Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Desperation? So soon?

I'm really not one gleefully to announce "They're desperate!" at the drop of a hat; and my un-enthusiasm for McC is well known.

But... goodness The Obama's camp must be desperate. McCain must have really smoked The One. I mean, if their best account is, in effect, "Yeah yeah, the reason our guy did so bad and McCain did so well is... is... is that McCain cheated! Yeah, that's the ticket! He knew the questions in advance! Yeah, that's it."

Anyway, Warren flat-out says that's a lie.

A lie, perhaps. If so, certainly a revealing one.

But then, aren't all lies revealing?

10 comments:

Stan McCullars said...

Obama is quite the crybaby.

If Obama were to become president, he would wet his pants every time the phone rang in the White House.

Puritan Man said...

I haven't been able to catch any of Obama's after action comments but I want to ask, did this quasi-debate at Rick Warren's church bother anyone else? I am having trouble articulating what it is that bothers me about the fact that the great one, no I'm not talking about Obama, held this at his church. Just coming from the seeker-sensitive church background it irks me that they try to wield their influence in politics.

I think part of it is that there is no depth to their preaching and here we are inputing that into politics. I don't know. I'm slowly contemplating what it is that bugs me. Maybe I'm the only one. Any thoughts to help me articulate this?

Kaffinator said...

I thought it was fantastic for Pastor Warren to provide this service to his church and to America. Some people cant stand it, I guess, when someone actually fulfills 1 Timothy 3:7.

Obama came off like a gasbag. I think he was trying to duplicate Clinton's ability to juggle many conflicting points and come up with an agreeable statement. But ultimately he showed he is really unable to grapple with the concerns of Evangelical voters. We feel compassion for women struggling with an unwanted pregnancy, but we don't see why "kill your baby using federal cash" should be preserved as an option on the table. We want compassion and care for the poor, but we don't necessarily feel that clubbing the rich over the head and stealing their cash is the best way to do it. Obama had two choices: 1) speak to our real concerns and try to win us over. 2) agree to disagree and make your case with clarity so we can at least respect your thought process. He did neither.

McCain's answers were direct, clear, and to the point. He was self-composed. But then again he entered the field knowing he was going to get some slow pitches. Still, his performance was good enough that I feel a little better about being forced to vote for him in November. Won't be slathering my car with bumper stickers though.

philness said...

Perhaps Obama should have Rick Warren as his VP. They both obviously see ambiguity as glamorous.

eastendjim said...

"He knew the questions in advance!"

No...he just knew the answers in advance.

Gilbert said...

Kaffinator,

"Some people cant stand it, I guess, when someone actually fulfills 1 Timothy 3:7."

He has a good reputation with outsiders...because he spends much of his time, efforts and preaching on topics and sermons that have nothing to do with "insiders", and not much of Biblical content, despite what he has claimed.

If he really wanted to prove your statements, why didn't he ask both of them why they both have supported legislation murdering innocent unborn children? Especially with Mr. Obama's horrific record, and both claiming to be Christians. Or that any of the "solutions" to our problems were man-centered and not Christ-centered, and have failed time and time again? And why, if the candidates truly were Christians as they claim, weren't they rebuked for such atrocious beliefs?

In any case, how does hosting a presidential "debate" even in part fulfill 1 Timothy 3:7? Answer: it doesn't.

You fail to recognize that while that pastors have a good reputation with outsiders, they must have a good one with true "insiders" as well.

Daniel said...

I am reminded first of Ivan Pavlov, and then of Frank Farian.

Shortly after Pavlovian conditioning became the mainstay of product marketing (why are there so many near-nude models in advertising?), Farian, a German music producer, attempted to use the same conditioning to market music. I am speaking of course of a little dance music project called "Milli Vanilli".

Farian hired some fairly photogenic models/dancers as front men for the music project, but out an album, had some nice lip syncing videos - and SHAZAM! Grammy award. Yeah, it didn't end well, but the concept certainly proved the point - image sells.

Which is not to suggest that the musicians, vocalists, and song writers who put Milli Vanilli on the map in the first place were talentless hacks - but rather it showed that in a market where good musicians are a dime a dozen, what made one successful, and another unsuccessful was largely image.

Which brings me to this post.

Obama is the Democratic front man. it isn't that He is a fake or hollow, he has his own rather amorphous social platform (change!), but more than anything he is a marketable image, and his campaign seems to me to be more P.R. than substance. Really, the party is selling the image - we want the white house, and here is the guy who you should look at in order to get us there.

That being the case, there is a lop-sided relationship between the "sheen" and the marketability of their candidate. It has been said before, but people more profound than I am, that there isn't a lot of substance to Obama - which if true, means that if you attack the image, you are attacking pretty much all there is. Which is why that image must be defended and maintained at all costs.

Kaffinator said...

Hi Gilbert,

“If he really wanted to prove your statements, why didn't he ask both of them why they both have supported legislation murdering innocent unborn children?”

Did you even watch the debate? He asked both candidates frank questions about abortion, frank enough to provoke Obama’s “above my pay grade response”, which will have to go down as one of the most embarrassing statements ever made by a presidential candidate.

“Or that any of the "solutions" to our problems were man-centered and not Christ-centered, and have failed time and time again?”

Rick Warren was interviewing presidential candidates. Not pastoral candidates. There’s a distinct difference, which I will leave as an exercise to the reader.

“And why, if the candidates truly were Christians as they claim, weren't they rebuked for such atrocious beliefs?”

Because it wasn’t the forum for rebuke. Not every forum is a forum for rebuke.

“In any case, how does hosting a presidential "debate" even in part fulfill 1 Timothy 3:7? Answer: it doesn't.”

The very fact that both candidates accepted to appear, proves that Rick Warren is viewed by both candidates and their potential constituents as being fair, honest, and genuinely interested in the good of America. If that isn’t evidence of a “good reputation among outsiders” then I don’t know what is.

“they must have a good one with true ‘insiders’ as well.”

Well, I haven’t done a poll, but my guess is that his parishioners are pretty happy with him.

Oh wait, by "insiders" did you mean to say that Rick Warren has to have a good reputation with you? Or, the reformed blogosphere? Or something else?

mikepettengill said...

100% with you on this one McC did great and Big O did ok...and that is a big deal when 1.5% charisma whips on 102% charisma in a setting like that.

Followed by "dive, dive, dive, load all toobs, fire when ready."

Can't quite say I'm in the eager to vote for him camp yet, however, I've moved over to the MAYBE I'll think about possibly considering voting for McC camp.

Can't wait to here the VP picks. Prediction: Big O goes with flash...a woman? McC goes with very Liberal Republican.

Gilbert said...

Hi Kaffinator,

>Did you even watch the debate? He
>asked both candidates frank
>questions about abortion, frank
>enough to provoke Obama’s “above
>my pay grade response”, which
>will have to go down as one of
>the most embarrassing statements
>ever made by a presidential
>candidate.

But the point is this: as embarrassing and as bad as it was,
my question remains unanswered: Why weren't they asked why they supported legislation that has killed tens of millions of unborn people?

>Rick Warren was interviewing
>presidential candidates. Not
>pastoral candidates. There’s a
>distinct difference, which I will
>leave as an exercise to the
>reader.

Let me ask you this: is this the role a pastor should want to play in, or is Biblically acceptable in the role of a pastor? What God-glorifying purpose was accomplished here? I have to conclude that it was entirely void of that. It was a worldly event that should not be done by a pastor at his church. A neutral location by request if the pastor if he is well-respected and *asked* by the politicians to do so, and not in the official clergy position, would be the only legitimate reason I see that any pastor should have accepted this role.

Me: And why, if the candidates truly were Christians as they claim, weren't they rebuked for such atrocious beliefs?”

>Because it wasn’t the forum for
>rebuke. Not every forum is a
>forum for rebuke.

Okay...so if Pastor Warren wants to do this, should he have not at least privately met with both of them, and told them why their beliefs would be even more horrific and damaging to this country? Answer: their home church pastor should have done that, of course! But failing that, he should have called them on it, in private. And then public if they refused to change their beliefs.

>The very fact that both
>candidates accepted to appear,
>proves that Rick Warren is viewed
>by both candidates and their
>potential constituents as being
>fair, honest, and genuinely
>interested in the good of
>America. If that isn’t evidence
>of a “good reputation among
>outsiders” then I don’t know what
>is.

Let me tell you what it isn't first: advancing the Kingdom, directly or indirectly through political events like this, and "politics" in a general sense, have NEVER, EVER advanced the Kingdom of God...period, end of story. Jesus respected authority, but never used it in any manner to glorify God. Let me be clear about something else: I'm not saying a Christian shouldn't become a politician if he is so led. But, to "play I'm a Christian" as a platform as politicians do now dishonor God just like any other sin.

"Proving" that Pastor Warren is "fair, honest, and genuinely interested in the good of America"...is that the definition of a good reputation of outsiders?
I don't want to be fair, I want to be holy. From that flows goodness, not fairness. (I'm so glad life isn't fair, or otherwise, without Christ, I'd be in hell, and I certainly don't deserve him!), and genuinely interested in the good of our country isn't in the Bible either. Here is what is, and I have to make it quick since a storm is moving in where I am:
1 Timothy 3:1 through verse 15.

I just do not see Biblically or otherwise how political events like this, by any pastor, can further the Kingdom of God. It's not just this one, but the others he has held at Saddleback where everything from pro-gay agendas to abortion viewpoints have not been rebuked. Sharing the pulpit/stage with politicians is courting spiritual disaster for the pastor and his flock.