OK, final time. You said he originally said the shackle story took place in May, and then changed it to Christmas, because that’s when the cross story took place. I’m saying that the cross story has always consistently taken place several months after the shackle story, which has always consistently taken place in, what, May? You claimed he changed the timing of the story. That’s all.
Arizona was responding to your claim:
which was indeed false, he didn’t change the date of the guard loosening his bonds, he added a second (and I agree, unlikely) story about the same guard drawing a cross several months later.
The Christmas story hasn’t always consistently been anything. It didn’t exist at all until '99.
I don’t know if he made it up, but I’m dubious, especially since he’s unquestionably changed his Green Bay Packer story.
Arizona, could you address my last post on page 2? (post #80)
ETA: Maybe I’m wrong about something. If so, I want you to correct me.
It is in his autobiography Faith of my Father’s. But that was published in '99, when he first started adding the part of the story with the cross (indeed I suspect that that’s where he first told the story, but I’m not sure).
If you want to hang your hat on that point, I am happy to concede the argument to you. His fake story has been consistent.
Oh. I thought that came out many years ago. So much for that. :smack:
As I said earlier, lacking evidence, I neither believe nor disbelieve McCain’s story at this point. I certainly find the tale a little too pat to be absolutely factual. But the swipe you take at Obama above is a bit misplaced isn’t it?
The difference between the two (that is, these particular instances of both Obama and McCain telling stories with possibly non-factual bits) isn’t in the “metaphorical meaning to [either of them]” – it’s the non-metaphorical meaning to the audience.
In Obama’s case, Birkenau or Dachau or whatever…the detail doesn’t change the fundamental story. A similar thing with whatever the gripe was over Obama’s Selma comment. But introducing an NVA guard, at Christmas, drawing a cross on the ground does change the story – in fact, told in front of an evangelical audience, it turns the story into an allegory, to be lapped up like pablum.
Nothing on the allegations that “cone of silence” Warren talked about did not exist? And that McCain’s camp answered back with some scathing words for Andrea Mitchell (who first broke the story) but was later picked up by the rest of the major news outlets?
Sorry for the double post but. . .
The thing that gets me is Warren’s “cone of silence” statement. Why would he say such a thing when he knew full well McCain arrived from 30 minutes to an hour AFTER Obama started his Q&A session.
McCain’s campaign manager sent an angry letter requesting a meeting with NBC president to talk about the partisan news reporting-- not mentioning that what Andrea said-- that some Obama people were saying that McCain was not in a cone of silence and that he may have had prior knowledge of the questions-- was quite true.
IF it’s true that there was deception on the part of McCain, his staff, Rick Warren, or Rick Warren’s staff, then I hope that becomes part of the public narrative about this campaign and the men who are running. As I said above, I’m skeptical that that will occur.
Looks like the times is joining in the lack of a cone of silence claim.
I could pull a Dio here and say “Cite that it’s fake?” and good luck with that, but like I said earlier, I don’t know if the story is true. However, let’s not go making more stuff up!
It’s a fishy story, yes.
I notice the McCain camp is kicking up a lot of dust but that they’re not really denying that McCain got the questions beforehand.
We know for a fact that Warren lied. Has he attempted to explain himself yet.
I started a separate thread about the “Cross in the Dirt” story.
I’m confused about the time line. Didn’t Warren make the “cone of silence” statement at the beginning of Obama’s interview? I thought he didn’t find out that McCain was not on site until afterwards.
Warren made the ‘cone of silence’ remark to McCain. It was the first question-- how did you like the wall of silence. To which McCain answered, “I was trying to listen through the wall.”
Warren has not made any statement about the McCain’s late arrival, although some reports have him “acting surprised” when told of it.
If Warren believed that McCain was going to be held in the green room during Obama’s interview, it’s fair that he said that McCain was placed in a cone of silence, and it’s not deceptive on his part. The actual question that it comes down to, and which we can never know for sure (absent a turncoat in McCain’s team), is whether his team was able to inform him ahead of time of the questions he would be asked. It certainly seems unlikely that his staff, knowing that Obama was being questioned, did not take the opportunity to watch/listen in, especially in the privacy of their own car.
It’s just a small pissing contest between two vastly different people with vastly different world views.
C’mon, November!
OK, I’m truly not trying to be snarky here, because now I’m not sure what the debate is about…I thought the accusation was that McCain might have heard the questions beforehand, not that he received the questions. McCain has protested that accusation. In any case, Warren told both men what the topic of conversation were going to be ahead of time, and as had been said several times, Warren seemed to be surprised that McCain wasn’t in the “soundproof room” the entire time, so I’m not exactly sure what the Warren lie is supposed to be…
Warren first referred to the cone of silence in his opening remarks, before either man had taken the stage:
17 ...NOW
18 SENATOR OBAMA IS GOING TO GO FIRST. WE FLIPPED A COIN.
19 AND WE HAVE SAFELY PLACED SENATOR MCCAIN IN A CONE OF
20 SILENCE.