Obama is still trading as a 2-1 favorite on Intrade after the debate and has even moved up a point since yesterday's close to 66 cents (for a security that pays one dollar if he wins) as of press time. But Palin has earned her stripes. The "Palin to be withdrawn from the ticket" security has dropped from ten cents yesterday to 4 which is a penny less than "Biden to be withdrawn from the ticket". My opinion? Palin's the best of the four and should have been thrown to the media wolves so they could patronize her and have it backfire, so she could continue framing the debate, and so she could dominate the late-night talk shows and comedy shows. It's not too late for her to make a circuit of the late night TV shows. Parody is a high form of praise. CNN reported that she did less than five interviews to Biden's 100+. I don't see McCain changing that now. I hope she runs in 2012 and if necessary 2016.
Palin framing the debate ?
You mean like this piece of gibberish? :
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/quote-for-the-2.html
The best of the four..you've got to be kidding Sam. Unless you want to talk about being the best at spouting complete grammatical and logical nonsense.
Read the transcript. Or listen to the debate with your eyes closed. See whether you can sustain your opinion.
I wonder if Andrew Sullivan mentioned Biden's twelve lies told during the debate?
Naah, he is to far in Obamas (septic) tank to be objective.
Wow. You're right, Mike. In the middle of a night of read-aloud, here is an off-script paragraph. This is the real Sarah Palin. Never mind that it's an incoherent rant; strip all that away and look at what she's really saying. Teachers need to be paid more! Wow, that's the most libertarian sentiment in a presidential election since Barry Goldwater. Not.
What's really amazing about the conservative support for Palin is that underneath all of her prep, she doesn't understand or care about the cause. The only part of it that really concerns her is Christian social conservatism. Otherwise she could just as easily be a liberal Democrat. After all, she wants to pay teachers more, let "It's a small world" be our diplomatic anthem, stick it to those predator lenders, win state ownership of what would have been a private gas pipeline, and seek justice for the Exxon Valdez spill.
So which Joe Biden are you in the tank for Jim?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yjx8RnDfdvM
From the Campaign Spot over at National Review Online.
The Biden Error/Lie/Hallucination List (UPDATED to 22)
Below, you’ll find a list of 14 “lies” Biden told last night, distributed by the McCain campaign. I’d just note two observations: first, when you tell stories of things that didn’t happen with the frequency of Joe Biden, coupled with his fervent belief of these untrue and inaccurate statements, I don’t think “lie” is the appropriate term. “Hallucinations” seems more accurate, I think. Second, they missed a bunch, so Biden’s list of li- er, hallucinations is well beyond 14.
THE CONSTITUTION: Biden: "Vice President Cheney's been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. He has — he has — the idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the executive — he works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."
As noted by the McCain Camp, Article I of the Constitution does not, in fact, define the role of the Vice President of the United States. It defines the role of the legislative branch, otherwise known as the branch in which Joe Biden has served for the last 36 years.
[A reader writes in noting that Article I does mention the veep at one point — "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." However, by describing the veep's role in the legislature, it doesn't really help Biden's claim that it "defines the role, that's the executive, he works in the executive branch."]
IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN SPENDING: Biden said that the U.S. spends more in Iraq in one month than it has in Afghanistan in six or seven years.
That figure is off by 2000 percent.
‘KICKED HEZBOLLAH OUT OF LEBANON’: Biden: When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said, and Barack said, ‘Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.”
Reuters thinks he meant to refer to Syria, but I still don't think it would be accurate to say the U.S. kicked Syria out of Lebanon. The Lebanese kicked Syria out of Lebanon.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT: Biden's statement that McCain voted against the Violence Against Women Act is accurate. But as Robert Byers notes, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Morrison, the Court ruled that much of Biden's law was an unconstitutional power grab by Congress of rights reserved to the states. Nobody voted against the WAWA because they support violence against women; they objected over constiutional concerns that a Supreme Court majority validated.
The McCain camp's list fourteen lies/hallucinations can be found here.
UPDATE: As I suspected, there are others.
RESTAURANT: "Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's Restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years."
According to this Delaware site, Katie's Restaurant is no longer in business; locals remember it on Union Street 25 to 30 years ago.
ARMS CONTROL TREATY: Biden: "Number two, with regard to arms control and weapons, nuclear weapons require a nuclear arms control regime. John McCain voted against a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty that every Republican has supported."
I have no idea where Biden gets this "every Republican has supported" claim, as 49 other Republican senators voted 'no' with McCain.
When the roll was finally called on October 13, the resolution to ratify the CTBT (including the six safeguards that Daschle had submitted as an amendment) was defeated by a 51-48 vote with one abstention. (See the voting record.) Forty-four Democrats voted for ratification as did four Republicans: John Chafee (R-RI), James Jeffords (R-VT), Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Arlen Specter (R-PA). Fifty Republican senators and one independent (Robert Smith of New Hampshire) voted against ratification, and Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) voted "present." The treaty fell 19 votes short of achieving the necessary two-thirds majority necessary for ratification.
WEST BANK ELECTIONS: Biden: President Bush insisted on elections in the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, 'Big mistake. Hamas will win. You'll legitimize them.'"
The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler notes that "Obama had been a senator for only a few days when the election took place, but if he made such statements, they did not appear in news reports or transcripts that are contained in the Nexis or Factiva databases."
PAKISTANI WEAPONS: "Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons. Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean."
I won't quite chalk this up as a lie/hallucination, but Biden is on shaky ground here. (See below.) The distance between Israel and Pakistan is 2,085 miles, or 3355 kilometers. The longest-range existing strategic missile in the Pakistani arsenal has a range of 3000 kilometers, but it might have longer range with a lighter payload. (But how much can you lighten a nuclear payload?) They are working on developing longer-range missiles; maybe Biden knows of some development that public sources do not yet know about. Theoretically, the Pakistanis could put the weapon on a boat and then sail it to the target, but by that standard, any site on a coast in the world is within their range.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This site indicates that the top range of Pakistani missile that can carry a nuclear warhead is 1000 miles. By being off by 1,000 or so, I'm now upgrading this to full lie/error/hallucination status.
Charles Krauthammer was very good today.
John McCain threw too many "Hail Mary" passes in this campaign and yet throwing "Hail Mary" passes is exactly what we should expect from a devoted craps player, as John McCain is known to be.
"Throw the Dice High" also well describes the gamble taken by Georgia's government in Tblisi (proteges of John McCain and his staff) and with Vladimir Putin being a genuine predator, a gambling style is not what we need.
So which Joe Biden are you in the tank for Jim?
I'm certainly not "in the tank" for Biden, because in fact I don't like his answers on clean coal. When Palin falsely accused him of saying that there is no such thing as clean coal, the truth is that the really is no such thing as clean coal in the sense of CO2 emissions. Practical clean coal of that sort hasn't been invented yet. When they both endorsed clean coal on that stage, they're both wrong.
On the rope line, Biden gave a not very good and half-true answer. It's true that even by practical standards, China's coal is dirty. It's also true that Biden said that "we're not supporting clean coal", when he should have said "we're not ONLY supporting clean coal". Now it's one thing to make the candidates go off script in interviews and press conferences --- that is a good idea. But a rope line is a very chaotic environment. Rope lines take the free format too far if you want good answers from the candidates.
Still, that excuse only goes so far. Biden is about as far out of his depth on global warming as Palin is on every issue. Biden is right about the reality of global warming largely just by circumstance and he doesn't realize that clean coal is no solution at all.
Speaking as someone who is planning on voting for Obama in November, I'm glad Palin acquitted herself relatively well tonight. I think she's got a lot of potential, and it's nice that the 2008 election won't mark the end of her career.
PS -- I also agree with this:
Obama is still trading as a 2-1 favorite on Intrade after the debate and has even moved up a point since yesterday's close to 66 cents (for a security that pays one dollar if he wins) as of press time. But Palin has earned her stripes.
Last nights debate will NOT help John McCain win in November (Obama's poll numbers are up today) however Sarah Palin has terminated talk of her being a laughingstock and is building her own base of support. Good for her.
2012? If McCain wins now, there is a good chance he won't seek re-election and Palin will be the heir apparent.
Except she shall have McCain's record to run on and he is likely to annoy BOTH Democrats and the Republican base once he is sworn in as POTUS.
And even if Obama wins now, Palin will still be a very strong contender in 2012. Again I agree with Rand.
After all, who else is there? Gingrich? Jindal? Romney? John Ellis Bush? Crist?
= = =
PPS -- Long ago I recall posting a comment here suggesting that Obama would defeat Hillary Clinton in the primary and Rand Simberg mocked me.
Heh!
November is not a done deal, yet. But McCain is not looking good at this point
Honestly, hearing Joe's closing statement - where a President should be judged on job growth, and not CEO pay growth - I wondered how well Bush would stack up using his selection of metrics. I bet he would do quite well, honestly.
Look at this further piece of gibberish from Palin from the debate yesterday:
IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.
WTF!!
Nice, grammatically pre-K incoherence there from Palin. Darn right we need better teachers - especially in Alaska or wherever she went to school. And doggone unbelievable that she comes from a family of teachers, or so she claims.
"Heh!
November is not a done deal, yet. But McCain is not looking good at this point"
We will see how good Obama looks in three and a half weeks after Michelles verbal present gets its airing.
Regarding Mike's off-topic but oft-repeated assertion about the "whitey" tape:
Mike, it is funny to contrast your certainty with Michelle Malkin's skepticism, albeit, skepticism from June.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/03/where-is-the-purported-michelle-obama-whitey-video/
There was also this link
http://raggedthots.blogspot.com/2008/06/michelle-farrakhan-sitting-in-treenot.html which got a lot of attention when it pointed out that there is a surprisingly similar rumor every four years.
As you say, time will tell, but it would be more fun if you could at least hint about your sources or your reasons for such certainty.
One thing I found rather curious about CNN's post-debate poll ( http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/debate.poll/index.html ) is that it didn't include any information about the party affiliates of those polled. On the poll they did after the first debate they did include this information (but buried it near the bottom), which revealed that part of the reason Obama was indicated as the winner is because there were 50% more Democrats polled than Republicans: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/27/debate.poll/index.html
Of course, part of the reason this is of particular importance to me is because I created a prediction market over on HubDub about which party would be better represented in the post-debate poll: http://www.hubdub.com/m17724/According_to_CNNs_postdebate_poll_will_more_Democrats_or_Republicans_watch_the_VP_debate
Nice, grammatically pre-K incoherence there from Palin. Darn right we need better teachers - especially in Alaska or wherever she went to school. And doggone unbelievable that she comes from a family of teachers, or so she claims.
Well, we really do need better public school teachers. If Palin comes a family of them, then that could be sadly consistent with why she is so ill-prepared. She clearly cares more about enthusiasm and self-esteem than knowledge, and that is exactly a main conservative criticism of public school education. On that point, the conservatives are right.
Note also that Palin did not say that we need better teachers. She said that they should be paid more.
Mike Puckett,
Please tell us more about this whitey tape.
Can you provide a link? Or at least tell us why you can't give us more information, given that you mention it so often?
Because I will do nothing to even remotely compromise my source.
All i will tell you is I trust him and leave it at that. Ya'll can remain skeptical if you want, time will tell all.
I am just saying, don't be surpised.
If the tape exists, and it is in fact an actual recording, releasing it right now would have the required impact of swinging the numbers back to McCain and making Barack look like a fool.
The only reason to want to delay release of this tape is that it isn't factual and the timing is intended make the investigation of its veracity impossible. So expect a release of the tape a day or two prior to the election, right Mike Puckett?
Release a tape which has been digitally modified. Sounds like the good old GOP busy at work.
"The only reason to want to delay release of this tape is that it isn't factual and the timing is intended make the investigation of its veracity impossible. So expect a release of the tape a day or two prior to the election, right Mike Puckett?
Release a tape which has been digitally modified. Sounds like the good old GOP busy at work."
...or to prevent the dims and their media lapdogs time to try and lie their way out of it. You haven't even seen it and you are trying to excuse your way out of the factuality of it. Just like the BDS idiots did in 2000 with their cries about Bush stealing Florida.
These things have a maximum impact a certain amount of time after their release. This has the potential to affect not only the Presidential candidates but the down-ticket races anyway.
The timing of its release will be calculated to provide the maximum impact, to do otherwise would be stupid.
Oh come on Mike Gerson the only reason to fret about it is because you (and everyone else with an interest) realize that it would be perfectly in character for her.
I'm still waiting for one of you Obamabots to tell me what he is going to do besides tax and spend on a scale that makes FDR look like a piker and emasculate the military worse than Bill Clinton.
If Biden was a Republican, he would have already been sent to the showers. The press just gives him the "Oh that's crazy Uncle Joe" pass on some egregious errors they would excoriate Palin for making.
Mike Puckett's credibility is on the line with this one.
Yours isn't with me. You are already a null value in that regard.
Don't worry Mike, I have it on good authority:
The tape is fake but accurate.
"David wrote:
Don't worry Mike, I have it on good authority:
The tape is fake but accurate."
I am sure they already have their talking points in hand.
Obama has a copy, if he were smart, he would release it now.
Mike,
I hope you're right because I'm tired of reading about Todd Palin's 20 y/o DUI.
Mr Harris, can you manage a "WTF" for Joe Bidens assertion that "we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon"? How about his assertion that Hamas won elections in the West Bank? Or his claim that Obama never said he would sit down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions? Or that McCain and Obama voted the same on the troop funding bill?
All this from the democrats favorite "foreign policy expert".
Gerson is quoting Andrew Sullivan as an authority? Boy, talk about the blind leading the deaf. Or maybe the loopy leading the hypnotized, I dunno.
In any event, the quoted para is pretty good for a spoken address. Apparently it exceeds the awareness of many folks that spoken communication differs radically from written. When you write, you can write nice, long, grammatically sound sentences, because your readers parse them at leisure and carefully. When you speak, by contrast, and especially when you speak extemporaneously, you always use short sentences, and very often ungrammatical word phrases. You interrupt yourself. You leave important elements out, or convey them by tone of voice, gesture, facial expression.
That doesn't mean you're an idiot. It reflects the fact that we process speech very different from the written word. We are efficient in guessing the meaning of short half-formed chunks of sentences, and that lets the speaker reduce the bandwidth being perfectly grammatical would demand, to convey information much faster. You might as well complain that she says "can't" instead of "cannot."
Furthermore, Sullivan has (as usual) his head up his ass if he thinks the only statement Palin made about education policy was that teachers and schools ought to get more funding (which is largely mere populsist gobbledegook anyway).
What was actually interesting -- if you know anything about education policy, which of course Sullivan, not being anywhere near teaching, and having no children, does not -- is that she made a delicate statement about NCLB. In the first place, that's pretty bold, as it is a seriously hot-button issue, and no politician normally touches NCLB unless he's pinned down and can't avoid it.
Second, she did not say it should be repealed, which is a direct challenge to the NEA and their whores, and also an unusual thing for a governor to say. Most state officials loathe NCLB because it seriously holds their feet to the fire in terms of measuring and publishing school performance in ways that can be compared nationally. They hate that. It's even more unusual for a past PTA mother to say, as that group generally can't even say the name of the law without choking in rage.
She did say it needed to be made "more flexible," which means she isn't totally out of those camps, perhaps. Or maybe she's being honest, and she really does mean "more flexible" as opposed to merely "weaker" in terms of its demands on teacher and school (and state) performance.
What is also very interesting is that Biden said nothing in response. Well, it's not that surprising, since as I said NCLB is a third-rail, and the Obama-Biden campaign is nothing if not cautious, finger-in-the-wind types, since they can afford it. But I would have expected at least a standard NEA-appeal denunciation. It used to happen all the time in the early Bush years. I wonder if enough parents have been happy about the new school accountability aspects of the law to make it no longer an easy target for educrats and their socialist enablers in government? That would be quite interesting, and perhaps suggest that George Bush's "legacy" may well include, over time, a nontrivial improvement in public education, one of his original campaign promises.
Sullivan also misses -- either deliberately, because he's a partisan hack, or perhaps just because he's such a written-word head-in-the-clouds theory-inclined wonk -- the fact that Governor Palin is taking much less effort to lay out an "educational policy" in elegant prose and taking much more effort to make a personal connection with the reg'lar folks who would have to cope with any such "policy," namely parents and teachers. She's emphasizing that she understands them, because she's personally close to them, both as a mother of public-school students, and as sibling and daughter of public-school teachers.
Ordinary people, as opposed to theory-obsessed talking heads, understand very well that an "educational policy" means approximately zero in the real world. What is said in a campaign can be, and often is, repudiated in election. Words are reparsed, re-interpreted, to mean what's convenient for the candidate. What a person says while running for re-election need correspond in no significant way with what he does once elected.
On the other hand, the candidate can't change who he is. So the reasonable practical person judges the candidate on that. Governor Palin is telling mothers of public-school students: I'm one of you, and of course that can't be changed. I can't suddenly decide I hate public schools after elected -- because my kids go to them. I can't suddenly decide I loathe public-school teachers and don't give a damn what they think -- because my father was one, and my brother is one. I can't repudiate my family -- so you can be sure I won't repudiate those kinds of people. That's not a sure guarantee she's going to see things your way, of course, but it's a hell of a lot more dependable than some random "educational policy" she spouts. Who you are and what you do is a far more steady guide to your future actions than what you say. I can guess far better what Sullivan will say tomorrow if I look at who he is, rather than at what he says today.
This fact is not unknown to the Democrats and their MSM whores, of course. One of the big reasons they have stressed, over and over again, "issues" instead of "character" is that they know what you say about "issues" can be easily changed, while character cannot. And they really want the flexibility to change, since if Obama must govern according to the same philosophy he is espousing on the stump -- which might as well be Republican, with slight twists here and there, a tax cut for 95% of you instead of 100%, ha ha, four more brigades in Afghanistan instead of six, whatever -- he is going to be unable to achieve anything his heart desires.
the quoted para is pretty good for a spoken address.
You are joking? Right? Tell me that this was meant ironically?
It doesn't work on any level as a spoken address. It's still meaningless and it sounds dreadful. Next you'll be saying that the wink to camera thing worked too.
It doesn't work on any level as a spoken address. It's still meaningless and it sounds dreadful. Next you'll be saying that the wink to camera thing worked too.
Sure there's a lot of verbiage, which I suppose is the result of an inexperienced, nervous debater. But yes, it does work.
You are joking? Right? Tell me that this was meant ironically?
Nope. Not in the least. And your raised-eyebrow incredulity sounds a little fake, assuming you've seen this and think it's just a joke, not a serious problem for Barry.
It doesn't work on any level as a spoken address.
Not for you, no. But she could quote the Gettysburg Address and you'd find fault with it. You've got a hermetically sealed mind on this subject.
I don't recall seeing his "old crutch" on the stage last week, nor the last couple of stump talks he's given... we'll see over the next couple of debates. I'll place a small wager that he'll continue to look calm, collected, and not more than a little boring.
The guy can be as wooden as a 2 by 4, I'll not deny that, it's bleedin' obvious.
That segment though. Ouch. It has nothing to do with a closed mind.
So based on what she said: is the vice president part of the legistlative branch?
Yep, as a I said, Daveon, a closed mind. You think Obama um uh ering along in an extemporaneous speech is just some little verbal tic, but Governor Palin's jumping around among several messages in the same paragraph -- or sentence -- is clear evidence of a dangerous lack of intellectual firepower.
You'd think your self-consistency fuse would blow when you tried to hold both thoughts in your mind simultaneously, but perhaps like the Red Queen you're used to it.
Also...hmmm. You do realize, I hope, that part of what you're talking about is just a more feminine style of speaking? Women habitually stuff multiple trains of thought into the same communication stream, and time-multiplex distinct ideas in a way that makes their men frustrated. You've never frowned at your woman and said Geez can we just stick to one topic at a time? Frequently men criticize women for being a ditz when this happens, whereas the women just think the men are too boneheaded to be able to parse a more complex communication stream.
So, you know, maybe it's you who lacks the intellectual firepower here. Just because she was speaking in tongues as far as you're concerned doesn't mean others didn't understand her just fine. It's an intellectual's typical egoism that people can only communicate by speech rigidly bound by rules of syntax and grammar, or that the quality and impact of speech directly correlates with how well those rules are followed. It's the highbrow version of a newsgroup spelling Nazi, who can't comprehend how an argument could be correct if it contains spelling mistakes.
So based on what she said: is the vice president part of the legistlative branch?
Uh, first of all, who the fuck cares? Are we electing a Professor in Chief who can go toe-to-toe with Justice John Roberts on what Madison meant in Federalist No. 10 -- or someone who can, if necessary, be Commander in Chief and give commands to David Petraeus that he'll respect and execute? I'm thinking the latter. I care very little about Palin's opinions on the subtleties of the Constitution, and much more about whether she's got grit and conviction, sound morals, human decency, humility, and a strong sense of empathy with the ordinary folks who have to cash any check the Chief Executive writes for the country.
Secondly, I suggest you go ask the Founders. They weren't real clear about it in the Constitution, just like they weren't real clear about a lot of things, e.g. whether or not the President's Article II powers include the power to dispose of enemies of the United States captured in military action -- in which case, contra standard leftist cant, George Bush's Guantanamo decisions are indeed "above" the law in the sense that they may not be reviewed or circumscribed by Congress.
While the Founders were certainly educated men, they were also men of action and decision. They had to be, of course, having just fought their way to independence. They probably would have thought your question of interest only to Jesuits and theologians. Was Jefferson's purchase of Louisiana constitutional? Was Christ's umbilical cord human or divine? Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? Whatever.
Are we electing a Professor in Chief who can go toe-to-toe with Justice John Roberts on what Madison meant in Federalist No. 10 -- or someone who can, if necessary, be Commander in Chief and give commands to David Petraeus that he'll respect and execute?
It would be nice to have a Commander in Chief who doesn't think that "What newspapers and magazines do you read" is some big gotcha question, nor a reason to go home and cram for an answer.
The same goes for "Name a Supreme Court decision, other than Roe v Wade, that you disagree with." That is not some obscure footnote in Federalist No. 10. On that one at least she does get some credit for studying up --- but only if she can say something coherent about the decisions that she claims to dislike.
I care very little about Palin's opinions on the subtleties of the Constitution, and much more about whether she's got grit and conviction, sound morals, human decency, humility, and a strong sense of empathy
Emotional maturity is all well and good and I agree that Palin has a lot of grit even though she's rather uneven in the others. The problem is exactly this public school teacher mentality that self-esteem is more important than knowledge. Grit is not enough to win wars. When Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, the Argentines had plenty of grit. They also had bad judgment.
is the vice president part of the legistlative branch?
The article that Joe Biden cited (but for obvious reasons didn't quote) deals with the legislative (not executive) branch, which is covered by Article 2. It states that the vice president is president of the Senate, and votes to break ties.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Let's set aside Palin's gibberish remarks about "flexibility", and Biden's misnumbered reference to the Constitution (as you imply, he should have cited Article II). Biden said that the Vice President is part of the executive, and Palin sort-of implied the same conclusion, to the extent that her answer made any sense.
Let's also set aside our own theoretical opinions and concentrate on the facts of the day. Cheney claims that he's part of the legislative branch because he wants to personally seize a raft of executive documents that have absolutely nothing to do with any Senate vote, instead of letting either the public or the next administration see them. His ploy is against the intent and the letter of the Constitution, not to mention odious to accountable leadership and basic ethics. No, he should not be allowed to do this.
Carl, it's a shame that you can't see gibberish for exactly what it is. There is simply no comparison between that and the fact that Obama may um and er once in a while; what comes out is a logical and grammatically correct sentence, not a stream of disconnnected drivel.
You can't be serious. If you are, you can't be taken seriously. Sorry.
Uh, first of all, who the fuck cares?
I'm with Mike. You can't possibly be serious.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Carl, you seem to be putting plenty of emphasis on the "execute" clause in the oath, and too little emphasis on the "preserve, protect, and defend" clause in the oath. If someone swears (or affirms!) an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, it would be good if they understood what they were preserving, protecting, and defending. I think you are setting up a false dichotomy -- there is no reason why we can't elect someone who is capable of upholding both aspects of the oath.
If someone swears (or affirms!) an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, it would be good if they understood what they were preserving, protecting, and defending.
So Bob's against Biden now?
Yep, as a I said, Daveon, a closed mind. You think Obama um uh ering along in an extemporaneous speech is just some little verbal tic, but Governor Palin's jumping around among several messages in the same paragraph -- or sentence -- is clear evidence of a dangerous lack of intellectual firepower.
Yep. I do.
She wasn't jumping around several messages in the same paragraph she was regurgitating blocks of unrelated data in the hope that something would stick.
You do realize, I hope, that part of what you're talking about is just a more feminine style of speaking?
Utter stuff and nonsense. Apart from being one of the most condesending things I've seen said.
I'll say again, it has nothing to do with sticking to one topic at a time. Multiple topics would be fine with me. But that's not what she was doing. She was repeating any talking points she memorised in the vain hope that they had something to do with the topic at hand.
Oh, and I'm invoking Godwin right now :)
What do you think?
I wasn't asked the question. She was. That was her answer. What do you think she thinks?
Or couldn't you tell?
Folks who say Palin does not have gravitas miss the point. The age of the best debater on arguments winning ended with TV if not radio. Now it's who would you most like to have at a barbecue. Legislative policies are set by whatever 60 senators and the President want or 67 Senators and no President. With the President worth 7 Senators, he or she would only shift legislative policy a few seats to the left or right. So we can get a few percent difference in the income tax rate and a few percent difference in the spending priorities.
I don't look to a candidate to be an erudite scholar. I look for the person to be someone who has genuine distrust of advisers and knows what he or she doesn't know (the more the better--that is, if someone knows the answer, they are almost certainly wrong).
I dislike McCain for McCain-Feingold. I dislike Obama and Biden for tax and defense policy. I like Palin for energy policy. Further, Palin would provoke a discussions of gender and the Presidency, drive the media berserk, get under the skin of the opposition provoking unfiltered debate leading to evolution, be fodder for comedy, be a cultural icon worthy of being head of State and most of all because it would be fun to have her at a barbecue.