JOSEPH H. BOYETT

The Website for Americans Who WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN

RECENT COMMENTS AND ANALYSIS

For previous posts go to my Blog page

I looked at CNN’s transcript of the interviews Rick Warren conducting with Barack Obama and John McCain on August 17^th.  I compared the responses of the two candidates to Warren’s questions in an effort to determine what new things we could learn about the candidates from their answers?  As it turns out, the Warren interviews were mostly a night of missed opportunities.  If Warren had asked better questions and provided time for follow-up questions to force the candidates to expand on their responses we could have learned so much more.  Here’s my summary of the questions, the candidate’s responses, and the questions that Warren should have asked.

Question #1: Who are the three wisest people you know in your life and who are you going to rely on heavily in your administration?

Obama mention his wife, Michelle and his grandmother as the two wisest.  He would rely upon Sam Nunn and Dick Lugar in foreign policy and Ted Kennedy and Tom Coburn in domestic policy.  McCain mentioned General David Petraeus, John Lewis, and Meg Whitman, CEO of eBay.  I’m not sure these answers tell us very much.  It would have been better if Warren had phrased the question differently such as “Take one position you have taken in regard to domestic policy and one in regard to foreign policy and tell me who you consulted in arriving at your position on each issue.”

Question #2: What was the greatest moral failure in your life and what would be the greatest moral failure of America?

Obama cited his experimentation with drugs and alcohol in his teen years and that he was “so obsessed with me.”  He said America’s greatest moral failure was “not thinking about providing ladders of opportunity for people to get into the middle class.”  McCain cited the failure of his first marriage as his greatest moral failure.  He said America’s greatest moral failure was not asking Americans to volunteer to do more (Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, etc.) rather than telling them to go shopping or take a trip after 9/11.  Again, I’m not sure what we learned from these answers particularly since Warren didn’t ask any follow-up questions to develop a more complete understanding of how the candidate makes moral/ethical judgments.  For example Warren might have asked something along these lines.  “Throughout history there have been many different proposals offered by philosophers and ethicists concerning the process one should follow in making moral/ethical judgments.  For example, someone should consider the ends and attempt to do the greatest good for the greatest number.  Others argue that a course of action is moral or ethical only if one would wish it to establish a precedent or rule everyone in the future would follow.  Others cite different approaches.  What’s your approach?  When faced with a difficult decision, how do you go about deciding what is the moral or ethical thing to do?”

Question # 3: Give me a good example when you went against party loyalty, and maybe even went against your own best interest, for the good of America?

Obama mentioned campaign ethics reform and his opposition to the Iraq war.  McCain mentioned climate change, out of control spending, torture, and Reagan’s sending troops to Beirut.  Again, this was a missed opportunity.  The candidates got away with giving quantifiably safe responses unlikely to cause any problems with their core supporters.  Warren actually started out with what would have been a good question.  He began with “You know that a lot of good legislation dies because of partisan politics and party loyalty...”  He could have gone on to ask: “Do you think the Congress has gotten more partisan over the last ten or twenty years, why do you think that has happened, do you think that partisanship is the major cause of gridlock and what would or could you do about it if you are elected president?” 

Question # 4: What’s the most significant position you held ten years ago that you no longer hold today?

Obama mentioned his position on welfare reform (Clinton’s welfare to work).  McCain mentioned offshore drilling.  Again, we got quantifiably safe responses but no true insight.  Some follow-up questions would have been helpful.  Flip flopping implies that a candidate changed his position for political advantage.  That’s different from a candidate changing his position because he learned new information or recognized that situations had changed.  Obama’s response was more informative than McCain’s.  In his answer, Obama implied that at the time he opposed Clinton’s welfare reform, he didn’t see the importance of making work a condition of welfare but now he did because the welfare reform worked and he came to the realization that people needed to work to feel part of the community.  McCain just dropped into his stump speech.  I would have like to have seen more emphasis on why the candidate changed his position not just that he did.  Who or what evidence convinced him that he was wrong?

Question # 5: What was the most gut wrenching decision you ever had to make?

Obama said his opposition to the Iraq war.  McCain talked about his decision as prisoner of war to not take advantage of an opportunity to be released early.  This question would have been more interesting if Warren had worded it in a way or used follow-up questions to get at the central underlying issues—what types of decisions does the candidate find “gut wrenching” and how does he make those decisions?  We got some insight from their answers.  Obama said his decision to oppose the Iraq war was gut wrenching “not only because there were political consequences” but because there were questions about the justification for war and that in general questions of war and peace are so profound.  In discussing his decision, McCain mentions adhering to the code of conduct (honor) that said you left by order of capture and his friend who had been shot down before (personal loyalty). 

Question # 6: Publicly you say you’re a follower of Christ.  What does that mean to you?

The candidates gave almost identical responses.  Obama said it meant “I’m redeemed through him.”  McCain said “I’m saved and forgiven.”  These answers don’t tell us a lot other than the fact that the candidates are both Christians, which we already knew.  It would have been more interesting if Warren had worded his question differently.  For example, he might have asked something like this:  “Publicly you say you’re a follower of Christ.  What difference will it make that you are a Christian, rather than an atheist or Muslim, Jew or member of some other religion, when it comes to the policies you support and/or the way you conduct yourself as president?” 

Question #7: At what point does a baby get human rights?

Obama hedged saying “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.”  He went on to say that he was pro-choice and believed in Roe vs. Wade then turned the discussion to one of how people with different viewpoints could work together to find common ground in order to reduce the number of abortions.  McCain was unequivocal.  A baby was entitled to human rights “at the moment of conception.”  He went on to say he had a 25-year pro-life record.  Again, there isn’t much new that we can learn from their answers.  It would have been more interesting if Warren had phrased the question differently to focus not specifically on abortion but on the broader issue of the president’s approach to controversial issues where the country is deeply divided.  For example, Warren might have asked: “The question of abortion is one on which people in this country hold sharply different opinions.  According to a recent Gallup survey, approximately 49% of Americans describe themselves as being pro-choice and 45% call themselves pro-life.  We know that you have said that you are pro-life (pro-choice).  When the country is almost evenly divided on an issue, regardless of his personal beliefs, what role should the president play in helping the country grapple with the issue?  Should he be an advocate for one side over another?  Should he remain neutral?  Should he seek compromise and consensus? What role should he play?” 

Question #8: Define marriage.

Predictably both candidates said marriage is a union between a man and a woman.  Obama said he supported civil unions and opposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.  McCain said that states should define marriage, unless the Supreme Court required his state to accept another state’s definition.  In that case, he would favor a Constitutional Amendment to impose his state’s definition on other states.  This question didn’t reveal much that was new.

Question #9: Would you favor or opposed the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

Both candidates said they favored funding stem cell research using embryos that were about to be discarded.  Nothing new here.

Question # 10: Does evil exist, and, if so, should we ignore it, negotiate with it, contain it, or defeat it?

This was one of Warren’s weakest questions, the equivalent of asking “Do you favor or oppose evil, bad people?”  Did he really expect either or the candidates to say there was no evil in the world and if there was we should just ignore it?  Predictably, both candidates said evil existed and we should confront it.  The most interesting thing about the candidates’ responses to the question had to do with their definition of evil.  McCain defined evil as bin Laden and Al Qaida.  Obama defined evil mostly in social terms; Darfur, on the streets of cities, parents who abuse children, and so on.  I’m assuming that McCain’s response to this question was closer to what Warren had in mind since Warren said to Obama after his response “let’s move on to some domestic issues,” implying that the question about evil was a foreign policy question.  If that’s true, then he should have asked a more pointed question.  For example, he might have said “most people would say that there is evil in the world by which they mean evil regimes that violate human rights and organizations or movements that seek political advantage through the use of terror.  What’s the proper response of the U. S. government toward such regimes and organizations?  Should we ignore them, negotiate with them, contain them, or do all we can to defeat them?  And when and to what extent should we work with other nations as opposed to going it alone?” 

The questions got weaker and the responses largely predictable from this point on.  With a few exceptions such as on who they would not have nominated to the Supreme Court, the candidates gave almost identical responses.  Warren should have eliminated the remaining questions to provide time for follow-up questions.

Question # 11: Which existing Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?

Again, the response was predictable and along party and ideological lines.  Obama said he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts.  McCain said he would not have nominated Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, or Stephens. 

Question #12: Do you support federal dollars going to faith-based organizations?

Both said they did.  Obama added the caveat that “we do have to be careful to make sure that we are not creating a situation where people are discriminated against, using federal money.”

Question # 13: Do you think better teachers should be paid better?

Both candidates said they supported merit pay for teachers and rewarding performance.

Question # 14: Define “rich”

Obama said “rich” was an annual income of $250,000 and that those with such an income should see a “modest” increase in taxes.  McCain said “rich” was $5 million and even then those people shouldn’t see an increase in taxes. 

Question # 15: As an American, what’s worth dying for?  What’s worth having the sacrifice of American lives?

Both said American freedom, American lives, the country was worth dying for.

Question # 16: What criteria would you use to commit troops to end genocide such as in Darfur?

Both said that they would work with the international community to prevent genocide.

Question # 17: What would you do in your administration to end religious persecution?

Both said they would “speak out” against it, use the “bully pulpit.”

Question # 18: Would you support an emergency plan to help the world’s orphans?

Both said they favored helping orphans.

Question # 19: Why do you want to be president?

Both said they wanted to be president to work across party lines to get things done.

Question # 20: What do you say to people who oppose me (Warren) asking you these questions?

Both said that we need “these kinds of forums” and that they were happy to attend.

As I said, the Warren interviews yielded little new insight into the candidates or their likely performance as president.  That’s too bad because the format, provided it had been truly followed [see my article on “The Warren Event: Was it staged?], could have helped us develop a greater understanding of the character and though processes of these two men.  Warren squandered a real opportunity by asking poor questions and not providing time for follow-up questions to the candidates’ answers.  I’d like to see some other organization sponsor a warren-type event.  But, the next time let’s make sure the questions are tough, there is time for follow-up, the candidates are given no hint concerning even what topics will be discussed much less the actual questions, and a “cone of silence” is truly enforced.  In respect to the latter, instead of having the candidates appear together, why not record separate interviews with them at separate locations at exactly the same time, using the exact same wording of the questions.  It’s an idea.

The Warren “event” Saturday night seems to have been something less than billed.  First, Warren admitted to CNN on Sunday that during the first 30 minutes, at least, of the show, McCain was not in a “code of silence” as Warren said he was but was actually in a motorcade on the way to the event where he could have heard every question Obama was asked.  Warren should have known that.  In fact, he as much as admitted to CNN that he did know that McCain hadn't even arrived before the quesitoning of Obama began.  Warren should have told his viewers.  Instead, Warren told the viewers, "we have safely placed Senator McCain in a cone of silence."  That wasn't true and the fact that Warren misled the viewers brings into question the honesty and independence of the staging of the entire event.   And, what about McCain?  The first question Warren asked him was about "how comfortable" the cone of silence was.  McCain never mentioned that he hadn't been in a cone of silence the whole time but rather had arrived as much as 30 minutes after the questioning of Obama began.  Should McCain have clarified that fact with the viewers? 

Additionally, Warren says he did not give the candidates the "exact wording" of the questions he would ask (except for the first question “so they would be relaxed”) but that he did tell them the "themes." That’s different from the candidate showing up for an interview with no idea concerning the questions that he might be asked.  Think about it, if I tell you I'm going to ask you a question about your stand on the environment or abortion, for example, but don't give you the exact wording of the question, it makes no difference.  You still know what I'm going to ask.  Therefore, you can prepare yourself to answer those questions.  I think that’s exactly what both candidates did.  Recall Warren’s interviews.  Warren’s questions didn’t seem to take either candidate off guard.  Neither paused for very long or stumbled trying to find the right wording as you might expect if someone got a question for which he was unprepared. 

I'm not sure what Warren's interview with McCain and Obama was all about but it wasn't the unscripted, freewheeling event advertised. This was more like a carefully rehearsed campaign event for both candidates.  And, what was the “cone of silence” gaff about anyway?  What was Warren really doing?  The whole event requires more investigation and shouldn’t be trusted as revealing anything more about the candidates than we might have learned from a campaign speech. 

BE SURE TO SCROLL DOWN ON THIS PAGE FOR LINKS TO NUMEROUS WEB SITES CONTAINING INFORMATION AND RESOURCES THAT WILL HELP YOU FOLLOW AND UNDERSTAND THE 2008 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

% TRUE OR MOSTLY TRUE STATEMENTS

according to POLITIFACT.COM 

August 19, 2008 

Obama 54% -- McCain 41%

Half the time the candidates DON'T tell the truth

Moral:

It pays to be a skeptic.

********************

A discriminating irreverence is the creator

and protector of human liberty.

Mark Twain

Here are some of the best sites to check out the latest polling numbers and electoral college counts.

RealClearPolitics.com

RealClearPolitics.com is a good source for the latest presidential tracking polls and electoral college estimates.

Click on the link above to go to RealClearPolitics

Other electoral college estimates can be found at these sites:

RasmussenReports.com

Electoral-Vote.com

Here are three useful sites for savy voters who want to know who is telling the truth and who is not in the presidential race:

PolitiFact.com

A service of the St. Petersburg Times and CQ, PolitiFact.com rates the candidates statements on a "Truth Meter"--True, Mostly True, Half True, Barely True, False, and my favorite "Pants on Fire."  They also have and "Obama File" and "McCain File" that shows the frequence with the candidates' statements have been judged True or False.  See our report above for who is currently winning the truth war.

Click on the link above to go to PolitiFact.com

FactCheck.org

FactCheck.org is a service of the independent Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.  The center accepts no money from businesses, labor unions, political parties, lobby groups, or political parties and has a strong reputation for fairness and accuracy.  If you want, you can sign up to have FactCheck.org send you e-mails summarizing their most recent evaluations of the candidates' claims and statements.  Also, you can view the FactCheck website on your mobile device.  Recent FactCheck postings included an evaluation of Obama's claims concerning his legislative accomplishments and McCain's contradictions and misstatements about his energy policy.

Click on the link above to go to FactCheck.org

The Fact Checker from The Washington Post

Finally, you might want to check out Michael Dobbs' Factchecker site at the Washington Post.   Dobbs and "crack researcher"  Alice Crites from the Post's investigative department "refree candidate rhetoric" with an eye toward shedding "as much light as possible on controversial claims and counter-claims involving national issues."  A unique feature of The Fact Checker is that Dobbs and Crites invite you to join in the discussion by posting your own comments on the issues they address and by suggesting facts they should be checking.

Click on the link above to go to The Washington Post's Fact Checker site.

Check out these blogs to keep up with the latest political news and opinion concerning the 2008 U.S. presidential election.

Political Ticker at CNN--http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Dailykos--http://www.dailykos.com/

Huffingtonpost--http://www.huffingtonpost.com/politics/

Political Radar at ABC News--http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/

Politicalwire--http://politicalwire.com/

Swampland at Time Magazine--http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/

Talkingpoints Memo--http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Carpet Bagger Report--http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

The Fix at the Washington Post--http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

Wonkette--http://wonkette.com/

Political Insider--http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/politicalinsider/

If you have a favorite political blog we don't include here, click on "E-Mail Joseph Boyett" at the top of this page to send us an e-mail suggesting a blog to include in this list.

How good are the pollsters in predicting the outcome of elections?  According to FiveThirtyEight, of the major pollsters, SurveyUSA and Rasmussen are best.  Strategic Vision and Insider Advantage are about average.  Gallup and, particularly, Zogby are the worst.

CLICK HERE to see FiveThirtyEight’s complete ratings.

Want to learn more about the candidates and their positions on the issues? Here are some web sites to check out. 

Project Vote Smart provides biographies, voting records, positions on the major issues, interest group ratings, endorsements and so on.  Enter your zip code to get information on candidates running for office in your area or type in a candidate’s last name.  Information about the Democratic and Republican party candidates for president can be found at the following locations:

Barack Obama

John McCain

The Washington Post offers some of the same information as part off its election coverage. 

SourceWatch’s Congresspedia (a joint project of Sunlight Foundationa and the Center for Media and Democracy provides information on the candidates’ voting records and positions onn the major issues posted by “citizen editors” (i.e, anyone who wantns to participate).  Click on the links below to go to the pages on Obama and McCain.

Obama      McCain

You can get information on candidates from your state by clicking on the following link to go to the Congrsspedia Wiki the Vote page.  Once there click on your state on the map to get information on candidates.

Wiki the Vote

Washington Post’s Choose Your Candidate page allows you to match your opinion on the major issues of the day to those of Barack Obama and John McCain.

National Platforms.com provides information submitted by the candidates themselves.  For information on the major presidential candidates go to:

            Barack Obama 

            John McCain

You might also want to visit the candidates’ own web sites:

            Barack Obama's         

            John McCain’s 

Finally, just for fun and a few laughs check out Comedy Central’s Indecision 2008. 

Ever confused about the conflicting poll results you read about?  Don't be.  The following sites provide good information on the whole process of polls and polling and how to evaluate polling results.

A Journalist's Guide to Opinion Polls

The British Polling Council has an excellent guide for journalists on sampling and other polling issues.  The good news is that you don't have to be a journalists to get a copy.  Just click on the link above.

20 Questions a Journalist Should Ask About Poll Results

These come from the National Council on Public Polls.

Good Polls/Bad Polls--How Can You Tell

Michael Link and Robert Oldendick of the Institute for Public Service and Policy Research at the University of South Carolina provide ten good tips for evaluating polls.  Click on the link above to get a free copy.

The Roper Center provides a good overview of the fundamentals of polling that will answer many of your questions about how polls are conducted and how their results should be read.  For answers to other Frequently Asked Questions about Polls and Polling visit these sites:

Pew Research Center for People and the Press 

Pollster.com

PoliQuiz is a new and fun way to test your knowledge about politics, politicians, and the American government.  To take the quiz click on this link: POLIQIZ

Note: You will be asked to enable cookies while you are taking the quiz.

Are you sometimes confused by the terms you hear the candidates use or that reporters use in covering the poltical campaigns such as hard money, soft money, bellweather states, blue states, red states and so on.  The BBC offers an excellent glossary of political terms. 

 Go to The US Election Glossary

The Economist offers a helpful glossary of economic terms at http://www.economist.com/research/economics/

Want to know where the candidates get there money and who gives it? 

Go to OpenSecrets.org

Need information about absentee voting, ballot measures, candidates, early voting, election dates, voter eligibilty requirements, ID requirements, polling places, provisional voting, state contacts, the voter registration process, voting machines. Etc.  The League of Women Voters Education Fund offers great resources.  Just select your state from a drop-down list or click on a map. 

Visit VOTE411.org

August 25-28 -- Democratic National Convention, Denver

September 1-4 -- Republican National Convention, Minneapolis-St. Paul

September 26 -- 1st Presidential Debate (Domestic Policy), Oxford, MS

October 2 -- Vice Presidential Debate, St. Louis, MO

October 7 -- 2nd Presidential Debate (Town Hall Format), Nashville, TN

October 15 -- Final Presidential Debate (Foreign Policy), Hempstead, NY

November 4 -- Election Day

January 20 -- Inauguration Day