence" and that he could not hear the questions... Interviewed > Sunday on CNN, Mr. Warren seemed surprised to learn that Mr. McCain was > not in the building during the Obama interview.
> This corroborates Mitchell's report, which was "McCain may not have been > in the cone of silence" (he wasn't, at least not for the duration) and > "may have some ability to overhear" the question (unclear, but if the > purpose of the 'cone of silence' is to guard against that, then presumably > being outside it might have afforded that opportunity.
> But even without Seelye, Mitchell was corroborated...by Davis. He wrote, > "The fact is that during Senator Obama's segment at Saddleback last night, > Senator McCain was in a motorcade to the event and then held in a green > room with no broadcast feed." That means that he was not in the cone of > silence during the Obama questioning, confirming Mitchell's report."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/18/nyt-backs-up-nbc-mccain-w_n_...
> ________________________________________________________________________ > * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more..www.recgroups.com
> I cannot defend McCain. Even when he says what he thinks, I have too > many sharp disagreements with his thoughts. McCain-Feingold is a > travesty.
> But neither can I defend Obama. The more he speaks, the more it > becomes evident that he is a big government socialist, that he will > undermine American sovereignty, and that he is clueless about how to > confront America's enemies who seek our destruction. And he has too > many close associations with people who are clearly hostile to our > nation.
> An increasing number of Americans are looking at 3rd party options, > and by election day, there may be a very large protest vote for such > candidates. I hope so.
> = = = =
Please explain how Obama will undermine American sovereignty?
Ross Perot and the charts and graphs should be making a run any time now.
risky biz wrote: > Funny, isn't it, that it was McCain's seeming coherence relative to all > his other public appearances that was the clue to this dirty trick- his > staff knew the questions already and was able to prepare his answers for > him:
> "However, the New York Times' Kit Seelye has boldly backed up Mitchell's > claim in today's story, "Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn't in a 'Cone of > Silence'." Per Seelye:
Sorry about that, Chief. He didn't have a phone in his shoe, either.
Someone has proposed a perfect solution for this made-up controversy: they do it again. Same forum, same moderator, new questions (but again, asking both the same questions). Except this time, McCain goes first.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:13:26 -0600, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote: >risky biz wrote: >> Funny, isn't it, that it was McCain's seeming coherence relative to all >> his other public appearances that was the clue to this dirty trick- his >> staff knew the questions already and was able to prepare his answers for >> him:
>> "However, the New York Times' Kit Seelye has boldly backed up Mitchell's >> claim in today's story, "Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn't in a 'Cone of >> Silence'." Per Seelye:
>Sorry about that, Chief. He didn't have a phone in his shoe, either.
>Someone has proposed a perfect solution for this made-up controversy: >they do it again. Same forum, same moderator, new questions (but again, >asking both the same questions). Except this time, McCain goes first.
>Somehow I doubt Obama would agree.
I heard a rumor that Obama was considering challenging McCain to another debate.
Not at the Saddleback church this time, but in San Francisco at the Bareback church.
> On Aug 20, 4:57 am, "risky biz" <risky-...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > Funny, isn't it, that it was McCain's seeming coherence relative to all > > his other public appearances that was the clue to this dirty trick- his > > staff knew the questions already and was able to prepare his answers for > > him:
> Have some cheese with your whine ... or is it sour grapes ... > McCain's dirty trick ... being able to answer questions without trying > to figure out what he believes or helps politically first ...
Hey, doofus, the fact is he looks like the idiot he is when he answers questions without being coached first. That's because he doesn't really know what "John McCain" thinks. Someone has to tell him first. In this case he seemed at least coherent because his handlers had plenty of opportunity to crib the questions beforehand and give him the answers while Obama had to answer unprepared.
The whole format was a lie and a dirty setup and you're wimpy enough to pretend that isn't relevant. What a mutt.
____________________________________________________________________ * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
> An increasing number of Americans are looking at 3rd party options, > and by election day, there may be a very large protest vote for such > candidates. I hope so.
Do you think it could be as big as .0003%?
Get off it. Most of you "conservatives" are Republican to the bone and that's how you'll vote.
I'm not saying that "liberals" are much better.
----- * kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
